OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
I'm loading everything to 3.120" which is about as long as will smoothly cycle through the mag.
My finished 1898 Krag hunting rifle project.
- Thread starter someguy2800
- Start date
- Status
I'm loading everything to 3.120" which is about as long as will smoothly cycle through the mag.
You could try different powders. That's easily accurate enough for most deer hunting, but I understand the drive to keep tinkering with it till you get beyond what is expected. My Krag loves the 168 amax over IMR4064. I'm hoping to get a deer with it this fall.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
Was thinking of trying 4064 or mabey reloader 19. I use 4350 for a bunch of guns so I'm motivated to stick with that. 2 or 3 moa with no fliers would be sufficient my my deer hunting uses.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
I believe I have found the cause of the inconsistency lol
The lug I epoxied to the bottom of the barrel came off. Perhaps my epoxy is getting old, the can I have is like 10 years old and pretty dried out. In any case I filed the epoxy off, tinned the barrel and the underside of the lug, and soldered it in place. I glassed in the stock around where the lug fits in and will shoot it as soon as it sets up.
The lug I epoxied to the bottom of the barrel came off. Perhaps my epoxy is getting old, the can I have is like 10 years old and pretty dried out. In any case I filed the epoxy off, tinned the barrel and the underside of the lug, and soldered it in place. I glassed in the stock around where the lug fits in and will shoot it as soon as it sets up.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
Fixed it!
After soldering the barrel lug back on and epoxy bedding that area in, the gun shot absolutely horrible. Like 3 in an inch and 2 others 6 inches away. I knew something had to be wrong with the bedding so after examining it more closely I found two problems. The barrel was not free floated as I had thought it was, there was still contact underneath the barrel and a bit on the right side. Also an examination of the stock revealed that there was not enough clearance between the back of the bolt handle and the stock so it was using the bolt handle as a recoil lug and was starting to crack the stock. I relieved both these areas and fixed the crack and shot this today. I did not know how much the POI would change so I moved the target back to 70 yards so as not to use up so much of the target. I shot 3 5 shot groups which were all about an inch, this being the best.
This is what I was shooting, 180 grain ballistic tips over 44, 45, and 46 grains of 4350. I ground the tips off in the bench grinder so as to be able to seat them out closer to the lands and still stay at mag length. They should expand beautifully.
Even Charley the dog was excited!
After soldering the barrel lug back on and epoxy bedding that area in, the gun shot absolutely horrible. Like 3 in an inch and 2 others 6 inches away. I knew something had to be wrong with the bedding so after examining it more closely I found two problems. The barrel was not free floated as I had thought it was, there was still contact underneath the barrel and a bit on the right side. Also an examination of the stock revealed that there was not enough clearance between the back of the bolt handle and the stock so it was using the bolt handle as a recoil lug and was starting to crack the stock. I relieved both these areas and fixed the crack and shot this today. I did not know how much the POI would change so I moved the target back to 70 yards so as not to use up so much of the target. I shot 3 5 shot groups which were all about an inch, this being the best.
This is what I was shooting, 180 grain ballistic tips over 44, 45, and 46 grains of 4350. I ground the tips off in the bench grinder so as to be able to seat them out closer to the lands and still stay at mag length. They should expand beautifully.
Even Charley the dog was excited!
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
Absolutely giddy. 119 years old and shooting better than many new rifles.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
If you could see this bore you wouldn't believe it. It looks like a rifled sewer pipe and its probably .003" bigger in the middle than at the ends. Its just amazing it shoots well. Goes to show we have not come as far as some may think.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
Oh and a max load of 4350 keeps it supersonic to 1000 yards. Guess what we are going to try this summer? 
Nice work on the sporter and interesting alteration making a new lug. A major flaw of the old Krag were the delicate stocks which you seemed to have fixed.Oh and a max load of 4350 keeps it supersonic to 1000 yards. Guess what we are going to try this summer?
I hesitated before posting the following for the last couple of days because I hate to come off as a nervous nellie and overall joy killer. You may also know all of this information making my post superfluous for you but it might be useful in the future for others.
However,
I would be cautious using max loads in an old carbon steel heat treated rifle. We don't hear many reports of Krags kabooming but they do not handle gas from a cartridge rupture as well as the Mauser 98 or even the low number Springfield with a Hatcher hole. They also have similar heat treatment to receivers and bolts as do the low number Springfield 1903's for better or worse. People have reporting dropping Krag bolts before on hard surfaces and they have broken due to improper heat treatment/forging. As a single lug design albeit with some passive safeties such as the bolt handle (assuming that the rifle's bolt has not been altered to use the bolt handle as a second lug-not recommended btw) plus the guide rib, Krags did and can shear their main bolt lug in overpressure events. The case rim (although the U.S. military played around with a rimless version) and the fully supported chamber were to reduce the risk of hot gas from a cartridge separation from hurting the shooter or the rifle receiver/bolt by containing the event.
"In October of 1899 a large batch of ammunition for the Krags was loaded to a muzzle velocity of 2200 f/s at 45,000 psi in an attempt to boost the round's ballistics. However, reports started coming in from the field of cracked locking lugs and bullets stripping in the rifling and the ammunition was recalled, broken down, and reloaded to standard specifications.
Those reloading for the Krag (including the 6.5 x 55 mm Norwegian and 8 x 58 mm R Danish) should keep pressures to 40,000 psi and under." (http://www.frfrogspad.com/kragrifl.htm) This article is footnoted from primary sources such as Brophy etc. on the Krag.
A little more information including anecdotal evidence below.
http://castboolits.gunloads.com/archive/index.php/t-148156.html
Also see plainolddave's comments near the bottom on the Krag comparison with the 1903 low number receivers.
http://forums.thecmp.org/archive/index.php/t-8527.html
The problem with old rifles often comes down to how much risk one is willing to assume--the only sure way to tell a particular rifle's strength is to test it to destruction which kinda ruins the whole experiment unless you are P.O. Ackley.
Scooter22
Member
Great job! Definitely looks like a vintage milsurp conversion. While I haven't sporterised any milsurps I don't mind seeing ones that are well done. Not the cut the barrel and forend and call it good. I did read it was already done and you made it nicer. Enjoy it.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
Yep I hear ya loud and clear. The load I am shooting is actually 45 grains of IMR 4350 which is listed as a grain under max in the Lyman, Hodgdon, Speer, and nosler Nosler manuals, and 2.4 grains under max listed in the Sierra manual. A grain under is what I deamed to be "max" due to my desire for this to last another century. I am also using S&B primers which are designed for lower pressure cartridges which show pressure signs much earlier than other primers. They show absolutely no rounding of the edges at this level. They look identical to how they went in except the firing pin divot.
I would also argue that if a 30-40 krag is only good for 40,000 PSI, the Norwegian and danish ones should be much lower yet as they have much larger base diameters and thus more bolt thrust.
Your choices of powder now are much better than 100 plus years ago. Higher velocity is possible at a lower peak pressure. I also use S&B primers and love them.
I agree. I consider my older pre WWII firearms as fun guns and do not load them heavy nor fire old surplus ammo in them either. On some, I shoot factory stuff if I know that it is loaded light.
The Krag factory ammo that I have seen (Remington primarily) is loaded about 37000 cup which doesn't exactly translate to psi. Haven't seen nor messed with the Scandinavian Krags and do not know a whole lot about their heat treatment nor manufacturing stds. SAAMI recommends about 46,000 cup for the Swede 6.5x55 and the original spec for military ammo in 6.5x55 is about 47000 psi. However, Swedish mausers have a long throat that ceterus paribus helps keep pressures from overly stressing the action. Do not know if Norwegian Krags have the same. The Danish 8mm round has a lower pressure threshold than the Swede 6.5x55 does at around 44000 psi according to Wikipedia--never really investigated anything about this round. Both Scandinavian Krags use the bolt guide rib as well as the single locking lug to bear loads on the receiver (http://www.cruffler.com/historic-october01.html) which required handfitting the bolt to receiver. That is probably where the story of the Scandinavian Krags being stronger came from. Ironically, when doing research on the American Krags that I have in the past, I came across an old ordinance report on the new U.S. Krag barrels, the contract specified Swedish sourced steel for these.
From what I recall, in Hatcher, part of the problem with Springfield Armory's heat treatment was that pyrometers were not used to gauge temperature but workers used the Mk. 1 eyeball to do so instead. Another internet story floating around is that Springfield workers did not clean the class so were unable to tell if the steel got too hot or that the color of the steel observed varied based on whether the day was cloudy or not. Whatever the cause,
Ironically, the U.S. military tried both a faster lighter .30 caliber test load in 1909 along with a light fast .22 caliber cartridge in the original trials of 1893-94 (http://www.frfrogspad.com/kragrifl.htm). The new 1903 Springfield and .30-06 round put an end to that.
Imagine if the Army in 1890's had used the forerunner of the new .224 Valkyrie which would have been a 1894 Krag in .22 caliber firing a 112-120 gr bullet at about 2600 fps.
OP
OP
someguy2800
Member
I’m glad they didn’t, it’s more interesting and useful the way it is.
The reading I’ve done indicates it was not the heat treatment that was the problem, rather that they overheated the blanks when forging to save on tool wear.
The reading I’ve done indicates it was not the heat treatment that was the problem, rather that they overheated the blanks when forging to save on tool wear.
Poper
Member
I understand perfectly....
Some years ago, I bought a Brazilian Mauser for $85 (at a gun show, no less) that had a new Hart barrel on it in rough-reamed in 7x57 Mauser. (I discovered after I got it home that the chamber had never been finished reamed.) I had a local gunsmith finish ream it and polish the chamber for $30. I never invested in the dies to load for it and a buddy fell in love with it at first sight, so I traded it to him in exchange for a set of RCBS .45-70 dies that I never used and subsequently passed on to another gun buddy.
Is this hobby great or what?!!!
Last edited:
Jim Watson
Member
See, see, I have been promoting the superior flanged cartridge all along. But it is harder to make a Mauser magazine handle them.
Jim,
I feel a lot more comfortable shooting a .303 British or even a 7.62x54r in a very old military rifle than in something like a 1888 Commission or early generation Mausers for that reason. Peter Mauser put a gas shield on the end of the bolt along with other gas venting features in his 98 model, reputedly because he lost one eye testing his Mausers. There is a similar awkward gas shield attached to the end of the firing pin for an 1888 Commission rifle. The Brits and Russians preferred their gas shield up front on the cartridge itself and used fully supported chambers in an era of uncertain brass, mercuric primers, and questionable ammunition. I have heard of folks altering the m95 Steyr to shoot 7.62x54r, .303, or even .30-40 Krag because that rifle's magazine handles rimmed cartridges well. Some folks like altering Siamese Mausers to shoot .45-70 because the original cartridge was rimmed and the magazine feeds rimmed cartridges ok. The Japanese hedged their bets with a semi-rimmed 6.5 cartridge and modified Mauser.
Jim Watson
Member
Mauser actually made sporting rifle actions with slanted magazines a la Siamese for rimmed cartridges like .303.
We could have had the Remington Lee instead of going Scandinavian.
We could have had the Remington Lee instead of going Scandinavian.
Slamfire is the real metallurgy expert on this matter and unfortunately Hatcher's notebook kinda fudges the issue whether it was improper forging or bad heat treatment or both. Improper forging can result in 'burnt' steel which has undesirable properties (http://www.dropforging.net/drop-forging-defects-caused-by-improper-heating.html). However, improper heat treatment can result in completely hardening the receiver or bolt which using ordinary carbon steel makes it very strong but brittle. Carbon steel receivers of the era were designed to have a very hard surface encasing a softer steel core to give it resilience to impact. That is why the move to nickel steels which are easier to forge and heat treat (from what I remember they have a broader temperature range and more resistance to the burnt steel issue) but are more difficult to machine with tools at the time.
Knew that some variants of the Mauser were rimmed for some reason but don't collect original Mauser sporting rifles as those things are pricey but they are fantastic exhibits of the gunsmithing arts. Did these have a cut in the barrel for an extractor?
From what I recall from action reports the 6mm Lee Navy did its job pretty well in action during the Boxer Rebellion and the Spanish American War for the Marines. Never seen a 6mm Lee Rifle in person but having read up on it, the action seems a bit clunky compared with the m95 or the Schmidt Rubin straight pulls. The Swiss Schmidts are pure pleasure and the 'Ruck Zuck' m95 is a bit rougher but seems functional. My lack of enthusiasm for the rifle may be colored by having read an after action report of a witness present during a fatal kaboom of that rifle that was probably due to an overpressure event from my recollection.
Jim Watson
Member
The Remington Lee is not the same as the (Winchester) Lee Navy.
The Remington Lee was modified by the British to become the Lee Metford, then Lee Enfield.
The Remington Lee was modified by the British to become the Lee Metford, then Lee Enfield.
- Status
