Hello Krag Friends,

This is my 2nd posting.

Am doing a Short Rifle build. For the sake of economy, not necessarily originality nor collect-ability, does it really matter if my short rifle has the rifle rear sight over a carbine rear sight? Is there a difference in Drift (Esp with the 1901 rear sight)? I do not anticipate firing beyond 200 yards, but 300 and 600 at times, just for a fun challenge.

Thanks,
Jason
Krag New guy

Welcome, Jason,

You ask a good and important question that ties into the vast array of Krag sight changes that occurred over its 12 year life span along with subsequent front sight blade changes that corresponded to the rear sight used. The carbine sights were set up to shoot differently than the rifle sights because they had shorter barrels and were designed for shooting, generally, at closer targets. So, the carbine rear sight is supposed to use a specific front blade. Whenever you change from one rear sight to another, you risk having a mismatch and not being able to shoot to point of aim.

This also depends on what ammo you use. The carbines frequently are shot with a lighter bullet and the rifles usually are shot with a heavier bullet. This is not absolute but a general design and standard practice. You can use whatever you want and work up a good load for your specific firearm with powder and bullet.

But, we would need to see good pictures of your Krag and sights to answer more specifically. Good pictures include the muzzle and front sight from different angles as well as the Krag receiver and each sight.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Krags! More info to follow.

Here lies the "problem".......I am building a Short Rifle from parts. The used/cut barrel is 22 5/8" long (See my post about bluing a Krag receiver for photo). I am told by the seller that the rear sights holes are good with good, original taping. I will be installing an M1903 Springfield Front Sight base and front sight blade.
Am currently bidding on a correctly marked 1901 rear Carbine sight. Will advise if won or not. I could also go with the 1898 rear sight. I just want something that is windage adjustable.

The receiver will be an 1898 175XXX.

I ask the question if there is any kind of problem using the rifle sights on a shorter barrel, as it would be a cost saving measure on an un-historic, non-restoration build.

[quote author=093637395E0 link=1544460562/1#1 date=1544474282]Welcome, Jason,

You ask a good and important question that ties into the vast array of Krag sight changes that occurred over its 12 year life span along with subsequent front sight blade changes that corresponded to the rear sight used. The carbine sights were set up to shoot differently than the rifle sights because they had shorter barrels and were designed for shooting, generally, at closer targets. So, the carbine rear sight is supposed to use a specific front blade. Whenever you change from one rear sight to another, you risk having a mismatch and not being able to shoot to point of aim.

This also depends on what ammo you use. The carbines frequently are shot with a lighter bullet and the rifles usually are shot with a heavier bullet. This is not absolute but a general design and standard practice. You can use whatever you want and work up a good load for your specific firearm with powder and bullet.

But, we would need to see good pictures of your Krag and sights to answer more specifically. Good pictures include the muzzle and front sight from different angles as well as the Krag receiver and each sight.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Krags! More info to follow.[/quote

IMHO - Unless you get a 1901 carbine sight for an absolute bargain, there is little point in paying a premium price to put a carbine sight on a 'parts gun'. (It will not make things 'more right').

The 1901 carbine sight is hard to find 'loose' and will bring $200 to $500. The 1901 rifle sight is plentiful and commonly sells for around $75.

The 1901 rifle sight has built in provision for bullet drift. The 1901 carbine sight has no drift provision. This is because the 22 inch carbine barrel did not exhibit the extreme bullet drift shown by the 30 inch Krag rifle.

The 1903 Springfield 'banded' front-sight base can accept several different heights of front blade.
It is not unusual to have to set the Krag rear-sight leaf to 200 yards, in order to shoot to point of aim at 50 yards, with a 1903 front-sight.
This is due to the 1903 front sight normally being taller than Krag front-sights.

The range distances, at which you are intending shooting your Krag, can probably be accommodated by altering your front blade height (with a file) and by memorizing (as well as, recording) the elevation setting that centers your group on the target.

Attached photos:
1. Comparison of 1901 carbine and rifle sights - note how rifle leaf (bottom sight) inclines the eye-piece to the left, as the slide moves up the leaf.
2. A 50 yard target shot with 1903 Springfield front-sight on a 22" Krag barrel. The 1902 rear-sight leaf set at 100 and then 200 yards to move group to point of aim.
3. 1903 Springfield front-sight base and commercial blade on 22" Krag barrel.
 

---

'jason60chev' - In an earlier post, you mentioned also considering the model 1898 sight.

IMHO - The model 1898 is a rather bizarre sight and distracting with its three sighting notches. It is rather hard to find a complete one.

Perhaps, you actually meant the model 1902 sight, which is windage adjustable and easy to find at a reasonable price. It is a convenient sight and preferred by some of the KCA members, who shoot.

Photos of the m-1898 and m-1902 are attached. Many 1902 sight eyepieces were equipped with, the so-called, "Sgt. Peep" feature.

---

get a nice 1901 or 1902 rear sight, slap it on that rifle, put a tall blade on the front 1905 sight, then "bring up" your rear sight till it hits where you want. Whatever ammo you use it is not likely to be calibrated to the rear sight BUT MAYBE, if the front sight blade is tall enough you could file it down till it is a match. let us know how it works out for you.

I shoot nothing but cast so I just need to know my dope, like 200 yards is good for a hit at 100 yards.

God luck

Does anyone know if or how well a 1901 Rear sight fits into the 1898/02 hand guard opening?

Thanks for your post.

Kinda the point to my original question about making any real difference between the Carbine/Rifle sight. No....this will not be a "restoration" nor is it any kind of "Historical" or even a "Correct" rifle. Have exposure enough to tall of that with my 1903s and M1s. I just like the full length stock on the carbine and am looking for a project. I may pay more for it, but price isn;t so much the deal maker/breaker. 

I would like a sight with windage adjustments and I have a PJ O'Hare sight micrometer that i could use with the 1901.


- Unless you get a 1901 carbine sight for an absolute bargain, there is little point in paying a premium price to put a carbine sight on a 'parts gun'. (It will not make things 'more right').

The 1901 carbine sight is hard to find 'loose' and will bring $200 to $500. The 1901 rifle sight is plentiful and commonly sells for around $75.

The 1901 rifle sight has built in provision for bullet drift. The 1901 carbine sight has no drift provision. This is because the 22 inch carbine barrel did not exhibit the extreme bullet drift shown by the 30 inch Krag rifle.

The 1903 Springfield 'banded' front-sight base can accept several different heights of front blade.
It is not unusual to have to set the Krag rear-sight leaf to 200 yards, in order to shoot to point of aim at 50 yards, with a 1903 front-sight.
This is due to the 1903 front sight normally being taller than Krag front-sights.

The range distances, at which you are intending shooting your Krag, can probably be accommodated by altering your front blade height (with a file) and by memorizing (as well as, recording) the elevation setting that centers your group on the target.


2. A 50 yard target shot with 1903 Springfield front-sight on a 22" Krag barrel. The 1902 rear-sight leaf set at 100 and then 200 yards to move group to point of aim.
3. 1903 Springfield front-sight base and commercial blade on 22" Krag barrel.
  [/quote

Jason60chev wrote on Dec 12^th, 2018 at 12:41pm:

Does anyone know if or how well a 1901 Rear sight fits into the 1898/02 hand guard opening?

It doesn't. I have an original 1898 handguard that was modified for the 1901 rear sight, if you want it message me.

Krag hand-guards are 'sight specific'.

Lots of good information and photos accessible on KCA main page, accessible by 'clicking' on 'crossed rifles' at top of page.

Here is a photo, comparing various Krag hand-guards, from KCA 'photos'.

---

It doesn't. I have an original 1898 handguard that was modified for the 1901 rear sight, if you want it message me.[/quote]

The handguard I am talking about is currently on a rifle with the 1902 rear sight. Enough wood was carefully taken away in front of where the 1902 ends to fit the 1901 rear sight.

Hello Mark,
I have a 1898/1902 hand guard, already. Could you maybe send a pic of the modification done on yours? I could probably duplicate it. Thanks



Mark_Daiute wrote on Dec 12^th, 2018 at 4:52pm:

It doesn't. I have an original 1898 handguard that was modified for the 1901 rear sight, if you want it message me.

The handguard I am talking about is currently on a rifle with the 1902 rear sight. Enough wood was carefully taken away in front of where the 1902 ends to fit the 1901 rear sight.

[/quote]

I have been shooting a shortened rifle with a 23.5" barrel. The remaining fore stock and accompanying parts have been moved back so that when viewed from the front they are apparently equidistant an uncut rifle.

The rifle is wearing a 1902 rear sight, a m1903 band with an uncrowned muzzle. The stock grip at one time appears to have worn an additional wood or steel grip that has been removed long ago with a screw hole remaining. There is also what appears to be some marks that were applied outside of the grip prior to when it was installed. They read R.I.A-11 or something to that effect. The wood is also marked JFC on the port side.

Interestingly enough the rear sight base and leaf have apparently been faked at some point having a small C imprinted on both parts. At any rate, with a less than stellar bore and frosted muzzle the rifle will drop them in all day long with a 03 f/s blade at 100 and 200yds to p.o.a. with the sight graduations provided. I am using 4064 and 180 Hornady spitzers.

I always wondered why someone would have shortened the rifle to mimic a correct one by leaving all the other parts in place unless it was damaged or they just wanted a handier version to suit their own needs. It's a very pleasant shooter. 

Two things come to mind about your rifle. One is that hoards of these Krags were bought back in the 20s and 30s for a couple dollars each and cut down to make into easy-to-carry hunting rifles. All kinds of cut downs were made by well known gunsmiths as well as many done in garages and basements. Military Krag rifles were long and heavy. So, shorter barreled ones were easier to hunt with. Any length barrel was better than a long one.

The other consideration is that the muzzle was damaged, as you implied, and someone cut an inch or two off to recrown and make more accurate. That may be why your rifle is an accurate one. Even terribly worn and pitted bores can produce good shooters if the crown is clean and symmetric.

There may be other reasons why yours was cut the exact way it was but these are two possibilities. There are all kinds of sporterized Krags for sale out there and many are great shooters.

It would be nice to know more about the "faked" rear sight. These have popped up now and then with mainly 1896 carbine sights since they are so valuable. Can you post some pictures of this sight and the faked "c"s? The Krag Collector's Forum website has some pictures of faked "c" stamps for comparison. The "c" is often humped up and proud around the stamping compared to a clean deep strike on authentic ones.

Some Veterans groups had their Krags shortened to look more like 1903 Springfield rifles.

Then of course, there are also movie prop companies.

Not the best pictures but the suspect "C" can be seen. Also, where the grip had been added on, two types of finishes can be detected. Hard to tell but the script "p" has been struck in a slightly lower position than my other rifles to offset where the grip was added on.
I always think whats been done to these old rifles in what I consider modern terms but they certainly were a source of delight well into the past. The wrist proof is actually relatively clear with the right angle, I'm just not much of a photographer.

With the exception of the front sight post all the other parts associated with this type of rifle have been included when it was cut down. Receiver says 1894 on it then it was all pieced together afterwards.

  (You need to Login   (You need to Login
  (You need to Login   (You need to Login
  (You need to Login   (You need to Login
  (You need to Login   (You need to Login

What little I see of your rear-sight base appears to be height and curvature used for Rifle base.

"C" on leaf and base says it all .... fake. Model 1902 leaf for rifle and leaf for carbine were identical and not marked.

Base is poorly marked and in totally wrong area.

Let me know if I need to do a comparison with my sights.

Just willing help help out.

Not very astonishing to me but what is intriguing is what period of time would faking of these parts have become popular?
I'll speculate the rifle has been together for some time just judging by its appearance. When the wood was cut down the exposed stock lightening channel was filled with what looks like very fine sawdust and some sort of pre- plastics binder and the second finish is what appears to be a red clay or naturally pigmented mess of paint or something.
It looks great.

It's bad enough that someone would stupidly try to fake a carbine rear sight, I know it's done. But, how stupid can someone be to actually have a near correct size "c" stamp and put it somewhere completely wrong! At least find where a real one is stamped and try to replicate it.

The great thing is, though, that you have a great shooter which is one of the wonderful things Krags are know for!

Thanks for sharing.

Hello Mark,
I have a 1898/1902 hand guard, already. Could you maybe send a pic of the modification done on yours? I could probably duplicate it. Thanks

If your handguard is an original I would strongly urge you not to mess with it

I have acquired a 1901 Carbine rear sight. Here are some photos for everyone's scrutiny. Comments, pro-con (original/fake) are welcome.

Seems that the "C" on the slide of the ladder is missing. Cannot zoom in close enough, but something seems to be there. Maybe it was worn away? Ladder has elevation to 2300 and no drifting. From what I can see, there is a small "C" on the slide in the correct place.

---

'Jason60chev' - It looks like you got the real thing.

---

butchered/altered handguard

When this came to me it had a 1901 rear sight in it. I would rather have a whole 1901 handguard or a whole 1898 handguard, obviously, if you want this one I would gladly trade and give you some cash so that a another handguard does not suffer the fate of this one. Be well and good luck no matter what

---

another shot altered handguard as requested

---

and another

---

last of  them

---