I just bought this US Krag carbine and would like everyone's opinion on it. I had a problem with the lack of a cartouche but decided to buy it because I think I understand why. Hope photos are clear enough. David

---

Second photo

---

Next

---

Barrel band

---

Stock grip

---

Front sight

---

Proof mark

---

rear sight

---

Top view

---

pop up peep sight

---

Open receiver

---

Butt plate with three letters that look like PME or FME. Don't have any idea if those are a man's initials or a unit designation or what. The gun has a barrel that is exactly 22 inches long and a stock that is exactly 32 inches long. David

---

Nice looking 1898 Carbine.  No Cartouche because the stock is an update, 1899 style, not the 1896 style it originally left Springfield with.  Still, a really nice and 'legit'  carbine.

Yours is not listed in SRS ( CD version ), but there is one close
119995 98C  03/18/99 Co I 4th USV INF (Recvd)  Why do you think your stock would not have had a cartouche? I always thought that if they had a P behind the trigger guard that they would have had a cartouche. Your carbine has been updated to the long stock and has either the 98C or 1902C rear sight.

Strad:  I have an 1898 Krag Carbine, #119744, that was sporterized by drilling and tapping the receiver for a Weaver side-mount.  I bought it to get the carbine stock for an 1899 carbine I'm restoring.  My stock is the same as yours, No Cartouche, but the #58 above the circled 'P'.

Wow 98SRC, close as in one digit off. Could you explain what the abbreviations from the CD mean? I believe, and this is why I bought the gun, that it is an original 1898 carbine that was period upgraded to an 1899 and thus the later stock and sight. I believe the stock has no cartouche because it was done in the field or at a post and not at the factory where it would have had a later cartouche or over stamp perhaps. The gun is original I believe to 1899 because all the wood and metal surfaces appear to be equal in ware and age. The barrel has the P firing proof as well on the under side. You would think that this gun went to the same location as the number you found in the SRS records. My understanding is that 1898 carbines numbered only about 5,000 and a great many were used and upgraded. Would anyone have an idea about the letters on the butt plate? Don't know if they have any corrolation to the SRS records since I need help understanding what they stand for. Thanks, David

Butlersrangers, thanks for the comments. I would think that any good stock would be a good buy since they were not serialized to the gun. I am just learning about these guns but shouldn't your 1899 gun have a 1899 stock with the cartouche since it should have come from the factory with the later stock and thus have the cartouche dated 1899? Just asking because I honestly don't know for sure.

Strad:  My 1899 Krag Carbine, #349187, was probably built in September 1901.  It likely carried a Cartouche dated 1901, when it left Springfield Arsenal.  When I obtained it, it was a 'deer rifle' in a modified Krag rifle stock.  The action and barrel were great and not ruined.  I was fortunate to obtain original carbine parts and return my 1899 to its original configuration.  I was glad to have a nice 1899 style "long for-end" carbine stock without a Cartouche, rather than a stock with the wrong Cartouche.  Your 1898 Carbine is quite nice.  There are not a lot of 1898 Carbines.  I imagine most were updated to 1899 pattern and have the "long for-end" stock, without Cartouche.  (ps - It would be interesting to see a photo of the base of your carbine rear sight showing the Spring attachment).

Strad wrote on Jul 1^st, 2012 at 12:13am:

Would anyone have an idea about the letters on the butt plate? Don't know if they have any corrolation to the SRS records since I need help understanding what they stand for. Thanks, David

They're most likely the initials of someone who once owned the carbine after it was retired from service, since we can imagine any trooper who did that would be be docked a month's pay to buy a new buttplate (not to mention catching a heap of extra duty mucking out stables).

I would agree the initials on the butt plate most likely just belong to someone after the US ownership. I am going to take a stab at the SRS listing and say the gun next to mine was sent to First Company, Fourth United States (V)?????? Infantry. That is as close as I can guess except for the V. Am I close? I will try to shoot a photo of the sight base. I had not thought to look at that area. That older guy I bought this gun from knew that it was a very nice gun and carbine but I don't know if he knew it was an 1898 period upgraded to 1899. I believe from what I have just started reading that there are not many 1898 carbines because not many were made and in only a short run but also all were used quickly and maybe heavily. Don't know what US engagements were happening in or around this time fore the 1898's to be used in. Can someone on the forum perhaps enlighten us(me). Thanks for everyons's comments. These guns are fun it seems because they were used and produced during interesting times in US history. PS, can someone perhaps explain why one gun in the SRS records would be listed and the very next one not?????

The SRS citation means Company "I" (eye, not 1) 4th U.S. Volunteer Infantry.

The initials on the butt-plate are absolutely not military in origin. The soldier would have been in a world of hurt for defacing government property.

Field-replacement stocks will have the (P) but no master armorer's cartouche. It occurs to me that perhaps an arsenal installed 32" M99 pattern stock on a legitimate M1898 Carbine, might also lack this mark. There would be supporting rationale/evidence both ways.

Interesting that the original low M96 carbine front sight (required for the M96 sight on the 98C when first made) blade was not replaced. This can also be a good or bad sign, depending on how you look at it.

5002 M1898 carbines were made, with short (30") stocks, saddle rings, and M96C sights. The stocks are identical to M96 stocks except for bolt notch and cartouche, which was always "JSA/1898". Very shortly after issue, they were supposedly all restocked. So, a short-stocked 98C today, is always suspected of being a reassembly.

So Dick, I appreciate your comments very much. Could you elaborate on the pros and cons of the front site being unchanged from an original 1898 site. I know you are hinting at a real vs made up gun. I can see the view that if it still is there it was always there and thus lend credence to the originality of the gun. On the other hand if they changed out the rear site to up grade the gun why not change the front, and they should have. I did not understand that basically all 1898C guns should be found in  up graded fashion and a gun in original configuration would be very suspect, without iron clad provenance that is. David

So also following that line of reasoning, My gun should be as good as it gets in finding an original 1898C----- or it is in some way a put together gun some years after the fact and not so good. There are tell tale signs always when putting things together as to age, patina on parts, blueing where there should not be, sanding etc. If done perfectly there should be no way to tell with out full history. I believe this gun is at least original to the period. I think if you hold it in your hands you would say the same thing always on a presumptive basis. David

Actually, I like the gun. 119xxx is the heart of the spread.

There are 13 known 118xxx, 52 known 119xxx, and 49 known 120xxx - and everything else (from 112xxx to 134xxx) is in single digits.

I'm more impressed with a low 96C blade (which would have been the original if the gun is real), than with something which shared duty as a rifle blade. The 1902C sight in itself is a nice little plus - they are an uncommon sight, since most carbines ended up with 1901C sights, after the stock change. One would think they'd have changed the blade (and they "should" have) but if all else looks good, I'd just accept it.

Also, I'd not be concerned at all with the lack of a JSA/date stamp. That mark signifies completion of the gun, acceptance into ordnance stores - and, in the case of the Krag, is at least peripherally involved in a royalty issue! It would be very much to SA's advantage not to give any indication or validity, to the assumption that they had somehow made 5000 more guns than they actually had! If there was ever a case for not stamping a replacement stock, that has to be it.

In short, IMHO, you have one of the best unproven 98Cs I've encountered.

Thanks Dick for your comments. I am glad you like the gun. I assume by undocumented you mean it doesn't show up in the SRS records or doesn't have documentation to the period. The old guy I bought the gun from has, and I kid you not, a thousand guns in his collection that he has been collecting and trading for years. This gun he had for thirty plus years. Some stuff he has is junk some is out of sight wonderful. Gorgeous Lugers from the early 1900's etc. I asked him about a Krag carbine because I had been wanting one great example of US military arms of each type. He had one on his table at a show and I didn't like it and he said if I  wanted one he had a really really nice one that he would bring to a later show, one he never shows. He had a fire and burned his house and so some long time good stuff he has been willing to sell. For once I did some homework before I bought something. 8-)