The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1895-12-31
TESTS OF THE NfW Rifle
Army 0fficsrs Report That Il Is
Not Accurate.
MISTAKE IN SELECTING IT
The Foreign Small Arm Is Inferior
to the Springfteld-I.ighte Bullets
Are ut the Mercy Of Breezes-D isap-
pointing Results % the Tests-sol-
diers Lack Confidence in 1t.

A serious mistake has, lit is feared. been
made in selecting a foreign small arm for
the military service, asSt fails far below
the requirements of fsrst,class piece.
Reports received at thu war Department
| from officers attached % cofnpa MES which
practiced with the gun hast summer are
almost unanimous in ob5ectihg to IT'S many
defecs-some radical. js1sa ~ 80.
The main objection Seems to be with
the breach mocha nism, while also the cal
iber is too small, the bullet too light. and
! beyond n range Of three hundred yards
the gun is very inaccurate.
The smaller and light bullet seems to
be more at the mercy OF every breeze tina a
was the lead bullet of the oid fort y-five Win
chester. Yet 1t has not seemed proper for
q military guIf to approach the attainment
OF accuracy by such mea MS as a wind-gauge,
and, therefore, number of officers have
stated that they have done their best at
| guessing and "wish 1t weil'' when they
shoot with the Krag-Jorgensen.
II this gun, which was adopted by the
army after years of Investigation both
at home and abroad with small arms. has
now been shown to be inferior, 1t is GER
tainly to be regretted.
NOT AS GOOD AS THE SPRINGFIELD.
According To many reports the gun is not
as good as the old Springfield. If II is
clearly demonstrated that the army gun
Is inferior because of its small calIber, the
navy has also probably Numbered, for II
has recently adopted gun Of even smaller
bore, and, in fact, the smallest in use by
any government.
There Is, of course, n great difference Of
opinion between the experts of the two
services over the small arm question, each
holding that its gun Is the superior. The
navy points out that It's gun is lighter,
shorter in the barrel, aud thus enables "a
man to carry fifty more rounds of ammuni-
ton than the soldier can.
In accuracy, fiatness of ira iectOry and
velocity it is claimed to be ahead of the
army piece. Another merit claimed for the
navy piece is that II Is of domestic inven
ton and manufacture throughout, while
the army gun Is the product OF a foreigner.
Both pieces unquestionably have powerful
penetrating powers. and are certainly more
deadly than any of the old arms. Whether
they are as accurate Is yet to be decided,
when suggested improvements in the army
gun have been made.
Capt. f. E. Hardin Seventh Infantry. says
the gun does not shoot accurately AT 200.
900. 900 and 600 yards. No two guns shoot
alike at these ranges. The inaccuracy and
Indifference in the guns increased very
rapidly with the range. This inaccuracy,
he thinks. is due entirely TO the sights, and
possibly in a measure to the ammunition.
Capt. J. T. Van Arsiale. Seventh In
fantry, says the new magazine gun is q
total failure as a practice gun with small,
round bullets and black powgers
VAN ARsDAIE's CDNGLUSIoNS
His conclusions. from observations at the
regular target range practice, are that
the rifle is in no partieSlaI a target gun,
accuracy having been sacrificed to range
and Increased dangerous space. While
range beyond a mile, he,sstates, is of little
value. owing to use OF artillery and ma
chine guns, the increase of dangerous
space is Of great importance and if this
cannot be obtained except by sacrifice OF
accuracy, he is in favor of, retaining the
new gun in preference to a, return to the
more accurate but less dangerous Spring
field.
Capt. Kendrick. of the same regiment,
asserts the rifle shoots too high and 10 the
left. AT 200 and 800 yards range the rifle
shoots to the left at from oneto two feet and
from three TO six feet at the 500 and 600
yard ranges. There was not a single rifle
that would shoot where it was held. The
men, especially the sharpshooters. soon
became discouraged when they found there |
was no way of correcting the line of sight,
and it was difficult matter to get them
trained in space to the right of the bulls
eye.
Capt. WOrden, also of the Seventh In
fantry, thinks the gun is serviccable du-
rable and likely to stand the rough use or
field-work with reasonable care. Capt
Booth takes a different view OF the gun,
and states that the most reliable shots did
not do as well as with the Springfield, cali
Der As. Expert shots could also fire more
rapidly for a given number of rounds in |
excess OF six. with the Springfield caliber |
than with the new gun. Capt. Quinton,
Seventh Infantry, thinks the gun has not |
yet been given fair trial and that it is |
largely yet experimental. The weapon |
he finds pretty light and handy. Parts ex-