Can anyone tell me what model this Krag is?  The serial number is listed as in the 218XXX range which would make it an 1899, right? (the 1898's were in the 113,000 to the 139,000 range, correct? The stock also looks lengthened as the 1899 would be, but I am no expert.  They are asking $1295 citing a bright bore with good rifling.  Can anyone advise me on this carbine?  Could it be a cut-down?  thank you!

Ken

---

Carbines did not originally have sling swivels, but many have had them added - some officially, some not.

What is going on at the front sight? Appears to have a "band" but is not the usual 1903 type - looks more like one of those  "Major Parker's snap-on" short-range things?

If the receiver is marked 1899, it could be a proper carbine, but IMHO, $1295 is full retail, no bargain.

thank you.  Photos are hard to get a good view of the front site.  I totally overlooked the sling issue.  thanks again.

Ken

Picture shows poor clarity (Hmmm???).  Rear sight appears to be model 1902 Rifle sight to me.  If I found the right listing, this is a cut-down rifle.  Front sight could be salvage from early 1903 prototype.

---

I did not try to find other pictures of the gun. Front sight is totally bogus, as is the stock which shows the pin ahead of the band (rifle feature) as opposd to the band-spring found on all carbines. A complete fake, HUGELY over-priced.

Dick is entirely correct.  This is a Krag Model 1898 Rifle cut down by civilians for Hunting.  Current value should be $300-350 for utility.

This is something that has frustrated me since my youth:  Utility Krags being portrayed and priced as something Collectable by people who should know better.

Ironically, that banded front sight base is interesting to me.  The blade is strangely positioned or distorted by shadow.  However, the base appears similar to 1901 Springfield proto-type.

(My hunch is that Springfield made a quantity of these early front sight bases and they eventually ended up as scrap and were used by gun smiths or surplus gun dealers.  I could be entirely wrong.  But, that banded sight base is unusual and of good quality).

---

You guys are great.  thank you

May I ask what you look for to determine that this carbine is a cut down?  I would really like to learn how to see with a critical eye, and what I should be looking for.  thanks

Ken

Some basics:
1.  A Krag Carbine will have a barrel exactly 22 inches (muzzle to closed-bolt face). 
2.  A solid Carbine barrel band held in place by a flat spring inletted into stock.
3.  A properly contoured muzzle crown and front-sight base brazed with subtle 'dove-tail' onto barrel.
4.  A Carbine rear sight known to have appeared on a given Carbine Model.
5.  A serial number close to a 'block' of known Carbines.  (Model 1899 marked receivers were built as Carbines).
6.  A stock that is not 'plugged' at the forearm tip.  A steel pin through the stock, in front of the barrel-band, indicates a cut-down rifle stock.

  Go to the KCA Website Main page and select the tab "Photos" to see a lot of features and details.  Start a Krag reference Library, read and study.  Poyer's $20 Book is a cheap start.

Some 1899 Carbine pics and 1896 pic to help:

---

these are great and very helpful.  thank you

and I have to say that the 96 is a jaw dropping beauty!!

The model 1899 was a 'sporterized' carbine I was able to get original parts and restore.

The model 1896 is not mine, sob.

Does this rear sight, barrel band and receiver look correct for a 1898 Carbine?  The serial number is in the mid-120,000.  thank you

Ken

---

sorry, sent the posting before I finished my thought.  to me the rear sight looks like a like a 1902 sight.  Were 98 carbines ever retro-fitted with a later sight?  thank you

Ken

It's possible - the sight appears to be a 1902C, but I don't like the "C".

IMHO:  This 1902 sight is a fake combination of parts.

  I believe it is a model 1902 top (rod/bayonet 1903 Springfield leaf, actually) on an model 1898 rifle sight base.  (The elevation ramps are too high for a carbine sight).  The "C" stamps are incorrect and show disruption of metal.  (They have been added after finish).  There should only be a "C" on the side of the base.  The model 1902 carbine sight does not have a "C" on the eye-piece.  Only 1,000 model 1902 carbine sights were made.

It does appear to be an 1899 'long forearm' carbine stock.  These were used on 1899 carbines and as replacements on model 1898 carbines that were 'updated' to 1899 carbine configuration.
  The barrel band appears to be an 1899 carbine band, but, it is on backwards.  A "U" should be visible on the right side of the band to assist correct assembly.
  The Model 1898 carbine is one of the most faked Krags, since, only 5,000 were made.  It is always important to see a clear picture of the muzzle/front sight area to verify a real carbine barrel.
  With that fake rear sight, I'd run away from this one!  I don't like that front sight screw either.

---

Were the "c" markings ever faked?  Please tell me more about what you do not like.

thanks

Krag carbine sights were stamped before final finishing and browning (bluing).  Marking ("C") should be clean with no disruption of metal.
  Here is a picture of a real model 1902 carbine sight.  There is only one "C".  (This sight does have the 1903 style of elevation knob, a common repair).:

---

Admittedly a small point, but ditto on the screw. Also, compare the shape of the curvature of the ramps. That sight has been ground down from a rifle one.

As to whether carbines are ever faked, the answer, sadly, is a resounding "yes".

One sellar stated that 03 rear sights were frequently added to Krags when they went through an armory refit.  Is there any truth to that?

I don't think the bogus carbine sight had the base 'ramp curvature' ground down.  Someone has simply put a 1902 (rod bayonet 1903) sight leaf on a model 1898 rifle sight base (and put two fake 'c' stamps on it).

  This was not done by Springfield Armory.  The model 1898 sights were for a higher velocity .30-40 cartridge that proved too 'hot' for the Krag.  The model 1898 sights were taken out of service.  The leafs had the eye piece re-contoured and were used on model 1902 bases and are a variant of the model 1902 sight.  The 1898 bases have the wrong curvature for the standard .30-40 cartridge.  I imagine the bases were put aside as scrap.

(p.s. The early 'rod-bayonet' Springfield sights had a short career and were replaced with the 1905 sights.  The 1903 leafs and locking knobs show up on Krag model 1902 rear sights that probably required arsenal repair.  These minor parts were interchangeable).

1.  Photo showing an 1898 rifle sight base with a 1902 leaf.  (I put this together to salvage parts on a 'cut-down shooter'). 
2.  It appears to match the bogus carbine sight 'kw64' inquired about.

---

so are you saying the sight on this 98 carbine could have been a result of armory work, but the "c" is definitely not armory work?  Do I have that right?  I have a hard time seeing much difference between the sight you posted and the photo from the (supposedly) 98 carbine.  thanks

I'm saying the sight you posted was made in someone's basement.  (Not Springfield's).  It is not right. - IMHO

1.  Too many 'c's

2.  Bare disrupted metal around stamped 'c'.

3.  'Curved ramp' of rear-sight base is too tall.  (On a 1902 carbine sight, the top of the 'curved ramp' is almost level with the graduated face of the sight-leaf, when leaf is in lowest position).

I concur with Butlersrangers in all regards. The gun is NOT right, and no amount of wishing so, or arguing, will make it true. When I said it was a "possible" (simply because it falls into the accepted range for 1898 Carbines) I had not yet seen the cut-down stock, wrong front sight, and "funny" rear sight. While the receiver MAY have once been on a carbine (and no one can say for sure about that) the rest of the gun is a hump job by an ignorant person who was looking to score some extra bucks.

This whole scenario perfectly illustrates my long-held conviction that novice Krag collectors should stay away from "1898 Carbines", period. That model is a minefield, way too easy to fake, even badly like the seller of this one, who did not even bother to use a carbine stock.

'kw64' / Ken:  The water has gotten a bit muddy because you introduced a second Krag in this thread.  Details of the two Krags have gotten blurred together.  I don't think we have ever seen the Muzzle Area of this 2nd Krag.  I also get the sense that a 'Seller' is trying to persuade you a likely fake is real.

I have a feeling I should stick to an 1899 since there is alot less fakery going on there.  Having said that I have seen a few odd looking 99's too.  There is a learning curve here and I am definitely on the beginning of it!  thank you all.