The funny thing about loading a Krag is that in a lot of the contemporary writings, in the beginning, much was made of the fact you could literally dump a handful of rounds in the box and they would sort themselves out.I have to agree with noelekal: There is nothing wrong with the .30-40 Krag cartridge. And there is nothing wrong with the Krag-Jorgensen as a hunting or target rifle. Its only failing as a military rifle was in the speed with which you could reload it. There is no getting around the fact stripper clips stripping five rounds through the open bolt into an internal box magazine is simply faster that loading five rounds one at a time into a side-loading magazine, even if you can continue to shoot while loading. How often is GI Joe likely to need to shoot a charging bad guy while he's reloading? And as he noted, laying out five rounds on the shooting mat at the range is all well and good, but you don't have shooting mats on the battlefield. Rifles don't like muck in their actions.
2K. The guy is in a pawn shop though and he will habitually offer 10% off of anything over $500 if he thinks he's got a serious buyer. The day I was in the place he had a S&W .38 target revolver marked $679 and he looked at the back of the tag and told me I could walk out the door with it for $500. So his prices are pretty flexible.How much?
Bone density & genetics also play a part in how bodies react or stay the same. Something I recently got a class in, due to my oddball bone structure. While my bones haven't been reshaped due to the huge amounts of weight lifted over the years, other things have broken down over time...like my discs...Degenerative Disc Disease is a thing...ugly thing at that. Part of it is natural due to age & wear, but lifting overly heavy weights wore a lot of discs out prematurely...hence my current predicament. Bone structure is great, bone density is the most dense my doc's ever seen, but the connectors are screwed...causing a lot of ouch, and if I forget to hold posture, tend to hunch over forwards a bit...altho not as bad as this guy...Years ago I met a fella who was Spetz from the mid '60s through the '70s. He and his wife, who had been born in a German concentration camp, used to spend a lot of time at Books-A-Million in the Eastwood mall here in Birmingham.
My mom had a kiosk in the mall, and the mall pretty much became my home in my pre-teen years. They sort of became my weekend grandparents at the mall, despite not being THAT much older than my parents.
Anyway, When I met him around 1992 he couldn't have been more than in his early 50s, but he looked ancient, and he and his wife were both already retired. His left shoulder was bowed like an old nag's back, and one day I got up the courage to ask how it happened.
Here is the story he told me:
He was a machine gunner with a DShK. In the early days a heavy gunner in the Spetz had the same crew as a heavy gunner in the standard army. Two guys hupped the gun - usually with the aide of a wheeled mount, and a third guy hupped the ammo and the bipod (in cases where terrain made the wheels unfeasible).
Someone in the Soviet brass, however, decided that the Spetz needed leaner organization, one of the cuts was the third man from the gunner's crew. Now two men carried the gun, all the ammo, spotting gear and the bipod.
Next, someone in the Soviet brass supposedly found out that American special forces worked in small fire teams or squads.
It was at this point in his story the man unfolded a picture from his pocket. By the face I could tell it was clearly him, but this now-frail man had once been built like Dolph Lundgren.
A strap had been threaded through several ammo cans and ran from his left shoulder over to his right side. The DShK, which weighs close to 80 pounds by itself is slung over the same shoulder and being balanced with one hand on the barrel the way some ******** carry a rifle. The other hand is holding a cigarette. The man is halfway up a mountain in the Sinai. There was no bipod, but there was some sort of pommel-looking thing on the gun that he used as a rest.
He told me that when all the muscle was there he had no idea the weight was crushing and reshaping his bones. When He left the military and went into engineering he got lean and realized how much damage had been done.
I was watching a Gun Stories on tv about 30/03 bullet first used in the 1903 Springfield. They said 30/03, I thought they made a mistake and backed it up. Sure enough they did say 30/03. Never have heard of this bullet before. Always thought 1903s where 30/06 always.The .30-06 was an evolution of the .30-03 cartridge. The change was going from a roundnose bullet to a spitzer bullet; the -03 and -06 mark the year each cartridge was adopted.
As to why the US Army went to a round in that size and power range, it has to do with President Theodore Roosevelt. He went up San Juan and Kettle Hills during the Spanish-American War under withering fire from the Spanish 7x57 Mausers, while his Rough Riders were armed with the Model 1896 Krag-Jorgensen carbines that took longer to reload and were not as powerful as the Model 1893 Mausers used by the Spanish. The Rough Riders took 20% casualties in the course of the battle. When TR succeeded to the Presidency, one of his first orders was to equip the US Army with a Mauser-type rifle shooting a cartridge with much more power than the .30-40 Krag.
The result of Teddy's orders was the classic Model 1903 Springfield Rifle, held by some to be the best, most accurate military bolt action rifle ever made by any nation. There are those who disagree. The British had a saying in World War I: "The Germans went to war with a hunting rifle. The Americans went to war with a target rifle. We went to war with a battle rifle." Their claim to the best bolt action is principally based on the fact the .303 British SMLE has a 10 round magazine and can be cycled faster than the Springfield. But as against that, I recall the United States Marine Corps war story of the day before the Battle of Belleau Wood.
The Fifth Marines had positions on a hill that looked down into the rear area of the Germans opposing them, 800 yards away. The Marines took the prone position, ignored by the Germans who thought they were out of reach of rifle fire. The Marines disabused them of this illusion by opening up with slow, aimed fire that killed quite a number of German rear echelon types like cooks, staff officers, orderlies, messengers and the like. The colonel commanding the Germans allegedly sent a flag of truce forward to deliver a message to the Yanks protesting this unsporting behavior.
I think we, and not the Tommies or the Heinies, had the best rifle of World War I, and the best bullet to shoot out of it.
No, the 30-03 came out first and then in 1906 they improved the cartridge by shortening it a bit and loading it with 150gr bullets becoming the 30-06. That's the short versionI was watching a Gun Stories on tv about 30/03 bullet first used in the 1903 Springfield. They said 30/03, I thought they made a mistake and backed it up. Sure enough they did say 30/03. Never have heard of this bullet before. Always thought 1903s where 30/06 always.
If I remember correctly, the 7x57 Mauser round is also known as the .275 Rigby when in civilian clothes. There is a significant difference between the 2,025 foot-pounds of energy delivered by the military 7x57 round, and the .30-40 Krag's approximately 1,731 foot-pounds of energy. But there is a bigger difference between the 7x57's 2,205 foot-pounds and the 2,900-plus foot-pounds of energy delivered by the .30-06 Springfield.I've heard for decades about the Americans thinking the 7MM Mauser round was superior to the 30-40 but ballistics don't seem prove it. In fact - I was surprised how well the 30-40 compared to the .308 round.
The quoted ballistics of the standard cartridge in the standard rifle in 1898 are used, the .30-40 looks to be marginally more powerful and provides superior ballistics than does the 7mm. The list below assumes a 173-grain jacketed round nose bullet for the 7mm and a 220-grain jacketed round nose for the .30-40. Velocity figures come from Barnes Cartridges of the World.
7mm w/173 grain bullet: 2093 fps 1673 ft./lbs.
.30-40 w/220 grain bullet: 2000 fps 2364 ft./lbs
Some other service cartridges in their 1890s configuration.
British .303 w/215 grain bullet: 1970 fps 1850 ft./lbs.
French 8mm Lebel w/232 grain bullet: 1885 fps 1831 ft./lbs.
German 7.9X57 w/226 grain bullet: 2095 fps 2200 ft./lbs.
Austrian 8X50 w/244 grain bullet: 2030 fps 2240 ft./lbs.
Russian 7.62X54 w/210 grain bullet: 2115 fps 2086 ft./lbs
Belgian 7.65X53 w/211 grain bullet: 2130 fps 2150 ft./lbs.
Danish 8X58 w/237 grain bullet: 1968 fps 2041 ft./lbs.
Japanese 8X53 w/238 grain bullet: 1850 fps 1810 ft/lbs.
As adopted in 1894 the .30-40 holds its own if not superior against the other cartridges of the day. I agree the Krag rifle was inferior as a battle field weapon -specifically due to the magazine, but the round appears to be as good or better than the rest of the world's service rounds. The other issue is the Krag is a difficult rifle to manufacture. Just look at it, there is a lot of machined surfaces and the single lug didn't do it any favors.
ROFLMAO, since I used to carry the m60 all the time on FTX's those are so true.Something our leaders today do not want...effective weapons.
Well, maybe Trump might fix that, but anyway...
The .30-06 is an AMAZING cartridge, and it kills bad guys dead.
Also Bears, Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Rhino, Hippopotamus, and everything
else that walks, flies or crawls on Earth. It'd probably also give
a T-Rex a bad day.
If we didn't have so many dang pansies in the military today, nobody
would be complaining about "We can carry more 5.56!"
Well, yeah, but you gotta shoot 'em 5 more times to kill 'em!!
View attachment 89009
And that was bull anyway 'cause I carried 2K rounds of 7.62 in my ruck,
with everyone else getting 500 rounds of 5.56 and complaining it was
heavy & displacing their MRE's...gah...that's why you take out the sleeping bag
and use 3 poncho liners!! So you can carry more ammo!!
View attachment 89010
What's gonna hurt more, throwing a handfull of BB's (5.56) at someone??
Or throwing a handful of MARBLES (7.62)??
Beautiful old war-horses !!!Have owned the Krag here since 1975. It still sees regular use when the whim strikes. It's never once had a problem with rim induced jams. It has gotten infrequently balky with spitzer bullet handloads. Could have had something to do with overall cartridge length with shorter bullets that weren't seated out far enough to mimic length of factory loads. It's been so long since any but round nose bullets have been cycled through it that I can't quite recall the circumstances.
In rapid-fire loading practice leading up to a foray to the firing line of a high power match with the Krag rifle, I never have much luck speedily dumping five rounds in the magazine. A sort of controlled shuffle would readily load the magazine if the rounds were all positioned lengthwise with fair consistency in the hand. If some bullet noses were sticking out too far forward and/ or some cartridge case heads were poking out behind the five-round load then a quick load was hopeless. Hence the reload nicely pre-positioned and handy to reach for on the shooting mat.
Smith Corona Model 1903A3 with low-ish serial number and barrel date of 12-42
(with the Krag above it shares the honor of being the first center fires rifle I ever acquired. $200 for the pair of them from Prince Jewelry & Loan in Fort Worth, Texas in fall of 1975. Took first two deer that season with the '03A3).
I shot the '03A3 seriously in high power competition for several seasons in the early 1980s as I was in between M1 rifles and hadn't yet acquired the M1A or AR 15. On a few occasions I made use of the Model 1903 of World War I fame as well as the Model 1917 Enfield, mostly as a lark to see how well the rifles could work and how well I'd fair with them.
Stripper clips all the way for me! One can "rock 'n roll" with clip-fed bolt-action rifles, maintaining a rapid rate of accurate aimed fire. The Krag is better suited for reloading than the Trapdoor Springfield, better than the 19th century bolt-action military rifles with tubular magazines, but that's about all that may be said about it.
Model 1903 Springfield, this one a Rock Island Arsenal example from August of 1913
Model 1917 Enfield of Eddystone manufacture from September of 1918