30-40 Krag Vs 03 Springfield

[Jim Watson]

Back when surplus Krags were cheap, they were modified in several ways.
An NRA carbine or gunsmith equivalent was an easy route to a basic hunting rifle.
There were flush gate conversions, reducing capacity to 3.
There were even Krag actions with all magazine parts and contours removed and used for single shot target and varmint rifles.

 

[someguy2800]

Someone had their way with this one before I got it, but they did a fine job of it. Just needed a few things addressed to finish it off

 

[.455_Hunter]

If the roles had been reversed, with the Spanish attacking an entrenched US position, pretty sure the casualty rates would have been about the same. Assuming some "magical" property to a 173 gr 7mm RNFMJ at 2300 fps versus a 220 gr .30 RNFMJ at 2000 fps is pretty silly.

The .30-40 and .303 British are about ballistic twins (both in performance and case design). Had the Krag round remained in service, it undoubtedly would have received a similar spritzer "upgrade" like the British did in 1910 with a 174 gr pointed FMJ. Stubbornly refusing to be replaced, the .303 soldiered on as the primary Commonwealth rifle and MG round until the 1950's.

 

[d2wing]

The ballistic performance difference between the .30-40 Krag (220 gr RNFMJ @ 2000 fps) and 7mm Mauser (173 gr RNFMJ @ 2300) is not drastic.

I will concede that the sustained clip loaded firepower of the Mauser is higher, but it's interesting to note the Krag's ability to fire while being reloaded, something the Mauser is incapable of doing. This is not unlike hatred for pistol magazine disconnects, which provide the same limitation.

I have just been reading accounts of the Battle of The Little Big Horn and related by Native sources. Both numerous scouts for the Americans and the Hostile Sioux and allies. Not all Hostiles had firearms but many did have repeaters and many had rifles with greater range than the 45-70 and were able to shoot the trapped Army soldiers at distance out of range of the soldiers. The idea of Brass putting limits on Army firepower was longstanding fault. As a side note, Custer ignored the advice and estimates of hostile strength of the scouts. Custer ignored orders to wait for the infantry to arrive from the other direction. And too many things went wrong.

 

[beag_nut]

This thread brings to my remembering an old friend who served as a B-17 mechanic in WW2, grew up in the Catskills on a farm, and was given a Krag when he was young. He only had blackpowder cartridges for it. He complained about shooting at deer, and then having to "run around the smoke cloud" to see if he hit his target. Regardless, he was a very good hunter.

 

[d2wing]

[deleted

 

[.455_Hunter]

This thread brings to my remembering an old friend who served as a B-17 mechanic in WW2, grew up in the Catskills on a farm, and was given a Krag when he was young. He only had blackpowder cartridges for it. He complained about shooting at deer, and then having to "run around the smoke cloud" to see if he hit his target. Regardless, he was a very good hunter.

I guess somebody's poor boy reloads. The .30-40 has always been a smokeless factory round.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I've been looking at a nickeled but otherwise cherry US Krag at Simpsons, wondering just how much work would be necessary to do something like bannockburn has done.


https://simpsonltd.com/springfield-armory-model-1896-c42619/

 

[.455_Hunter]

I have just been reading accounts of the Battle of The Little Big Horn and related by Native sources. Both numerous scouts for the Americans and the Hostile Sioux and allies. Not all Hostiles had firearms but many did have repeaters and many had rifles with greater range than the 45-70 and were able to shoot the trapped Army soldiers at distance out of range of the soldiers. The idea of Brass putting limits on Army firepower was longstanding fault. As a side note, Custer ignored the advice and estimates of hostile strength of the scouts. Custer ignored orders to wait for the infantry to arrive from the other direction. And too many things went wrong.

I agree on the repeaters, but what rifles did the Indians have in any numbers that outranged .45-55?

When your supply chain consists of wagons and then what can be carried on horseback, not having your entire ammo supply expended in a skirmish makes some sense.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I agree on the repeaters, but what rifles did the Indians have in any numbers that outranged .45-55?

Apropos of this, there's a pretty interesting recent publication available online about the interpretation of battlefield archaeology finds at Little Bighorn:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2948&context=facpub

 

[bannockburn]

Dave DeLaurant

Looks very much like the "Before" version of my Krag!

The deplating took awhile as it was on fairly thick in some places around the receiver and barrel. The smaller parts started to peel and flake off fairly quickly. Sanding the stock was a bit time consuming as I didn't want to remove too much wood in the process.

 

[HowieG]

The Krag carbine is just one sweet gun. Wonderful craftmanship. Very smooth action. A cartridge with a 220 RN bullet that was capable of dropping any game on our continent and was more than powerful enough for a battle cartridge within its ballistic capabilities. I could make a case that the Krag carbine was a better battle rifle simply from the handiness of it. It has more than enough power to end any fight within its range. Is the 1903 a better rifle? That depends how you define better. It should be quite obvious today that you don't need a heavy rifle and the 30-06 cartridge to win wars. Was the 1903 of better quality? No, I don't think so. Equal maybe, but not better. I would rather carry the Krag carbine over the 1903 if I had to choose. If I was forced to pick a bolt action battle rifle that would really put rounds down range, I would pick the British SMLE over the 1903 or Krag or Mauser.

On the subject of 19th and early 20th century supply officers wanting to save ammo, that is true, but they would have been better served if they had required regular practice. Large amounts of ammo were wasted on the battlefield because your average troop was a lousy shot and couldn't hit much of anything.

 

[rbernie]

I would rather carry the Krag carbine over the 1903 if I had to choose.

Preferences are wonderful things, and everyone gets to keep their own. Having said that, I try to never confuse my preferences with facts. In every objective / measurable criteria, the 1903 was a better service rifle for the US military than the Krag.

Now, if my preference were realities - we would all be singing the praises of the P14 and the No4Mk2.

 

[HowieG]

Preferences are wonderful things, and everyone gets to keep their own. Having said that, I try to never confuse my preferences with facts. In every objective / measurable criteria, the 1903 was a better service rifle for the US military than the Krag.

Now, if my preference were realities - we would all be singing the praises of the P14 and the No4Mk2.

I guess if you set the criteria, that's easy to say. Going down that road, by measurable battlefield criteria, the M1917 was obviously better than the 1903 in actual use. The only reason the 1903 continued on as our service rifle after WW1 is that it was made in a government arsenal and supplies could therefore be assured. If the "measurable" criteria are shooting at paper targets, the 1903 gets the nod. My measurable criteria include carrying a whole bunch. Any troop knows that you carry your weapon wayyyy more than you shoot it. I would rather carry a Krag carbine or an M1 Carbine or an M16A1 over a 1903, 1917, Garand, or M14 any day of the week. If the criteria include shooting long range competition targets, the 1903 and M14 get the nod. If I need to carry AND put a lot of rounds down range, the M249 SAW gets the nod in my book.

 

[Hesa Hard1]

Back when surplus Krags were cheap, they were modified in several ways.
An NRA carbine or gunsmith equivalent was an easy route to a basic hunting rifle.
There were flush gate conversions, reducing capacity to 3.
There were even Krag actions with all magazine parts and contours removed and used for single shot target and varmint rifles.

Grandad's custom Krag hunting rifle:

 

[Hesa Hard1]

View attachment 1058652

Someone had their way with this one before I got it, but they did a fine job of it. Just needed a few things addressed to finish it off

Lots of modified/custom hunting Krags out there ...









Turdy Army

 

[Charlie Martinez]

I like both rifles a lot although I have a slight preference for the 1903. In the 70's I could have purchased a Krag or a 1903 in decent shape for less than what I would pay for a new commercial hunting rifle and later the same opportunity came up with surplus Garands. I passed on all of them and today I regret it. If we all new then what we know today...

 

[SmeeAgain]

I remember when M1 Carbines were $100-$150 all day long with our choice of manufacturers. Now the average guy needs to mortgage his house just to buy an average one in average condition.
For a Garrand, you need to mortgage your summer place too.

 

[dh1633pm]

I purchased one cheap enough on gunbroker a few years back. Outside was nice. Barrel had seen better days. Found a barrel and had them swapped. Funny both barrels had the 1903a3 style front sight, but one barrel was shorter than the other. Then about a year later a friend who has a gun shop had the other so I picked it up. Another time he had just taken a 1903 in for trade and I grabbed it same day. Different rear sights. Of course one is newer than the other.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I've been looking at a nickeled but otherwise cherry US Krag at Simpsons, wondering just how much work would be necessary to do something like bannockburn has done.


https://simpsonltd.com/springfield-armory-model-1896-c42619/
View attachment 1058668

Looks nice but wonder why it wasn't polished first.

 

[Hesa Hard1]

I've been looking at a nickeled but otherwise cherry US Krag at Simpsons, wondering just how much work would be necessary to do something like bannockburn has done.
https://simpsonltd.com/springfield-armory-model-1896-c42619/
View attachment 1058668

That one looks like it was slicked-up to be a drill or parade rifle.

 

[Speedo66]

Lots of mention here of the Krag in use in the Spanish-American War, and the opposition's 7mm Mausers being superior.

Imagine how the troops not equipped with Krags felt, many of the American National Guard units were given black powder Trapdoor Springfields.
Frozen rope 7mm vs. pumpkin balls with a decided arc. A Wiki article says rolling blocks were in use also, among others.

A year later during the Philippine Resurrection, American troops were still using Trapdoors.

Interesting article here on Spanish-American War weapons: https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/guns-of-the-spanish-american-war-1898/

 

[d2wing]

I agree on the repeaters, but what rifles did the Indians have in any numbers that outranged .45-55?

When your supply chain consists of wagons and then what can be carried on horseback, not having your entire ammo supply expended in a skirmish makes some sense.

It didn't say in the book and not likely in great numbers, but I imagine it would be a buffalo hunter type rifle, 50-120, or some other rifle of that type. Probably much longer and heavier than calvary carbines. Just guessing on my part. Many German made rifles were captured in the Sioux uprising in the early 1860's and others from Miners and hunters. Some of the Sioux were known to have been in Minnesota and escaped to the Dakotas. Custer left heavy guns with the pack train that was left behind. Very interesting read.
Somewhat off topic.

 

[someguy2800]

Reminds me of a quote from Eugene Stoner about the army's insistence that the FCG in the M16 be change to a 3 round burst for the M16A2 in response to soldiers wasting their ammo in Vietnam. I'm paraphrasing but in effect he said that will all be fine and dandy until the first time soldiers fire a 3 round burst at the enemy, and the enemy responds with a 30 round burst, and then they will feel outgunned and demand its removed.

 

[SmeeAgain]

After many hours of considering the "ammo conservation" thing... that I just can't get past...
I find it extremely difficult to believe the minor difference in ballistics between the Krag & Mauser was significant enough to matter.
Also a well trained soldier with a Krag rifle Vs one with a Mauser & stripper clip would be a very close match. Especially with the Krag advantage of topping off a magazine with a round chambered!
Admittedly I haven't studied the battle(s) of The Spanish American War, but my gut feeling is something else created the imbalance.
Imagine a scenario where each side switched arms. Would the outcome remain or would it change simply over the weapons? My gut tells me "no".