Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 Send TopicPrint
Navy Reluctance (Read 1268 times)
Knute1
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 738
Location: Illinois
Joined: Sep 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Navy Reluctance
Dec 26th, 2018 at 4:06pm
Print Post  
Appears that the Navy didn't totally buy into the Krag Jorgensen concept. This is a reprint in a Great Britain periodical in early 1901. The original article may have been done in 1900 in the U.S. Army and Navy Journal. The Navy liked their smaller/faster cartridge.

(You need to Login to view media files and links)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
butlersrangers
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 6330
Location: Michigan Bi-Peninsular&Proud
Joined: Oct 7th, 2009
Re: Navy Reluctance
Reply #1 - Dec 26th, 2018 at 5:53pm
Print Post  
This is an interesting news report.

However, I think the attached sentence is quite an exaggeration.

IMHO - The changes to the British Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield arms in the period 1892 to 1904, were even more extensive, with even less interchangeability of parts, between models.

The Krag-Jorgensen design remained recognizable throughout U. S. production and a lot of later parts will work on early models.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knute1
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 738
Location: Illinois
Joined: Sep 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: Navy Reluctance
Reply #2 - Dec 26th, 2018 at 6:34pm
Print Post  
I'm not sure who was the original author of this article. It is signed off "Army and Navy Journal" in the U.S. section of this British journal. Below is the link to it. The article on the Krag Jorgensen is on page 813.

(You need to Login to view media files and links)
ournal&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4oMq85b3fAhVi3IMKHcoKAuQQ6AEIPTAE#v=onepage&q=krag
%20jorgensen%20navy%20journal&f=false

I agree with your opinion of the statement you pointed out. It took me aback when I first read it, also.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send TopicPrint