doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com WRONG!

Description of the 30-40:
" the .30 Army loading was standardized in 1894 using a 220-grain metal-jacketed round-nose bullet with 40 grains of nitrocellulose powder. This loading developed a maximum velocity of 2,000 ft/s (610 m/s) in the 30-inch (760 mm) barrel of the Krag rifle,[2] and 1,960 ft/s (600 m/s) in the 22-inch (560 mm) barrel of the Krag carbine."
Description of the 7mm Mauser:
"7�57mm Spanish Mauser". It featured a long, 11.2-gram (173 gr) round-nose, full-metal-jacketed bullet with a muzzle velocity of about 700 m/s (2,300 ft/s) with 2,744 J (2,024 ft�lbf) muzzle energy from a 740 mm (29.1 in) barreled rifle.[2]"

The US Army wasn't impressed with the "smokeless" mauser, they were impressed with the vast superiority of the mauser rifle and it ammo. I like to think a comparison is of our under gunned Sherman tanks against the high velocity gun of the German Tiger tanks. Gun to Gun no matched at all.

But I suppose we should qualify this all with the fact that the Shermans did win by shear numbers and Teddy won at Kettle Hill because the 10th Cavalry, armed with 45-70 trapdoors, was already waiting at the top when Teddys RR's arrived. ("Sergeant George Berry (10th Cavalry) took his unit colors and that of the 3rd Cavalry to the top of Kettle Hill before the Rough Rider's flag arrived")

Last is just a general statement about the Krag, shortest lived US Army standard weapon ever...it was an unmitigated failure. I am sure, at the time, some generals and some in the War department asked how did they ever get bamboozled into buying the Krag.

I am interested in early custom Springfield sporters. Other than the mistake about blackpowder loaded cartridges, does the article contain useful information? I will buy the magazine if so.

Cartridges of the World is often wrong, be very careful, when depending on it for important information.
Mike

Looking forward to your future articles.

Often Wrong? Examples?

Thanks Craig, I'll try and fact check a bit more closely.

I am also trying to get Townsend Whelen's .400 Whelen Springfield that was converted to .35 Whelen for pics and a story in an upcoming retro issue of Sports Afield.

For those that may have missed it, March/April 2016 issue of SA my column was about Wundhammer Springfields.

One example:

http://dutchman.rebooty.com/8x58rd.html

I certainly would not call the Krag "an unmitigated failure." It actually compared very well with many rifles of the era and performed quite well during the expedition to China during the Boxer rebellion and in the Philippines. A lot of countries adopted rifles that lasted only briefly from the time of the first single shot breech loaders to the modern era. The 1888 German Commission rifle replaced by the 1898 Mauser comes to mind. The Krag was well made, serviceable, reliable, and well liked by the troops. In many respects it was inferior to the Mauser but it got the job done.

Jerry Liles

I would agree that "unmitigated failure" is 'way too strong. US military policy was responsible for many of the shortcomings of small arms in that period of very rapid technological innovation.

One of the characteristics of the Mauser that is always cited as a great virtue for it and one of the Krag's negatives is the Mauser's higher sustained rate of fire. But the US Army was extremely apprehensive about the enhanced rate of fire of ANY repeating rifle in the hands of troops, and apparently didn't consider a higher rate of fire a virtue!

And one of the Krag's "negatives" could have been fixed by changing the shape and weight of the bullets it fired, as the British did with the Lee Enfield and the .303.

The fact that the Krag served well in the Philippines is a testament to its ruggedness and easy maintenance. Anyone who has been in the southern islands knows that they are a serious test of both man and machine, once you leave the beach.

Bad data for the 8x58 Danish, 1889 Swedish Rolling Block handloads!
That must put it right up there with the Lyman Cast Bullet Handbook, eh?