My model 1898 has numbers ranging from 7 to 18 on the sliding rack of the rear sight.  I am guessing those numbers correspond to hundreds of feet when adjusting the sight for elevation.  Is that right?

Can the model 1898 sights be adjusted for windage?

What is the capacity of the magazine?

Along with the rifle, I got 14 bullets that I think are gallery rounds.  They have round balls that are almost completely seated in the case.  The cases are marked FA 5 03 or FA 6 03.  I don't have the original box.  Do these have value to collectors?  Could they be fired?  Would firing them be a bad idea?

cjwils wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 1:09am:

My model 1898 has numbers ranging from 7 to 18 on the sliding rack of the rear sight.  I am guessing those numbers correspond to hundreds of feet when adjusting the sight for elevation.  Is that right? Can the model 1898 sights be adjusted for windage? What is the capacity of the magazine? Along with the rifle, I got 14 bullets that I think are gallery rounds.  They have round balls that are almost completely seated in the case.  The cases are marked FA 5 03 or FA 6 03.  I don't have the original box.  Do these have value to collectors?  Could they be fired?  Would firing them be a bad idea?

1. Wrong. It's hundreds of yards.

2. Your description matches the model 1896 rear sight, which was originally fitted to some model 1898 rifles. It is not adjustable for windage. (The model 1898, 1901, and 1902 sights are windage adjustable.)
  (You need to Login   (You need to Login

3. The magazine holds five cartridges.

4. Any US military cartridges made in 1903 and in good condition are worth more to collectors than shooters. While they could possibly be fired, it would certainly decrease their collector value.

Thanks for the info, Parashooter. My sight clearly matches the 96 sight in your photo. The serial number on my model 1898 is 156001. I found a list of serial numbers on the internet that said that number was made in 1899. Does that match what you know about model 1898s having the 96 sight?

Poyer's book would suggest your Krag was built in December of 1898.  The Calender Year of 1898 ended with #160,061.  November 1898 ended with #151,151.  I would recommend Joe Poyer's book as a reliable, convenient, and inexpensive reference.

The number commonly used for 1898 cutoff is 152,670 (for ascertaining antique status). Where the odd number came from may be anyone's guess? In any event, there surely was some tolerance provided due to the uncertainty.

Receiver production was kept ahead of rifle assembly, and they were NOT put together in perfect numerical order, so the question cannot be answered with 100% certainty, especially when near the end/beginning of a year. SA was supposed to keep accurate (OVERALL at least) records on the Krag, because royalties were involved.

So far as the 1898 "cutoff" is concerned - that is not just a scholarly question but also a legal one. AFAIK, BATF (your tax dollars at work) uses 152670. Whether that is "right" or not, it would probably be prudent to treat it as such, if selling, shipping, etc.

Now, as to why 152670 is a harmless antique, and 152671 is a fiendishly evil device deserving full regulation, write your Congressman (or perhaps, try to elect a new one)!

Here's another question from this new Krag owner.  What is the meaning of the stamp on the left side of the stock above the trigger guard?  If I can make this system work, I am attaching a photo of it.

---

"JSA"; Master Armorer J. Sumner Adams - indicates rifle accepted into ordnance stores in the year 1901.

<mrpicky>Adams was never Master Armorer</mrpicky>

As lore has it, after Porter died an anonymous letter was sent to Mordecai accusing him of working Porter to death.  Mordecai never replaced Porter in the Master Armorer position - he simply let it lapse.  It was resurrected later, one more time, but not by Mordecai.

Adams was an Assistant Foreman.  Not even the most senior.  Not a dig at Adams - just a note that Porter was the last of the line regards cartouches; after that they were simply done by one of the hired help.

Joe, I DO appreciate the technical correction - the accuracy of which I would not presume to doubt - but when responding to a "new user", perhaps a clearer comment regarding "last . . . . . cartouche and "hired help" might be in order. Regardless of his actual title, stamps WERE made for his use for at least eleven years, which appear on almost a half-million arms, including a number of arsenal-converted trapdoor cadet rifles. So, especially from a beginner's point of view, there is NO obvious difference in the function/meaning of the marking.

Not for you Dick, this is for whomever.

In the beginning there were three positions at the Armory and there wasn't a clear delineation in who had what power:
Superintendent, Master Armorer, Ordnance Storekeeper.  Quite the little power plays early on.  The Superintendent was replaced by an Ordnance Officer eventually and the Ordnance Storekeeper was shuffled into his place - leaving the Superintendent with control.  As part of that the independence of the Master Armorer was eliminated but the position was still significant: the Master Armorer typically cartouched the guns.

Samuel W. Porter replaced Erskine S. Allin/Allen[1] as Master Armorer upon the latter's death.  SWP is the most seen trapdoor stamp and is also on early Krags.  With the death of Porter, as mentioned, stamping duties fell to Adams.  Adams worked through WW1 but his stamping duties were passed to others with the introduction of the M-1903.  As a result late Krags will be seen sporting other stamps (JFC comes to mind). 

Adams was still at SA when the "last Master Armorer" was appointed.  It wasn't Adams - it was Spooner.  Which I found odd as he wasn't senior either.

JSA is Adams of course - he stamped most Krags.  Not all but most.  As mentioned his stamping of guns didn't end with his death - he simply stopped doing it.

When the gun was "accepted" from production into the care of the Ordnance Storekeeper it became Army property - the stamp is an acceptance stamp.  While they're somewhat pointless on SA made items let's not forget that the stamps were also used in accepting contract made items.  WW2 Winchester made M1 Garands as an example.  M-1911 pistols.  Contact muskets.  The list is endless.  We should also not forget that SA wasn't under "Army control" when that practice was started - the Superintendent wasn't an Ordnance Officer.

[1] Not my problem the guy couldn't spell his name right.  Other branches of the family used the 'e' spelling.

Yes, in fact, I believe what everyone casually calls the "final acceptance mark" or "master armorer's cartouche" or whatever, is not actually an "inspection" mark at all - but rather simply denotes acceptance into stores.

OM22 is quite clear - for the trapdoor - that, after firing five rounds to test the functioning (not any sort of proof overload - that had already been done) the rear sight was installed, and a (P) was stamped behind the guard - THAT being the final "inspection" mark.

Thanks for all the information. I didn't realize there is so much to learn.

Dick's last post mentioned a P behind the guard. Do you mean behind the trigger guard?. I looked behind my trigger guard, and I don't see a P, but I see what appears to be 34 M, with the M under the number (toward the butt). Can anyone comment on that?

Also, can anyone explain why a gun that was probably made in Dec 1898, according to the serial number discussion at the beginning of these posts, was not stamped as accepted into stores until 1901?