30/40 Krag

[gdmoody]

I drove about 75 miles (round trip) this morning to trade for this, I traded a Rock Island 1911. I had about $405 in the 1911.

I am going to try to get it back into an original stock when I get a chance, since someone has "sporterized" this one. The bore looks pretty good for its age. It was dirty but seems to have good rifling.

[garydude]

Congrats GD, shes a beauty!

I'm guessing you'll be reloading for it. A friend has his grandfathers 30/40 and asked if I would help him develop a load for his gun (beginner loader) so any info you share will be greatly appreciated.

[garydude]

Oh, and standard rule applies even to you-all new guns merit a range report!

[JLA]

Ah the ol knucklebuster Krag Jorgensen. You will love that silky smooth action George. And the .30-40 ballistics are between that of a .30-30 and a 7.62X54R, leaning heavy on the 7.62X54R side. Good cast bullet rifles they are.

[CHW2021]

Nice Krag, how about a close up picture of the rear sight?
I have started hunting with a sportered Krag and look forward to going for pig with reloads.
I am using a 168 grain Nosler at about 2200 fps and the accuracy is adequate.

[The_Rifleman]

That is beautiful!

[permafrost]

Great find, George! The Krag has always been on my list of wants. I think it's because of the connection to the Spanish-American War and the Rough Riders. Excellent!

[gdmoody]

Originally Posted by CHW2021

Nice Krag, how about a close up picture of the rear sight?

Here you go, I didn't know exactly what you wanted so I took three.

Do you know what the "switch" at the front is ??

[gdmoody]

Range Report - I could not hit the broad side of a barn, with me in the barn. Could not figure out where to place the rear sights. It is a ladder type sight, graduated from 2 to 17, I assume it meant 200 to 1700 yards. I had to slide it up to 7 to be able to even get close at 50 yards!! Only had 20 rounds of ammo so will have to reload those and try again!!

[garydude]

Thanks for the update. Give it a little time and I'm sure you will be shooting it like a champ. I wish I could help with the sights but I got nothin'. Maybe Josh?

[Alpo]

What are you loading? The gun was designed for a 200 grain RN, so using a normal 30 cal 150 grain bullet, like for a 308 or an ought six and the sights will be way off.

[gdmoody]

I had a box of 180 grain Core-lock that I got with the rifle. The information in the Lyman manual says that the original cartridges were loaded with a 220 grain RN bullet at about 2200 FPS. I have ordered dies and some 220 grain round nose bullets. I don't expect them for a few days but once they come, I will get some IMR 4064 powder locally and load me up 20 of them and try again.

[JLA]

Sounds like the front sight is a tad too tall. The rear having to go to the 700 meter setting to hit 50 yds isnt right, even with the wrong weight bullet it shouldnt be that far off. Only other explanation is a bent barrel.

[BobMcG]

Your rifle is equipped with a model 1901 rear sight. It looks like the sight notches are "U" shaped making it a type 3 sight. If it also has a leaf spring under the upper base, it's a type 4, 1901 sight. The lever at the front is the windage adjustment "binding lever". It locks your windage setting in place.

[BobMcG]

Inaccuracy problem and the sights?

Going by the serial number on your rifle, I'm led to believe that it was originally equipped with a model 1898 rear sight, whereas a lot of 1898s came with 1896 sights due to production problems with the newer 1898 sights. However, problems developed with 1898s breaking lugs and all 1898 rifles that came equipped with 1898 sights were recalled in 1900 and were fitted with the 1896 sights. The ammo was the problem and the 1896 sights were developed using an older 2,000fps round as opposed to the newer 1898 round @ 2,200fps which was removed from service in March of 1900 due to it being responsible for breaking locking lugs. The 1896 rear sight wasn't much liked though with it's main problem being it's use of three sighting notches for windage. (Not good under combat stress.) The sighting notches were very (as in too) shallow as well. Now, where the 1901 sight comes into play is that they were retrofitted to all 1896 rifles still in service and 1898 rifles equipped with 1896 sights.

A good question is, does the front sight on your rifle actually go with your rear sight anymore? The 1896 rifle rear sight was matched with a front sight blade with a height of 0.285". The 1898 & 1901 rifle rear sights were matched with 0.410" front blades.

The load you use will either work within the original parameters of what the sights were designed for, or not.

Another good question is, how does the bore look?

Yet another good question might be, was the barrel shortened?

[gdmoody]

Thanks Bob, very informative. The bore actually looks very good, and I don't know it the barrel was shortened or not. I will measure the length of the barrel and the height of the sight in the morning. If I post the length of the barrel, do you think you would be able to tell me if it has been cut?

[BobMcG]

Originally Posted by gdmoody

If I post the length of the barrel, do you think you would be able to tell me if it has been cut?

Actually I can tell you that service rifles were made with 30" barrels while carbines wore 22" versions. Going by the serial number of your rifle, it was made with a type 2 barrel and had a rounded crown muzzle. The chamber was 2.30" long; length from base to shoulder 1.65" L; shoulder dia. of 0.424"; neck dia. 0.340". Krag barrels had a bore dia. of 0.300" and a grove dia. of 0.308" with a 1:10" rate of twist.

It looks to me like your barrel may have been shortened somewhat when it was sporterized. How does the crown look?

[gdmoody]

Oh yes, the barrel was cut down. It is 24" and the sight is 3/4" tall from the base to the top. Thanks for the information.

[jim brady]

That's a nice Krag. You've noticed the buttery action. It will be hard to calibrate the sights unless you duplicate the original loadings. Looking forward to progress notes on this one!

[BobMcG]

OK.
The reason I'm asking about barrel length is because while both being regulated with the same ammo, the shorter barrel carbine wore somewhat different rear sights which were matched with shorter front sights. IE: the 1896 carbine sights used a 0.256" high front blade; the 1898 & 1901 & 1902 had a 0.352" high blade. With the rifle's new barrel length, you may have to modify the front sight.

Just a reminder, the heights I've listed are for just the (removable by pin) front blade itself and not the height of the entire front sight assembly.

Good luck and have some fun!

[JLA]

George I figure that front blade is gonna have to be somewhere close to 1/2" base to tip of blade to compensate for the horrendous rear sight adjustment to get it up to hit 50 yds.

[The_Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jim brady

That's a nice Krag. You've noticed the buttery action. It will be hard to calibrate the sights unless you duplicate the original loadings. Looking forward to progress notes on this one!

I suggested on another firearms site that to "duplicate the original loadings" in my Eddystone would give me POIs consistent to my sight settings.
I was ridiculed for days because I didn't subscribe to their fix, "sanding down the front sight" of my antique firearm.

I'm glad this site has common sense solutions.

[victory05]

This discussion is very interesting to me since I have a 30-40 of the same vintage. Mine has a 24" barrel and original sights. I have shot it a fair amount and have taken a few deer with it. It is a dream to shoot and the action is smooth as silk. I have not had any difficulty with the sights although it did take a bit of time to get used to them at distances over 150 yards or so. My rifle is only about 500 lower on the serial number than the one shown here. I have been trying to get an accurate value of the gun for insurance reasons. I can honestly say (I know some of you will say, "yeah, right!") that this gun's condition is of a solid 90%. It has a couple nearly imperceptable scuffs on the stock that are hard to find even though I know they are there. I have had 2 appraisals and they are over $2700 apart. It seems difficult to find knowledgeable experts around here. Who to trust seems to be an issue as well.

[gdmoody]

I think this is going to take a lot of "playing with" to get it to shoot. I don't have a great amount of time on my hands so it is going to take me a while to get it shooting right. I will probably lose interest and sell it by that time!!

[BobMcG]

Originally Posted by victory05

I have a 30-40 of the same vintage. Mine has a 24" barrel and original sights.

Well then, maybe it's a rare keeper. Just can't find where a 24" barrel was original issue.... There was also a "Board of Ordnance and Fortifications Barrel, Type 4" made in 26" in length, but that was manufactured much later in years (and serial numbers).

Originally Posted by victory05

It seems difficult to find knowledgeable experts around here. Who to trust seems to be an issue as well.

Yeah I know what you mean. Really sucks.
Oh, speaking of that, who claimed to be a expert? If a person has a couple of reference books written by experts on the subject, I think it behooves them to look up the information for someone who perhaps doesn't have the books. Yup, some books can be wrong or incomplete, but hey, that's just the way some of us are around here.

Come to think of it, doesn't have to be that way though I suppose.