Hello all. I'm a new forum member and would like some assistance with a Krag that I have a chance to acquire. The receiver is marked "Model 1896" with serial number 108725. I believe this dates it as one of the last 1896's made in 1898. The condition is very rough and rusty as shown in the attached photos (1st time posting, so I hope this works). The stock was wrapped with tape around the grip and is split, but not broken. It is also split on top near the buttplate. There is no obvious cartouche and it has inspector stamps behind the trigger guard. The safety and magazine cutoff is missing, but the bolt and magazine are very smooth internally. The bore has some pitting as would be expected from this gun's condition, but it looks shootable if the headspace is ok. I believe it has a 1901 sight and I think it has an original handguard. Were these modified to use the 1901 sight?

I would like to know more about the history of this rifle and it's value in it's current condition....my guess...$200? I would like to get it into a shootable condition and would be interested in acquiring the missing safety and magazine cutoff if it makes sense to go ahead with this project.

---

The handguard appears to be for a 1901 rear sight.  It does look a little rough, but sometimes, that rust will clean up nicely with a little work.

gunnut wrote on Apr 15^th, 2012 at 7:54pm:

Hello all.

Greetings.


Quote:

The receiver is marked "Model 1896" with serial number 108725. I believe this dates it as one of the last 1896's made in 1898.

Yes.  Summer of 1898.


Quote:

The condition is very rough and rusty as shown in the attached photos

Basement fresh.


Quote:

There is no obvious cartouche and it has inspector stamps behind the trigger guard.

It was arsenal refinished.


Quote:

I believe it has a 1901 sight and I think it has an original handguard. Were these modified to use the 1901 sight?

Yes with the caveat that your sight appears to missing.


Quote:

I would like to know more about the history of this rifle and it's value in it's current condition....my guess...$200?

If you can get it for $200 you'll be getting a deal.  In spite of the basement fresh condition.


Quote:

I would like to get it into a shootable condition and would be interested in acquiring the missing safety and magazine cutoff if it makes sense to go ahead with this project.

Yes, it makes sense.  You need some small easily acquired parts.  The gun is full length so you're ahead right there.  The typical auction sites will have the parts you seek and there is the alternative of the sale sights -e.g., S&S or DeChristopher.  Given the condition the auction sites make more sense as you're not after pristine condition parts.

By all means it's a worthwhile project.  The 1892s and 1896s are simply finer rifles than the 1898s.

Yes that is a very late production Model1896 the highest known number that I have is 109020

Would it be possible  (I have a hunch) to see a picture of the bolt side?

Many thanks.

Thanks all.
Here are some additional photos. Sorry about them being so large.

---

So much for my hunch - thanks for the pics. I see a gun like that and I almost start to itch, wanting to get at it with a few razor blades and LOTS of solvent.

To 5MadFarmers:
Could you elaborate more on your comment that it has been "arsenal refinished"? I believe I read somewhere that all available Krags were returned to arsenals and refurbished and stored in 1905.
   ---What type of work did they do?
   ---The sight change is obvious. Did they change or modify the handguard to accomodate it?
   ---Where and when do you think the work was done?
   ---Are there any other parts or variations that are not original to its summer 1898 manufacture date?

Thanks for your help.

To Dick Hosmer:

I'm curious what your hunch was that didn't pan out.

I have become very interested in all types of military firearms and this is my first chance at a Krag. I could care less about the latest hunting gun and new caliber. I'm more interested in how guns developed that were used to protect countries and men's lives. Just think where this gun might have been and the man or men that used it. Did it get issued to the regular army late in the Spanish American War? I suppose there is no way to really track its heritage, but I'm like every kid that had a BB gun and shot toy soldiers in my back yard.

These were serious weapons fighting for serious causes and I want to take this old gun and get it back into a somewhat better condition than it is now. I know it will never have value to a serious collector, but I know what value it will have to me when I put this gun in my hands and fire the first shot through it. It is going to be fun!

gunnut wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 6:41pm:

To 5MadFarmers: Could you elaborate more on your comment that it has been "arsenal refinished"?

No acceptance cartouche yet a proof one, later rear sight (which pretty much implies front side blade also swapped), and softly sanded edges on grasping grooves = "Arsenal refinish."


Quote:

I believe I read somewhere that all available Krags were returned to arsenals and refurbished and stored in 1905.

Time doesn't work that way.  Different units received rifles at different times.  Let's hit that a different way.  Let's say Springfield can make 1,000,000 guns in a month.  That's enough to re-equip everybody in all the services having a rifle right?  Except the funding for Springfield to make guns isn't the funding for the service units to "buy" them.  The USMC didn't receive funds for M-1903s until some years after the date you quote.  I'm aware of active duty army units exchanging Krags for '03s in 1907.  So we have active army, militia, USMC, and the Navy.  Via the Hosmer Act of 1903 the Militia was to receive '03s but Congress must appropriate.  An authorization act isn't funding - it clears the deck for it.


Quote:

---What type of work did they do?

Rebrown as necessary, refinish stock, rebarrel if needed, etc.  The sights were swapped.


Quote:

---The sight change is obvious. Did they change or modify the handguard to accomodate it?

New hand guard and likely front sight blade.


Quote:

---Where and when do you think the work was done?

Benicia, Manila, RIA, and SA all had the capability.  "1902+"


Quote:

---Are there any other parts or variations that are not original to its summer 1898 manufacture date?

Without the gun and a screwdriver I'd not be able to tell.  Side plate is original.  Check the bayonet band for a split on the bottom.  Other parts wouldn't really matter.


Quote:

Thanks for your help.

No prob.

Thanks, 5MadFarmers.
I sincerely appreciate the education. The bayonet band does have a slit between the lug and the stacking swivel. Does that make it original to the model 1896?

gunnut wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 11:59pm:

Thanks, 5MadFarmers.

No problem.


Quote:

I sincerely appreciate the education.

We're all perpetual students on these.  The last real experts have been gone for half a century.


Quote:

The bayonet band does have a slit between the lug and the stacking swivel. Does that make it original to the model 1896?

Late 1898 band.  Yet another sign of an arsenal rebuild.  That also indicates a later one.  Timeframe?  "I don't know.  Just 'later'."  Might bump into a date for the introduction at some point but haven't looked hard yet.  Given the 1901 sight we kind of already knew it was later.

gunnut wrote on Apr 17^th, 2012 at 7:05pm:

To Dick Hosmer: I'm curious what your hunch was that didn't pan out.

Since the serial number is SO close to the breakpoint, and sometimes the "6" and "8" have been misread, I wanted to see if the bolt seat actually was of 1896 configuration, which, of course, it is.

I should have realized from your initial comment that, even though you are new to Krags, you were at least aware of the difference, and, more importantly, that it was close to the edge. 5MF and I are very interested in establishing the boundaries, to the extent that it can be done. Overlaps have been reported, but I am quite skeptical, especially in the case of a major profile change on the numbered part itself, where vagaries of assembly cannot blur the issue.

My 37045 has stood as the highest known "1896" (lacking the "Model" prefix) for nearly 35 years now. I never expected that would hold up, back when I started collecting in the early 1970s.