Hey all, I'm not going to add anything super earth shattering here, but I hope it helps the next guy.

I have a 1898 Krag Rifle and cut down sporter.  I've previously fired a handful of R-P brass reloads and Win brass factory ammo in the rifle with no issues.  When I went to full length resize the rifle fired ammo in my press, I had difficulty at the end of the stroke as the die works the shoulder of the case.

When I went to chamber those rounds in the carbine, the bolt would close approx 1/4 of the travel and then required some greater force to finish.

I marked the shoulder area with a sharpie and tried again and had a bright ring at the case edge of the shoulder.  I tried sanding a bit off of a shell holder that I had and repressing them, but I just couldn't get that shoulder to move without a LOT of effort, and even then, the bolt didn't want to close easily.

I read on here about annealing, and tried my hand at it.  I took the cases, torched the ends pretty good and then doused them in water.  Afterwards I trimmed the cases to length and ran them through the die again, with the sanded AND the factory shell holder.  Both shell holders produced a shoulder without interference to the chamber and the bolt closed with very little additional efffort, if any at all.

I now know that my rifle and carbine have different chamber depths, and to keep my brass separate between the two.  If I run into an issue, reforming the shoulder and pushing it back on a fire formed case is INIFITELY easier if you anneal it first.

Any chance the sizing die or shell holder is deforming the rim? Could you chamber the brass again before resizing? If you can rechamber the fired case after firing but not after resizing I think your die or shell holder are to blame.

When I annealed my cases after forming them to 35 caliber I worked real hard not to anneal the shoulder. On a Krag annealing the shoulder is not so dangerous as on a bottle neck cartridge, but personally I do not think it is good practice.

Hey Fred, thank you.

I suppose I could try a different die.  I had two shell holders, both produced the same results, so I sanded one and mic'd the edges to make sure I was "flat".  That produced a shell that was pressed further into the die and perhaps moved the shoulder a little, but not completely, and not enough to chamber easily.  Annealing, and the running through the die produced a case that chambered easily.  Without annealing, the cases didn't want to chamber easily.

If I recall correctly, I think I DID chamber a round after annealing but before reforming and even that action was easier than prior to annealing.

Maybe the last thing to try is just get some brand new R-P brass and try to chamber it, and even try to full length size it before firing and see if there's resistance at the shoulder.

I think (and I may be wrong) this is just an example where my rifle chamber is deeper than the carbine chamber and the fireformed rifle case is just that much difficult to get back to "stock" chamber spec.  If I'm wrong, I'm all ears.   :)

'CoRifleman' - It is not unusual for two rifles in the same caliber to have differences in their chambers and for one with a tighter chamber to not accept a 'fired' cartridge case from the other.

This is usually resolved by full-length resizing.

I would suspect that possibly your F.L. Resizing Die is the culprit.

I just neck-size my brass and have the amazing good fortune that the neck-sized cases will inter-change between eight different Krags!

Easiest solution might be to just keep brass segregated for each of your Krags and try just neck-sizing. (Just loosen your F.L. Die one turn in the press).

If you want to experiment, try switching bolts and see if it makes a difference. (One of your Krags could have slightly tighter 'head-space').

(p.s. Is your 'cut-down' a model 1898 or a model 1896? There was a dimensional change made in the 1898 chambers).

I just experienced this today to a similar degree. Shot the same  low powered cast load for the first time in my 1898 original rifle and sporter with a new Criterion barrel and then full length sized the cases upon returning home and noticed half of them required an extra push at the bottom to resize fully. I had annealed these cases a couple loadings ago which apparently allowed them to resize with just the additional effort. These were FL sized for this last loading as I was planning to shoot in both rifles from the get go.  Have no way of knowing which cases came from which rifle and these chambers were obviously reamed over a century apart with different tooling so differences in chamber dimensions can be expected. Next time I will segregate them to tell for sure.

When I anneal I hold the case rim with fingers and a rat tail file stuck in the case held in the other hand to evenly rotate the neck over a candle until the rim is too uncomfortable to hold which prevents overheating compared to some other methods.

This picture of 10 of the 30 cases fired shows a ring at the neck/shoulder junction of the cases requiring the shoulder to be bumped back a bit compared to the others. These are Remington cases from the same bag.

---

FredC wrote on Jun 16^th, 2020 at 9:12pm:

. . . On a Krag annealing the shoulder is not so dangerous as on a bottle neck cartridge, but personally I do not think it is good practice.

1. The Krag cartridge is a "bottle neck" design.
2. I'm guessing the distinction you intended to make is between rimmed and rimless bottleneck cartridges.
3. It's standard practice for manufacturers to apply a final anneal to neck and shoulder of all new bottleneck cases. For commercial sale, the resultant color gradient is polished off afterwards - but for military contracts it is retained as evidence of the anneal. The unfired US military cartridge shown in the attached photo shows the annealed portion clearly extending about 1/4" past the shoulder - as is normal.

CoRifleman - The sizing difficulties you describe may be the result of inadequate lube and/or insufficient die adjustment. Many of the products currently marketed as case lube are pretty poor. Try plain, cheap castor oil, applied sparingly with fingers or lube pad and see if it helps. In addition, be sure to screw the sizer die at least 1/8 turn beyond simple contact with the shoulder to compensate for press flex under sizing stress. Look carefully where die and shellholder meet during actual sizing. If there's a visible gap as in second image below, that's press flex.

(The first image below shows sizing a .30-06 case down to 7.65x53, done easily in a single pass with castor oil lube.)

---

Butlers - Both the rifle and cut down are 1898 ALTHOUGH the bolt in the carbine is a 1896.  So it certainly could be a tighter headspace, although that would mean the 1898 bolt in the 1898 rifle is holding the shell rim further away from the chamber - as the 1898 closed easily and the 1896 met resistance.  Does that make sense?  I can try it sometime, but I resized all of my brass as I don't shoot the rifle very often at all (it's correct, and in wonderful condition).  Also, I don't know how the sizing die could be the cuplrit.  After annealing, the sizing die easily and quickly produced a case that fit right into the chamber with no additional effort when closing the bolt.  the other resizing I do is 223 to 300blk and although it's a smaller case, I'm generally familiar with resizing and the effort required.  This shoulder would. not. budge!  I appreciate your insight.  I will try to swap bolts at some point, and if that resolves it, I may change over to a 1898 bolt in the carbine if for no reason other than it will allow interchangability of brass.  Thank you for the idea.

Mavt - Thank you - it was beyond strange.  Just didn't make sense, until I read about chamber differences between Krags and other problems with sizing.  I'll stick to neck sizing from here on out when I can.

Para - Thank you.  I tried three different lubes to be sure.  Lee, Imperial Wax, and Hornady One Shot Case lube.  I've resized a TON of 223 to 300blk and have learned about using not too little, not too much case lube, so I altered my approach a bit here and there as I was having these issues.  Nothing made a difference.  The die was adjusted to touch, then ram lowered, then turned in another 1/3 to 1/2, so plenty of allowance for flex.  The shoulder just did not want to move.  It was bizarre.  Until I run into the issue again, I don't know that I'll be able to troubleshoot it more.

Typing while trying to think sometimes causes wrong things to come out, whoops. I have seen those colors past the shoulder. I wonder if they represent a full anneal on the shoulder as the material is heavier there and may not have been exposed to heat as long.
As Parashooter mentioned, I thought of lubrication. A reloader using premium pistol resizing dies with titanium nitride or carbide inserts does not need to use lubricant and might get caught with a problem on Krag cases.
On my sporter the chamber just in front of the rim was undersized. New cases would just barely load, rounds that had been resized with either 30/40 or 35/40 dies would chamber with difficulty and extract with extreme difficulty. Doubt that is the problem here, but something else to check if other things are not helping.

To rule out a bad die misshaping the case, I thought an experiment of firing a new round then opening an closing the bolt on the fired round may tell you something. If you can do that with not much difficulty then resizing makes it worse, the problem would seem to be the die.

From CoRifleMan's original description I was not sure if the problem was cases going back into the same Krag or interchanging between the sporter and rifle. The unusual effort of sizing relatively new cases seemed to indicate a problem other that need for annealing. Maybe I misunderstood and these were cases loaded 20 times.

Annealing is usually recommended to prevent case neck splitting and best applied a couple of reloadings before the necks do start splitting. Maybe more often for target shooters to maintain a consistent neck tension.

Maybe I am thinking while typing again and all this is off again?

Fred, I appreciate the time responding! 

The cases were a mix.  The R-P had been loaded previously, but I do NOT know how many times.  I doubt many.  They were a gift with the rifle from a dear uncle.

The Winchester cases were from a box of ammo that was fired once (some in the rifle, some in this carbine), then resized this time to reload.

I had the same issue between the RP & Winchester - but ONLY the ones that had been fired in the rifle first.  For example, a new in box winchester round that was fired in the carbine then sized and chambered in the carbine easily.  the Winchester or R-P that went in the rifle first, then in the sizer, then in the carbine just didn't want to go.

It's ENTIRELY possible that due to difficulty in sizing those rounds (the rifle fired cases) that the sizer didn't push the shoulder back to a factory spec.  Once softened, however, the sizer easily pushed them back to spec and they chambered in carbine without pause.

I suppose this may be moreso an issue with the rifle having a deep chamber than the carbine having a short one... :-)

'CoRifleman' - I was not saying anything was defective.

Things are built to different tolerances: Reloading Dies, cartridge brass, rifle chambers, and rifle bolts.

Rifles are subject to differences in the amount of use and wear they receive.

The manufacturer standards for .30-40 Dies were established about 30 years after Springfield Armory built its last Krag!

I imagine there are differences in the dimensions used by each Die Manufacturer.
There will be differences in each set of .30-40 Dies made by the same manufacturer.

A rifle cartridge Die Maker has to make a product to accommodate chambers made by Springfield Armory, Remington, Winchester, Harry Pope, and Ruger.

A cartridge manufacturer has to size their brass to chamber in just about any .30-40 chamber ever made.

Brass gets "work hardened" and more brittle with being reformed and with age. Annealing the case-neck and shoulder restores 'pliability'.

FWIW - If you have a Die that is toward the maximum in dimensions and a rifle chamber/bolt combination that is at the minimum of dimensions, you may have a problem with reformed brass, (that was fired in a different gun with a more 'liberal' chamber), fitting the tighter or shorter chamber.
Trying a different set of Dies or a slightly different dimensioned Bolt may correct the 'clash of tolerances'.

There were minor changes made by Springfield Armory to the dimensions of U.S. Krag chambers in 1899. There was a change of .002 or .003 inches in head diameter and length from breech-face to shoulder. (Information attached).

Currently, I only have to separate brass for one of my Krags, a model 1896 rifle with a chamber that allows more expansion of the cartridge-case body.

My other Krags get fed reloads that are partially 'neck-sized' with a LEE - Collet Die for 7.5X55mm Swiss, no lube necessary. Once in a while, I may close the Bolt on a reloaded round with slight resistance, but, no problem.

I'm lazy and it ain't rapid-fire at Camp Perry!

---

Any chance the rifle has some kind of improved chamber, with correct rim thickness and a deepened chamber?
On firing the shoulder blows out a bunch and you have to move it way back to fit the sporter?
Not sure if there were any Ackley improved reamers for 30/40. Maybe some kind of wild cat?

Note - Per Mallory - The change in chamber dimensions occurred at around serial number 213,000.

If Mallory was correct, Model 1898 Krags (below that number), and model 1896 & model 1892 Krags, may have more liberally dimension-ed chambers.

FWIW - (Re-barreled Krags can totally different. I use to have a model 1898 'cut-down', that was put together by Sedgley. The replacement barrel was made from a (1905 dated) 1903 Springfield barrel. The tight chamber would accept factory ammo and my F.L. resized cases. It would not accept a 'fired case' from any of my other Krags).

BR,
Can you clarify which is the old and which is the new chamber. It looks like the top one is showing a recess for the rim. All the 1898s (total of 3) that I have seen are later than the 213000. They do not have the rim recess. Did early have the recess? If so the late bolts will not fit in the early receivers?

To add confusion the SAAMI drawings all show the recess. So you have to subtract the rim thickness to compare them. Not sure if you subtract the Maximum thickness or an average thickness. Neither seems to work out. If I am understanding your drawing the dimension changed by .030, which is huge.

FredC: I have separated the drawings to make it clearer: Old vs. New.

The Krag chamber was never recessed for the rim. The old drawing could give that impression, so I have eliminated the confusing shade areas.

Good eye on the .030" dimensional difference! Old Ordnance Dept. Mistake?

I suspect, the difference may actually be .003".

---

Any chance the drawing is for proposed changes that never made it into production? The radius on the outside is not on my barrels. I made a detailed drawing with lengths and diameters that was sent to Pacnor for making my barrel. The taper ended where the parallel 1 inch diameter started.
Looking at the SAAMI drawing of both the cartridge and chamber they have a .155 radius at the corner we have been discussing. I did not measure it on the 30/40 Remington cases on hand but it is there. That radius makes it much more difficult to see where that now theoretical line is (1.65/1.62).  Again on the SAAMI drawing neither worked out on the math.
All said and done the SAAMI specs do not have to match the original SA drawings or actual dimension of the finished product. Just safe in practice with most firearms manufactured. If the .030 difference is real could explain part of CoRofleMan's difficulty. Just hope his rifle was not reamed for 30-06 blanks.

I am not sure where Frank Mallory got the Ordnance drawings. It would take some digging in original reports to find them.

Thank you all for the input.  I'll keep it ALL in mind when I finally get the rifle back out to shoot.

In the meantime, I ordered a single stage cast iron Lee press today (my regular press is the classic turret which is a cast iron base but the turret is milled aluminum and the turret ring is cast aluminum.  I'm going to see if the cast iron single stage doesn't do a better job on hard to press shoulders and full length cases.

Thanks again.

'CoRifleman':

On your next outing, I would suggest keeping the 'fired' brass segregated by rifle.
Try reloading the cases with just 'neck-sizing' and see how that works out for you.

There is a lot of virtue in having 'fire-formed' cases.
A dap of red nail-polish on the base of cases fired in one of your rifles can simplify identification.

Right now we are thinking that peculiar circumstances led to the extreme effort to resize and annealing the shoulder to solve the problem. The new press and segregating your brass may make it a non problem.
Now we have a theoretical quandary on did the shoulder length change with #213000. I did notice the SAAMI chamber dimension notes the chamber shoulder has a .155 MAX radius. I guess .002 is less than max and would be much easier to measure. I sold my 35/40 reamer to a new KCA member so I can not verify it but I remember a miniscule or nonexistent radius on that corner. May have been a SA practice to make the corner with a minimal radius when new and hone a radius on the corners as it got dull. When .155 R was reached the reamer was discarded.

Just measured the shoulder depth on a loose Krag barrel and got 1.669 calculating the shoulder depth from SAAMI using a .064 rim thickness I got 1.6644 with a plus or minus tolerance of  .015. Kind of odd to have a plus or minus tolerance of .015 from a four place decimal dimension, but 1.669 measured is in tolerance. Way different than the 1.62 on the Frank Mallory sourced drawing. The mystery is getting deeper.
The loose barrel just measured was from #410864 so it was later production, #266389 is similar but it is assembled and the measurement is not exact.

---

I've got nothing more.

Most references, in regard to barrels, cite early change of muzzle crown from 'flat' crown to a crown with radius, (during model 1892 production), and, (during model 1898 production), a change of barrel breech-face from square-cornered to beveled-cornered.

Frank Mallory, "Krag Rifle Story", reports the change in chamber dimensions during 1899. (I am sure Mallory found a factual basis for this).

Precision chamber casts of a model 1896 barrel and a late model 1898 barrel would be interesting to compare.

I am sure measuring the dimensions of brass, fired in two such chambers, would have the additional variable of differences in free-travel (head-space) of the respective actions.

Note - In the drawings used by Mallory, measurements were taken from the front of the cartridge rim. Rim thickness is absent.

Drawings based on SAAMI dimensions include the cartridge rim thickness, of .064".

I love this place!

So far, I have been unable to find documentation that the Krag barrel chamber was changed from earlier dimensions.

An Ordnance Supply publication, from 1904, lists most of the authorized changes and dates. There is no mention of a change to the chamber.

This publication gives chamber dimensions that do agree with the dimensions in the later drawing used by Mallory.

---

CoRifleman wrote on Jun 19^th, 2020 at 3:52am:

I love this place!

Yeah, no one gets mad when there are misunderstandings, we just dig a little deeper till we understand or give up. Sometimes the answers are lost in time and can not be figured out.

For BR on that drawing, could the label been mis applied by the publisher and that should have been wearing the label for pre 1899 less than 213000? I deal with some illustrations from a Swedish company catalog and the part numbers go with a different illustration that you would think. I believe they use a different labeling convention that we are used to.
Take a look at that 1.00 Radius on the outside of the barrel, have you ever seen that on any US Krag? I only have Krags with serial numbers higher than 266XXX and have not seen that profile. Do your 1896s have it? I looked at official photos on the KCA page and they all have hand guards so I could not tell if earlier barrels have that feature.

Edit:
Looked at BR's last chart again that is not the price of the change but a decimal length! Was that a temporary change to boost velocity and pressure for the 2200 fps experiment? Unlikely. Massive repeated typos? Doubt it. One would expect the latest permanent change to be the basis for SAAMI drawings. The earlier dimension became the became the basis for SAAMI? If you asked me last week I would say implausible!

We are missing something and now I have no clue what it is.

If anyone has seen that radius on the outside of any Krag barrel please raise your hand.  It would be interesting but right now I am not sure what it would tell you.

My full length resized .30-40 brass will chamber in either my school rifle or scout Krag but my segregated neck sized brass will not swap between rifles. The chambers are different enough to cause problems. My work around is to use neck sized .30-40 in the school rifle and use neck sized .303 in my scout. Neck sizing will lengthen your brass’s life. I was given a bunch of .303s during the drought and figured this would be a good way to use them. I don’t shoot the scout anymore though. Too many toys.

FWIW - Before dabbling with Krags, I never expected 'fired brass' from different rifles of the same caliber to fit, almost interchangeably, without being sized.

Tolerances, wear and dimensional differences, made Full-Length Re-sizing almost a given.

It has only been with Krags that I have experienced the pleasant experience of having 'fired cases' fit in a number of rifles and carbines, without resizing.

It has not happened with all my Krags, but, does with most of them.

I have a model 1896 chamber that allows a bit more expansion in the diameter of the case body. That rifle is my sole exception, now.

(When our Krags were made, the U.S. Military was not reloading fired brass. The early Mercuric Priming had made that unwise!
Cartridges were a one shot deal and rifles just had to accept the production from Frankford Arsenal and war time contractors.

Eventually, Frankford Arsenal developed some reloading sets. It is hard to tell to what extent these were utilized. It certainly would have risked producing ammo of substandard quality.
Reloading seems to have been mainly a civilian shooter thing.
There were those reduced 'gallery practice' reloading sets, which make sense).