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

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).

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?????

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

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.