I picked up my second Krag today after a long search of gun stores looking for a "correct" Krag.  My first one was a cut down with 1903 front sight.

It's a 1898 model with a 1900 cartouche, serial number 271606 which should be correct year for 1900.  It's in decent shape with just a little rust in bore, nice patina on metal, but some rusty spots here and there.

Assuming it shoots and functions correctly, I would like to take it to Camp Perry next year for the Roosevelt match.  The rear sight looks to me to be a 1896.  I'd like to swap this out with a rear sight with windage adjustment.  Which rear sight with windage adjustment would be "correct" for this rifle?

---

'TexTen59' - Both the model 1901 and model 1902 rear sights can be correct for your model 1898 Krag and provide for windage adjustment. Be advised, however, that the model 1896, model 1901 and model 1902 rear-sights have different and specific hand-guards.

---

Whether you use a 1901 or 1902 can be subjective based on your individual tastes.  I personally prefer the 1902 with the Sgt. Peep extended.  Many shooting in matches prefer the 1901.  My advice would be to research the two sights and find what would work best for your needs.  If you install the 1901, and then find you would rather have a 1902, you're going to have to purchase another hand guard and rear sight!!! 

Also, if you're going to shoot in matches (Roosevelt or Vintage), you'll need to decide if you'll use the peep or not.  The Peep on Krag sights is unbelievably small (0.04), however you can legally alter the rear sight per CMP rules to enlarge the peep up to 0.1.  The Sgt. Peep on the 1902 sight can only be enlarged to around 0.07 before you damage the plate... but that is sufficient to make the sight very useable... and accurate!!!

Finally, if you intend on shooting your Krag in matches, there will be no shortage of people here (yours truly included) to help you get started!

Paul

Front sight blades are also different. The one for the 1896 rear sight is very short to set the "battle" zero at about 300 yds. with the rear sight all the way down. Later models set battle zero on the rear sight. So a front sight change may also be needed. 

Thanks for the reply's.  I may swap the hand guard and 1901 sight on my cut down "carbine" and give it a try.

Ned, is there a place if can use to figure out the correct front sight blade height?

Thanks again!

Edit: Looked around, looks like 0.43" is correct.  Also know understand difference between 1901 and 1902 sights - some I looked at did not show the peep on the 1902, all I saw was the notch.  Not having to flip up the ladder like on the 1901 to use peep is handy when using a hat - had that issue with the M1917 in a match!!!!  :(  Then again, the sight is much further out....

Edit:  Holy smokes, 1902 handguard cost's more than the 1902 rear sight!  Can anyone steer me towards more reasonable handguards?  Maybe where one can buy the set?

Ned Butts wrote on Aug 21^st, 2016 at 2:38pm:

Front sight blades are also different. The one for the 1896 rear sight is very short to set the "battle" zero at about 300 yds. with the rear sight all the way down. Later models set battle zero on the rear sight. So a front sight change may also be needed.

  Got the front sight blade out, 0.284" tall.  Now to find a taller front sight blade.

FYI:

Lt. Col. William S. Brophy measured a sampling of Krag front-sight blades and illustrated the results in his book, "The Krag Rifle", page114.

1892 Rifle (rear sight) - front sight blade = .275" high

1896 Rifle (rear sight) - front sight blade = .286" high

1898, 1901, 1902 Rifle (rear sights) - front sight blade = .413" high

1896 Carbine (rear sight) - front sight blade = .266" high

1898, 1901, 1902 Carbine (rear sights) - front sight blade = .355"

(Note: These measurements are just the blade height and do not include the height of the Krag base, that was dovetailed and brazed to the barrel. The base was identical on all issued U. S. Krag models).

IMHO - It is very likely there are some 'issued' Krag front-sight blades that were probably filed and altered by Armorers and Match Shooters, to adjust the elevation of the point of impact.

This site and members are awesome! The is an incredible amount of information and knowledge archived here.  Thanks for sharing!

I stumbled across this thread with a drawing of the front sight -   (You need to Login; It confirms the reply above. Now I have a reference to make one to conform to spec, it won't be an original, but I doubt I'll win any matches that'll call for close inspection.  ;D

Thanks again!

Another minor problem in switching rear sights, is the issue of the correct screws.  (The 1901 sight requires a peculiar front screw. The 1892 & 1896 sights have a longer front screw). The various 'short' screws will generally interchange.

Reproduction sight screws and sight blades can be purchased from S&S Firearms, Glendale, N. Y.

The KCA Classifieds list a vendor, who makes reproduction hand-guards. The reproductions are expensive and not as nice or close fitting as a good original, but, better than nothing.

There are also parts sellers listed in Classifieds, who might be able to help with original items.

Got her all cleaned up.  The bore and chamber had more rust than I thought....but they look shiny now after a lot of elbow grease.  Even swapped out the 1901 sight and handguard off my first "carbine" rifle.  Rubbing down stripped stock with BLO, like I did to Garands, M1 Carbines, 1903 & A3 and 1917, as it looks so dull and dry.  I have a correct height front sight blade on order.

Had one issue, the last round would not feed without a really hard push.  After searching this site and comparing parts on my Carbine, I found the culprit - the pin holding the follower and carrier together was sticking up ever so slightly catching the rim of the cartridge.  With a small file and a light touch I filed it down and finished it off with emory cloth.  Smooth as butter and loads like it was meant too.

Now to work up loads with that 200 round stash of new Remington brass I thankfully bought back in 2009 for the Carbine while I add coats of BLO on the stock.

Just two..............just wait ;)

Kind of like my M1 Garands (3) and M1 Carbines (4), just can't seem to pass them up.  Going to CMP in Anniston this October to build an M1 Garand in their Advanced Armorers Class.  Can't wait!!!   :D :D :D :D

I'd love to do that!!!  I love all of my mil-surp rifles (Krags, Garand, 1903A3, TDs, K-31, and even the couple Arisakas I have)... but my heart belongs to my 1898 Rifle!

And then I have a 1903, 1903A3, 1903A4gery, 1917 and K31.  I do enjoy going to Camp Perry and shooting for a week!  Planning my 2017 trip now.

You should plan on squadding with Bob and I for vintage, Springfield, Garand, and Roosevelt in 2017!

Sounds like a plan!

Let's definitely stay in touch, and we'll plan on that!

Took the Krag out with some hand loads to test.  Chrony put this string of five at 2067 fps with 4064 powder.  Looking for some 4350 to slow it down closer to 1950 fps if lower loads of 4064 don't work out with accuracy expected.  Using 220 gr Sierra RN and CCI 200 primers.  Sighters one and two were off in 6 ring, one at 11 o'clock and other at 5 o'clock.  100 yds.

This one shoots better than hoped for.

---

If one and two were both in the 6 ring... then you scored a 87-2X there.  Pretty good shooting!  I think those 220s will like the 4350 a little more.  Although a great powder, 4064 is a little better suited for lighter bullets of 180 grain and lower.  Not a bad start though.

Nice shooting - Windage appears well centered!

Tried out my loads with 4350 today.  Averaged 1990 fps, need to come down a little more from 40.3 gr (Sierra estimated this to be around 1900 fps).  The grouping was about 3 times that of 4064.  Maybe I need to step up to CC1 250 primers instead of 200's for more consistent burn with this slow powder?????  250's seem to be the recommended primers on this forum.

On a side note - two sheriff deputies drove up to the range asking about a report of a black sedan driving around all suspicious like.  I offer to let them shoot the Krag.  They both hit a steel target at 120 yards.  They were both impressed with accuracy and mild recoil of a 116 year old rifle.  I think it made their day.

For what it's worth, I use the CCI-250s with my loads.  I've arguments both for and against the use of the magnum primer with a Krag load... but I've been pretty happy with my results.  I like the consistent full burn that I get with them!

I'm a little slow on reporting back final load selected.  I went to Anniston a day early for my late October CMP Advanced Armorers class to get the Krag sighted in at 200 yds at the CMP Talladega range.  More than happy with the results, as can be seen in a picture of the electronic scoring monitor.  Too cool!!!

39.9 gr IMR 4350
220 gr Sierra RN
Remington brass
Winchester WLRM primer Seated to 3.000"
Av velocity is 1972.6 fps

Also stretched my Rem 700 308 with suppressor out to 600 yds.  It was a great day!

I highly recommend the Advanced Armorers Class to anyone that wants to know the ins and outs of an M1 Garand by building one from parts.  Head spacing a new barrel is no longer a mystery to me.  All it takes are the right tools and patience to not rush it.  Picked up a late 1943 Springfield with early 1944 barrel at the CMP store while there.  They are addictive.  So little range time..........

---

If I'm reading that right... looks like a 96-4X, which is awesome!!!  You're going to give Bob and I a real run for our money this year in the Roosevelt!

Talladega appears to be a beautiful Range facility!

I'm glad you are having fun.

I wonder if they might use the decimal portions of the scores as tie breakers, or if they are tallied and included in the final total?  It wouldn't be fair to talley them as some have to shoot the regular targets without the decimal scores.  As we would score them, I only see two nines.

I only saw two nines too...but I assume that the white dot is much larger than the hole profile itself, and so they might appear to us as tens. 

Right, like marking a shot that's close to the line, I'd assume those are the two 9.9s.  Looks like he's having no problem as is, but as far as "as issued" goes, one is also allowed to make thicker blades, they just have to be the same contour as the original.  Mine are .080" thick and a bit taller as I shoot lighter bullets at higher velocity.  The 1898 rifle sights I use have a V notch cut into them too.  I think there were also Army regulations that allowed some personal modification.  Most likely for target shooters.

When I was there for the D Day Garand match, decimals were truncated.  So a 9.9 was scored as a 9. 

Unfortunately, they don't round up... or we'd all be scoring for Gold   :D