Noted. Note also I don't dispute how it was done at the arsenal. If one's goal is to replicate an archaic wood finishing method in conjunction with 'restoring' a collectible to original condition, then by all means have at it with raw linseed oil. I defy anybody to slather on a heavy coat of boiled linseed oil to a freshly sanded piece of virgin walnut and have it be distinguishable from a coat of raw oil, if both are wiped off evenly and left to stand for a couple days. The difference in looks, penetration, and protection will be nil, whereas the the one done with raw oil will not be dry yet (and probably won't be for quite a while thereafter).

As far as any oil finish that is 'in the surface' and not on it, it by far the worst kind of finish for a rifle stock intended for use in extreme conditions. Moisture will pass through into the wood as if it weren't even there. I suspect that they were well aware of that at the time, and also suspect they knew better than to foist a stock finish onto largely ham-handed troops who wouldn't/couldn't maintain them in the field. After all, if a stock got "frahunsed up" it was easier to grab a fresh one and slap it on than to spend time lovingly re-finishing it.

Conversely, let us also not make the Springfield Armory out to be a holy bastion of infallibility. They were only human, and not everything they did was for the right reason. If you had oversight breathing down your neck to tighten up on the costs of building a fine rifle (and believe me when I say that I consider the Krag to be the finest rifle turned out by Springfield, in terms of quality) would you cut corners on the steel work, or on the woodwork- with the idea of not compromising on the overall quality of the gun?