30-40 Krag Vs 03 Springfield

[SmeeAgain]

That's a very cool picture.
But that guy in the foreground should have dug a deeper trench...

What about the idiot standing tall with the camera?
Absolutely love the photo but I doubt it was actual combat at that moment. Look at the guy with the binoculars acting all casual.

 

[arsterling180]

At San Juan hill , a group of a little over 500 Spanish with Mauser rifles held their own pretty well against 16 to 1 odds . Mostly due to being entrenched ,having the high ground and being well rested. It was American Gatling guns that carried the day more than anything else . Especially the devastation one dealt out on the Spanish counter attack . Without the Gatling guns , Ord's charge would of likely gone down in history more like Pickets at Gettysburg . Have to wonder if the soldiers assaulting the hill were inflicting any casualties at all on the defenders .
Between the Spanish American war , and the Boer war in South Africa , the Mauser rifle must of been very, very well respected around the turn of the century .

I think there is also another aspect of luck. If it had been another European country on that hill they might have had maxim guns backing them up. That would have turned it into a full rout and probably a much uglier, nastier war versus the “adventure” it was.

 

[Shanghai McCoy]

My guess is that they were doing target practice, and this wasn't actual combat. Note the guy on the right doing spotting with binoculars.

That was my thought as well.

 

[Slamfire]

My guess is that they were doing target practice, and this wasn't actual combat. Note the guy on the right doing spotting with binoculars.

The clarity of the picture is such, I am very suspicious about it being from the period, though the equipment looks correct. And of course, the camera man was above the guys in the trench, which would not have been a smart place to be in a hazard zone.

There are very few battle field pictures from the 1890's up to 1920, what you see are images from rear lines, or after the battle has moved on. Moving picture cameras were huge and hand cranked, so the camera man would have been blasted or shot within minutes of exposure. Someone with a knowledge of the history of photography would have a far more informed opinion as to what equipment was being used in the attached still picture. I have a Kodak Brownie camera , it was portable, and took good pictures, but that came out in 1900. So I wonder just when that picture was taken, maybe after the turn of the century?

 

[PapaG]

I have my grandfather's 30-40 Krag carbine.
It's military life was cut short with the replacement 03 Springfield rifle.
I've owned a few of the 03a3 rifles over the years and while OK, the Krag seems far superior.
Why was it replaced with something seemingly inferior?

The 03 and 03A1, not thev03A3 replaced the Krag. I have both. Krag, smoother, harder to load and much more fragile with only one locking lug. 03, stronger, better cartridge, stripper loading, dual lugs.....Krag superior, not even close.

 

[tark]

post deleted

 

[4v50 Gary]

30-40 Krag was not a high velocity bullet like the 7 mm Mauser the Spanish Army was using. The Army wanted better and hence the 30-03 was developed to replaced the 30-40. The 30-03 was shortened and in lieu of the heavier round nose bullet, a spitzer bullet was substituted to produce the 30-06.

 

[tark]

Oops, hit post button by accident.

While we're on the subject of Krags, this one is the rarest of them all, the 1892 carbine. Only two were made, possibly three. (Note the last sentence at the bottom of the page.) They were one-off tool room jobs and had a number of unusual features. A crowned muzzle, no bayonet lug, an 1896 carbine sight and no serial #s were stamped on any of the action parts. The forward band is unique to this gun.

The gun was in the Rock Island Arsenal Museum until the Army decided to gut and re-model the place. I was fortunate to be able to hold the gun and examine it during inventory three years ago. Uhhhh...no, I wasn't asleep when I was holding it! Pic #3 shows the forward band and the "U" stamped on it. The open end of the "U" facing toward the muzzle indicated proper installation. Pic#4 shows the only markings on the gun. #5 shows the crowned muzzle.

The gun will not, unfortunately, be returning to the museum after renovation. It will never leave the Army's museum system. One can only hope it will be on display somewhere for the public to enjoy.

 

[Slamfire]

The gun will not, unfortunately, be returning to the museum after renovation. It will never leave the Army's museum system. One can only hope it will be on display somewhere for the public to enjoy.

I really hope those weapons were not sent to the shredder. That would be the path of least resistance, and from a bud who worked at Anniston, hundreds, maybe thousands of historical weapons in DoD inventory (earlier than Garands or M14's) went to Captain Crunch, the monster shredder at Anniston Army Depot.


Bud worked on rebuild lines at Anniston Army Depot, and other locations as assigned. He told me of removing rubber parts (I think it was the grips) from brand new vintage M60 machine guns. The grips were saved, the machine guns went to Captain Crunch. When he asked why he was doing this, he was told that National Guard troops in Iraq were using old M60's, the guns were wearing out, and the only source of new grips were from these vintage new M60's. He then asked "if the M60's of the NG are wearing out, why not send these new M60's over to them?" The reply was, to transfer a weapon, there was property book paperwork, and other paperwork involved in transportation and weapon transfer, and it was easier to remove the grips, destroy the new M60's, send the new grips overseas, and be done with it.

In other words, damn all other considerations, they always take the path of least resistance.

I was very worried that the WW1, WW2, and cold war tanks at Aberdeen Proving Ground would be sold for scrap. I am not certain if any were destroyed, but the collection did get dispersed.

https://www.peachmountain.com/5star/US_Army_Ordnance_Museum.aspx

 

[SmeeAgain]

30-40 Krag was not a high velocity bullet like the 7 mm Mauser the Spanish Army was using. The Army wanted better and hence the 30-03 was developed to replaced the 30-40. The 30-03 was shortened and in lieu of the heavier round nose bullet, a spitzer bullet was substituted to produce the 30-06.

Comparing speed, I recall only 200-300 fps difference. Ballistics alone aren't enough to justify the change.
Again, I haven't researched the battle but I suspect if everyone with a Krag, had the 03 instead, with everything else the same, the outcome would remain.

 

[tark]

How? It was made of inferior steel,

03s were made from the same steel alloy as the krags and they got the same heat treatment. At least the early ones did. I doubt there were any giant advances in metallurgy during the years between the two designs. Of course the 03s were a stronger design and fired a superior cartridge.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I really hope those weapons were not sent to the shredder. That would be the path of least resistance, and from a bud who worked at Anniston, hundreds, maybe thousands of historical weapons in DoD inventory (earlier than Garands or M14's) went to Captain Crunch, the monster shredder at Anniston Army Depot.


Bud worked on rebuild lines at Anniston Army Depot, and other locations as assigned. He told me of removing rubber parts (I think it was the grips) from brand new vintage M60 machine guns. The grips were saved, the machine guns went to Captain Crunch. When he asked why he was doing this, he was told that National Guard troops in Iraq were using old M60's, the guns were wearing out, and the only source of new grips were from these vintage new M60's. He then asked "if the M60's of the NG are wearing out, why not send these new M60's over to them?" The reply was, to transfer a weapon, there was property book paperwork, and other paperwork involved in transportation and weapon transfer, and it was easier to remove the grips, destroy the new M60's, send the new grips overseas, and be done with it.

In other words, damn all other considerations, they always take the path of least resistance.

I was very worried that the WW1, WW2, and cold war tanks at Aberdeen Proving Ground would be sold for scrap. I am not certain if any were destroyed, but the collection did get dispersed.

https://www.peachmountain.com/5star/US_Army_Ordnance_Museum.aspx

With a 30 trillion deficit... they certainly don't mind wasting more of our tax dollars.

 

[tark]

I really hope those weapons were not sent to the shredder. That would be the path of least resistance, and from a bud who worked at Anniston, hundreds, maybe thousands of historical weapons in DoD inventory (earlier than Garands or M14's) went to Captain Crunch, the monster shredder at Anniston Army Depot.


Bud worked on rebuild lines at Anniston Army Depot, and other locations as assigned. He told me of removing rubber parts (I think it was the grips) from brand new vintage M60 machine guns. The grips were saved, the machine guns went to Captain Crunch. When he asked why he was doing this, he was told that National Guard troops in Iraq were using old M60's, the guns were wearing out, and the only source of new grips were from these vintage new M60's. He then asked "if the M60's of the NG are wearing out, why not send these new M60's over to them?" The reply was, to transfer a weapon, there was property book paperwork, and other paperwork involved in transportation and weapon transfer, and it was easier to remove the grips, destroy the new M60's, send the new grips overseas, and be done with it.

In other words, damn all other considerations, they always take the path of least resistance.

I was very worried that the WW1, WW2, and cold war tanks at Aberdeen Proving Ground would be sold for scrap. I am not certain if any were destroyed, but the collection did get dispersed.

https://www.peachmountain.com/5star/US_Army_Ordnance_Museum.aspx

I couldn't agree with you more, Slamfire. The next Time I talk to the director, I'll ask Patrick if he knows where the gun's went, (doubtless Anniston) and what there fates were. We can only hope that SOMEBODY in the Army's museum system realizes the historical importance of these guns and saves them from destruction. I do know this, Partrick has told me that a lot of the guns will go to other Army museums, particularly the Army's new National Museum at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. And I know that the three FG-42s we had are spoken for. Those guns are so rare (ATF says there are only 26 in civilian hands) that any military small arms museum would practically engage in human sacrifice to get one. Pretty sure one's gonna end up at West Point and one at Belvoir.

We had 1225 guns on display. To be perfectly honest, about a third of them were absolute junk, with no value. None of those were rare or valuable. Couldn't care less if they chopped them up.
But I pray that the rest of them are saved.

 

[rbernie]

03s were made from the same steel alloy as the krags and they got the same heat treatment. At least the early ones did. I doubt there were any giant advances in metallurgy during the years between the two designs. Of course the 03s were a stronger design and fired a superior cartridge.

Fair enough - I have heard it said that the heat treat of the Krags was inferior, but I cannot find any reference to that at the moment. Certainly, the nickel steel updates to the 1903 could have reasonably been made to the Krag, had it remained in service.

 

[SmeeAgain]

I couldn't agree with you more, Slamfire. The next Time I talk to the director, I'll ask Patrick if he knows where the gun's went, (doubtless Anniston) and what there fates were. We can only hope that SOMEBODY in the Army's museum system realizes the historical importance of these guns and saves them from destruction. I do know this, Partrick has told me that a lot of the guns will go to other Army museums, particularly the Army's new National Museum at Ft. Belvoir, Virginia. And I know that the three FG-42s we had are spoken for. Those guns are so rare (ATF says there are only 26 in civilian hands) that any military small arms museum would practically engage in human sacrifice to get one. Pretty sure one's gonna end up at West Point and one at Belvoir.

We had 1225 guns on display. To be perfectly honest, about a third of them were absolute junk, with no value. None of them were rare or valuable. Couldn't care less if they chopped them up.
But I pray that the rest of them are saved.

With some not being "museum quality" I'm certain they would still collect a fair $ value from private collectors. Certainly generating more cash then the resulting pot metal & firewood.

 

[codytrucker]

I think there is also another aspect of luck. If it had been another European country on that hill they might have had maxim guns backing them up. That would have turned it into a full rout and probably a much uglier, nastier war versus the “adventure” it was.

For sure . The effect of the gatlings in suppressing the Spanish in the charge up the hill was devastating and extremely effective . But the effect of the one gun when they caught the counter attack on open ground was just incredible. Troops never before being exposed to that kind of fire , and not knowing what it was capable of doing , was a terrible lesson to learn. You would have to imagine if the Spanish had machineguns on the heights , Teddy and the rest of them would of been footnotes in history. We still would of won the war , because of the Navy. And because my great Grandfather was IN the Navy there ! But the ground war would of been rough.

 

[AlexanderA]

The clarity of the picture is such, I am very suspicious about it being from the period, though the equipment looks correct.

If they are reenactors, they're damn good at it! I tend to think it's an original picture, although not taken in combat.

BTW, those loop cartridge belts, if original and in good condition, run in the neighborhood of $200 - $300. The early blue ones are more valuable than the later khaki ones. (Reproductions are being made that cost half that, but you can tell they are repros.) I have several unissued original ones, which I bought back when they were cheap and plentiful.

 

[SmeeAgain]

Agreed, I too highly suspect the photo is authentic just not during combat.
If we could determine the source maybe we could prove it.

 

[Slamfire]

Fair enough - I have heard it said that the heat treat of the Krags was inferior, but I cannot find any reference to that at the moment. Certainly, the nickel steel updates to the 1903 could have reasonably been made to the Krag, had it remained in service.

The steels of that era are highly variable due to the inability of steel makers to identify, test, and remove none oxidizing elements. The processes of the era were very simple metallurgical processes.


Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=205

Abstract:

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly the need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.

Since so much scrap is recycled in the making of steel, “tramp elements” are a major concern.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0110/manning-0110.html

One alternative to removing metallic tramp elements is to reduce their deleterious effects on steel properties. Most metallic residuals reduce steel hot strength and hot and cold ductility by segregating to and weakening grain boundaries. Tolerance to such chemical impurities could be improved through the design of alloys in which these elements were tied up in heterogeneously nucleating second-phase particles, which might not have the same negative effect on steel properties. Also, new near net shape casting processes, which will be described in following sections, may dramatically reduce the overall effect of residual elements for two reasons. As its name implies, near net shape casting describes solidification processes by which steel is cast in dimensions near to the specifications of the final product.

Might also look at the problem of micro inclusions and how they weaken steels.

Designers today, use data supplied by steel manufacturers, who test and provide the mechanical properties of their steels. Some questions I have, and would like to know, just what standards were being used in the 1890’s and when did the definitions of yield, ultimate baselined? Today, we are aware of the effect of low temperature on steel properties. From my reading, fatigue lifetime was unknown around World War 1, and so was knowledge about low temperatures and brittleness. I read that the first phase diagrams were came out in the 1890’s. And, in that time period, what mechanical properties were steel manufacturer’s reporting? I would like to know that, I do have a first edition of Machinery’s Handbook, (1916) I can tell you, there are serious gaps in the metallurgical knowledge of the period. The section on the heat treatment of carbon and alloys goes from Heat treatment A to heat treatment U. Actually not bad advice for the simple steels of the era. There is no reference to a steel specification such as SAEXXXX. Those standards came later. Specific “high speed tool” steels are referred to by maker, such as Burgess, Rex High Speed, Bethlehem self hardening. No compositional or material data is given on those high speed steels, just heat treatment suggestions. Anyone who spends any time looking at 19th century metallurgy, and knows what is available today, will see large gaps in period knowledge and technology.

Bessemer created a blast furnace technology that vastly increased the rate of steel production over any previous process, but he used Swedish iron. Swedish iron, by an accident of geology, is low in phosphors. Apparently Bessemer did not know that, but his licensee’s were using cheaper iron ores which were high in phosphorus and their steels were brittle. And they were suing. Bessemer found a chemist who created spiegeleisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegeleisen which removed the phosphorus. But you know, the Bessemer process, and all those early processes, could not remove non oxidizing elements.


There is some data out there on WW1 era Mauser actions.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/4281076061?r=8481020161

Okay, here we go again. Sorry, I'm paraphrasing Duane Wiebe.

The 1996 "core" assay of a generic WW-I era 1898 Mauser receiver:

Carbon: 0.29%
Sulfur: 0.022%
Phosphorus: 0.019%
Manganese: 0.45%
Silicon: 0.16%
Nickel: 0.05%
Chromium 0.02%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Vanadium <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.17%
Columbium: <0.01% (trace)

The 1996 "core" assay of a WW-I era 1898 Mauser bolt:

Carbon: 0.18%
Sulfur: 0.018%
Phosphorus: 0.014%
Manganese: 0.76%
Silicon: 0.23%
Nickel: 0.29%
Chromium: 0.06%
Molybdenum: <0.01% (trace)
Copper 0.15%
Aluminum: 0.02%

The following was the steel composition specified by the Mausers, from page 103 Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter Storz

Carbon LT 0.40%
Manganese LT 0.90%
Copper LT 0.18%
Silicon LT 0.30%
Phosphorous LT 0.04%
Sulphur LT 0.06%


When you compare what was the desired composition, against what was coming out of the mill, it is evident there is a lot of residual elements in the compostion. The material used in Mausers looks to be a manganese steel alloy. The copper is most likely a contaminant, with a percentage to limit the amount, it could be that copper added for easy machining, either way, it detracts from the steel properties. Specified property requirements were: Ultimate 78.2 Ksi, Yield 36.9 KSI, elongation 15%. A yield under 40 KSI probably means these are the desired properties of normalized steel.

Silicon, phosphorous and sulphur were actually undesirable, but unavoidable based on the ladle linings, so the percentages are limited. The load imparted to the lugs and the receiver seat is an impact load. Phosphorous has the ability to increase steel strength, hardness, and hardenability, but, sulphur and phosphorous adversely affect the material’s toughness, fatigue strength, which are critical properties in a rifle receiver. The other stuff, in the assay, is crap. To repeat, this stuff is crap that got into the steel. That nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, columbium, are all containments. Instead of making this some super duper advanced alloy steel, these “residuals” unpredictably detract from the properties of the steel.

These residuals are elements that the Bessemer and Open Hearth processes were not able to oxidize during the oxygen blow. They come from multiple sources, the most common one in today’s world, is scrap. Scrap is often contaminated with coatings of various kinds, and there is nothing to indicate that the steel manufactures were particular about the segregation of scrap. They might have been tossing everything and anything into the ladle. Waste in steel plant was collected and thrown back into the process, which also gave a slow but steady increase in the residual content, especially of copper and nickel, as these elements are not oxidized and removed in steel making.

So, given the unknown quality of the steels of the 1890's, as much as the machining looks great, the steels are going to be weaker than the same stuff used today.

This is from a paper by Bain, in the 1920’s. This paper was referenced in a post WW2 metallurgical book, and the author was making the case that plain carbon steels, which were the type of steels used in Krag’s, Mausers, M1903’s, heat treat erratically. Post WW2 (I don’t have the WW2 version) these plain carbon steels are being called shallow hardening. The graph to the right shows hardness by depth with these plain carbon steels. And, the hardness depth is varying, and not consistent through the coupon.



Bain, and this is the Bain of whom Bainite is named, took identical sections of plain carbon steels, placed a selection in a heat treat oven, and acid etched the finished products. Bain showed that given identical plain carbon steel, in the same heat treat oven, specimens varied in heat treatment depth. The dark parts show the amount of steel that did not harden. This variability was more or less eliminated by alloy steels, which hardens deeply and consistently. This is a real concern as unless the part is completed hardened, it won’t hold a load as designed.

So, given the unpredictable and varying composition of these early steels, and then the tendency of the steel to harden erratically, these early steels are inferior in all respects to the same steels today.

I have gone through modern metallurgy books, and this cautionary tale told to the WW2 generation is missing. Science advances one funeral at a time and I think those who were pathologically attached to plain carbon steels, and shunned alloy steels, are gone. So a section on the advantages and superiority of alloy steels over plain carbon steels is no longer needed. But there was a time when the case had to be made.

I remember the period when calcified engineers were called “slide rule” engineers.



I can still use the C/D scales on my slide rule. Purchased it new from the College Bookstore. There used to be a wonderful bamboo smell that would emanate from the case when opened, but alas, those volatiles are gone.





And I still occasionally use this old adding machine to balance my checkbook



However, I have gotten so stupid that I find it easier to use web calculators for tasks that I used to do on paper.

Just as no one today would think of using a slide rule at college, or at work, no living engineer in sound mind and body would use those low grade steels used in those vintage receivers and bolts, in safety critical applications. Incidentally, I recently purchased a $60.00 transmission flywheel. Talked to the manufacturer and they use 4340 steel. I would have liked to talked to a metallurgist and asked his opinion about using 1035 steel as a flywheel material.

I have seen at the range one Krag bolt that was cracked at the lug. The owner was still shooting the thing! These old Krags should not be pushed beyond period pressures. The 30-40 Krag cartridge, in a Ruger #1, can be loaded to the same pressures as any modern cartridge, because Ruger #1’s are made of modern alloy steels. But when you get into vintage, pre vacuum tube technologies, one should be cautious. You just don’t know how strong the action materials, and how much lifetime is left before the bolt lugs crack.

 

[Kleanbore]

I have a US Rifle Model 1903, double heat treated, and mangled by my having a receiver sight put on.

Wen I was 13, I attended a summer camp at a now defunct military academy. I learned to shoot using a Springfield M2 .22 rifle, with Remington Kleanbore ammunition.

While I wa there, I received a letter from an older friend telling me of his purchase of a US Krag carbine. He drew a diagrem of the feeding system. I remember the gun.

Later, I saw Gregory Peck's character Atticus Finch shoot a "mad dog" in a movie with a Krag carbine. I had to have one.

I came upon a Model 1898 rifle with a perfect bore. I bought it. It was quite accurate. I sold it because I needed the money.

I also owned a Norwegian Krag rifle. The bore was terrible, but it was accurate.

I am a fan of the Krag, and especially, the Norwegian Krag.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You might find this video informative.



Short answer: the M93 Mauser was judged to perform better than the US Krag in the fighting in Cuba during the Spanish American War. The rimmed 30-40 cartridge also posed its own set of limitations.

Personally, I think the worst thing you could say about the 1903 Springfield is that it should have used the 03A3 aperture sight from the start.

Exactly right -- the '03A3 (I have two) is in my opinion head and shoulders the best military bolt action ever made.

 

[AlexanderA]

Exactly right -- the '03A3 (I have two) is in my opinion head and shoulders the best military bolt action ever made.

Agreed on the '03A3. What would be even better would be to put it in a "C" pistol grip stock, and add a milled trigger guard, buttplate, and bands from an '03. Not authentic of course. I did that to one of mine and then undid it.

 

[SmeeAgain]

The steels of that era are highly variable due to the inability of steel makers to identify, test, and remove none oxidizing elements. The processes of the era were very simple metallurgical processes.


Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=205

Abstract:

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly the need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.

Since so much scrap is recycled in the making of steel, “tramp elements” are a major concern.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0110/manning-0110.html

One alternative to removing metallic tramp elements is to reduce their deleterious effects on steel properties. Most metallic residuals reduce steel hot strength and hot and cold ductility by segregating to and weakening grain boundaries. Tolerance to such chemical impurities could be improved through the design of alloys in which these elements were tied up in heterogeneously nucleating second-phase particles, which might not have the same negative effect on steel properties. Also, new near net shape casting processes, which will be described in following sections, may dramatically reduce the overall effect of residual elements for two reasons. As its name implies, near net shape casting describes solidification processes by which steel is cast in dimensions near to the specifications of the final product.

Might also look at the problem of micro inclusions and how they weaken steels.

Designers today, use data supplied by steel manufacturers, who test and provide the mechanical properties of their steels. Some questions I have, and would like to know, just what standards were being used in the 1890’s and when did the definitions of yield, ultimate baselined? Today, we are aware of the effect of low temperature on steel properties. From my reading, fatigue lifetime was unknown around World War 1, and so was knowledge about low temperatures and brittleness. I read that the first phase diagrams were came out in the 1890’s. And, in that time period, what mechanical properties were steel manufacturer’s reporting? I would like to know that, I do have a first edition of Machinery’s Handbook, (1916) I can tell you, there are serious gaps in the metallurgical knowledge of the period. The section on the heat treatment of carbon and alloys goes from Heat treatment A to heat treatment U. Actually not bad advice for the simple steels of the era. There is no reference to a steel specification such as SAEXXXX. Those standards came later. Specific “high speed tool” steels are referred to by maker, such as Burgess, Rex High Speed, Bethlehem self hardening. No compositional or material data is given on those high speed steels, just heat treatment suggestions. Anyone who spends any time looking at 19th century metallurgy, and knows what is available today, will see large gaps in period knowledge and technology.

Bessemer created a blast furnace technology that vastly increased the rate of steel production over any previous process, but he used Swedish iron. Swedish iron, by an accident of geology, is low in phosphors. Apparently Bessemer did not know that, but his licensee’s were using cheaper iron ores which were high in phosphorus and their steels were brittle. And they were suing. Bessemer found a chemist who created spiegeleisen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegeleisen which removed the phosphorus. But you know, the Bessemer process, and all those early processes, could not remove non oxidizing elements.


There is some data out there on WW1 era Mauser actions.

http://forums.accuratereloading.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9411043/m/4281076061?r=8481020161




The following was the steel composition specified by the Mausers, from page 103 Rifle & Carbine 98: M98 Firearms of the German Army from 1898 to 1918 Dieter Storz

Carbon LT 0.40%
Manganese LT 0.90%
Copper LT 0.18%
Silicon LT 0.30%
Phosphorous LT 0.04%
Sulphur LT 0.06%


When you compare what was the desired composition, against what was coming out of the mill, it is evident there is a lot of residual elements in the compostion. The material used in Mausers looks to be a manganese steel alloy. The copper is most likely a contaminant, with a percentage to limit the amount, it could be that copper added for easy machining, either way, it detracts from the steel properties. Specified property requirements were: Ultimate 78.2 Ksi, Yield 36.9 KSI, elongation 15%. A yield under 40 KSI probably means these are the desired properties of normalized steel.

Silicon, phosphorous and sulphur were actually undesirable, but unavoidable based on the ladle linings, so the percentages are limited. The load imparted to the lugs and the receiver seat is an impact load. Phosphorous has the ability to increase steel strength, hardness, and hardenability, but, sulphur and phosphorous adversely affect the material’s toughness, fatigue strength, which are critical properties in a rifle receiver. The other stuff, in the assay, is crap. To repeat, this stuff is crap that got into the steel. That nickel, chromium, molybdenum, vanadium, columbium, are all containments. Instead of making this some super duper advanced alloy steel, these “residuals” unpredictably detract from the properties of the steel.

These residuals are elements that the Bessemer and Open Hearth processes were not able to oxidize during the oxygen blow. They come from multiple sources, the most common one in today’s world, is scrap. Scrap is often contaminated with coatings of various kinds, and there is nothing to indicate that the steel manufactures were particular about the segregation of scrap. They might have been tossing everything and anything into the ladle. Waste in steel plant was collected and thrown back into the process, which also gave a slow but steady increase in the residual content, especially of copper and nickel, as these elements are not oxidized and removed in steel making.

So, given the unknown quality of the steels of the 1890's, as much as the machining looks great, the steels are going to be weaker than the same stuff used today.

This is from a paper by Bain, in the 1920’s. This paper was referenced in a post WW2 metallurgical book, and the author was making the case that plain carbon steels, which were the type of steels used in Krag’s, Mausers, M1903’s, heat treat erratically. Post WW2 (I don’t have the WW2 version) these plain carbon steels are being called shallow hardening. The graph to the right shows hardness by depth with these plain carbon steels. And, the hardness depth is varying, and not consistent through the coupon.

View attachment 1059171

Bain, and this is the Bain of whom Bainite is named, took identical sections of plain carbon steels, placed a selection in a heat treat oven, and acid etched the finished products. Bain showed that given identical plain carbon steel, in the same heat treat oven, specimens varied in heat treatment depth. The dark parts show the amount of steel that did not harden. This variability was more or less eliminated by alloy steels, which hardens deeply and consistently. This is a real concern as unless the part is completed hardened, it won’t hold a load as designed.

So, given the unpredictable and varying composition of these early steels, and then the tendency of the steel to harden erratically, these early steels are inferior in all respects to the same steels today.

I have gone through modern metallurgy books, and this cautionary tale told to the WW2 generation is missing. Science advances one funeral at a time and I think those who were pathologically attached to plain carbon steels, and shunned alloy steels, are gone. So a section on the advantages and superiority of alloy steels over plain carbon steels is no longer needed. But there was a time when the case had to be made.

I remember the period when calcified engineers were called “slide rule” engineers.

View attachment 1059172

I can still use the C/D scales on my slide rule. Purchased it new from the College Bookstore. There used to be a wonderful bamboo smell that would emanate from the case when opened, but alas, those volatiles are gone.

View attachment 1059173

View attachment 1059174

And I still occasionally use this old adding machine to balance my checkbook

View attachment 1059175

However, I have gotten so stupid that I find it easier to use web calculators for tasks that I used to do on paper.

Just as no one today would think of using a slide rule at college, or at work, no living engineer in sound mind and body would use those low grade steels used in those vintage receivers and bolts, in safety critical applications. Incidentally, I recently purchased a $60.00 transmission flywheel. Talked to the manufacturer and they use 4340 steel. I would have liked to talked to a metallurgist and asked his opinion about using 1035 steel as a flywheel material.

I have seen at the range one Krag bolt that was cracked at the lug. The owner was still shooting the thing! These old Krags should not be pushed beyond period pressures. The 30-40 Krag cartridge, in a Ruger #1, can be loaded to the same pressures as any modern cartridge, because Ruger #1’s are made of modern alloy steels. But when you get into vintage, pre vacuum tube technologies, one should be cautious. You just don’t know how strong the action materials, and how much lifetime is left before the bolt lugs crack.

As I have written many times here, I have my grandfather's Krag Carbine. To my family & I, it's priceless. But... I also had to shoot it.
So... I loaded up some lighter than factory loads to scratch my itch.
As expected, it wasn't damaged and now I have bragging rights that well over 100 years old, it still shoots.
The best part was that when it was passed to my father he never shot it... until I did. So all the same day, my father, myself & my son all got to give it a try. Two shots each! I saved the few brass casings with the date and our initials.
I also have a magazine worth of marked, light loads for the next few generations.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Agreed on the '03A3. What would be even better would be to put it in a "C" pistol grip stock, and add a milled trigger guard, buttplate, and bands from an '03. Not authentic of course. I did to one of mine and then undid it.

The only change I've made to mine is to put on an M1907 leather sling (reproduction) and a modern-made front sight protector -- one that can be used for shooting. I have one of my 03A3s (a Smith Corona) zeroed with proper hunting ammo and the other (a Remington) zeroed with cast bullet loads.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The steels of that era are highly variable due to the inability of steel makers to identify, test, and remove none oxidizing elements. The processes of the era were very simple metallurgical processes.


Residual Elements in Steel

https://www.totalmateria.com/page.aspx?ID=CheckArticle&site=kts&NM=205

Abstract:

Residual elements (Cu, Ni, As, Pb, Sn, Sb, Mo, Cr, etc.) are defined as elements which are not added on purpose to steel and which cannot be removed by simple metallurgical processes. The presence of residual elements in steel can have strong effects on mechanical properties. There is therefore clearly the need to identify and to quantify the effects of residual elements in order to keep these effects within acceptable limits.

Since so much scrap is recycled in the making of steel, “tramp elements” are a major concern.

https://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0110/manning-0110.html

One alternative to removing metallic tramp elements is to reduce their deleterious effects on steel properties. Most metallic residuals reduce steel hot strength and hot and cold ductility by segregating to and weakening grain boundaries. Tolerance to such chemical impurities could be improved through the design of alloys in which these elements were tied up in heterogeneously nucleating second-phase particles, which might not have the same negative effect on steel properties. Also, new near net shape casting processes, which will be described in following sections, may dramatically reduce the overall effect of residual elements for two reasons. As its name implies, near net shape casting describes solidification processes by which steel is cast in dimensions near to the specifications of the final product.

War Department "Gun Quality Steel" and "Armor Plate" were two types of steel required to be virgin steel, so this really doesn't apply to Krags and the M1903s