Krag Collectors Association Forum

This is the most honest review of the Krag Jorgensen magazine rifle I have read to date. It hit on issues most of us know about. It could have been a greater rifle if certain qualities were demanded. This is from the "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution" in 1899 starting on page 221.

https://books.google.com/books?id=P7GNv ... us&f=false

A very interesting read. Had we gone with the Parkhurst modification, would we have gone into WW1? Would the Krag have survived trenches? Would we have built the British P-13 in .30/40? Or the Canadian Ross? Or the Lee-Enfield?

I had read that article several years back. Thanks for posting as it was refreshing to re-read.

In my mind, of the argued short-comings woth regard to the Krag, the biggest one -and the item that caused its replacement by the 1903, was cost of manufacture. Imagine trying to pump out 3M+ Krags in 1917 when the US entered the war....

The Krag teceiver required significantly more labor hours and more machining operations to manufacture than the 1903. That is huge when it comes time to cranking out thousands of rifles per month. SA ran 3 shifts during the Spanish American War and never achieved their required rifle output - even considering a war orders of magnitude less intensive than WW1.

We face the same thing today - only with missiles and combat aircraft and not rifles.

Amazingly, the Krag receiver was a 6 & 1/2 pound forging, created at the Springfield Armory 'Water Shops'.

The forgings were then conveyed by wagon, up to the 'Hill Shops, about a mile away.
Each forging underwent approximately 125 machining operations to reduce it to a 1 & 1/2 pound, marked, serial numbered, nearly-finished form.

The receivers were then packed into iron boxes with charcoal, leather, and bone, before being loaded into heat-treating ovens.

A very slow, expensive, and labor intensive process!