There is a Carbine on a web sight that is an 1898. By the serial number it dates Sept-1898. However, it has a 1902 sight. Could that be correct?

remington:  Many of the 1898 Carbines were "up-graded" to 1899 Carbine configuration when they required overhaul.  These 1898 Carbines will be found with the long for-end 1899 style carbine stock.  I imagine 1896, 1901, and 1902 Carbine rear sights were all utilized on re-builds (with appropriate hand-guards).  The re-built Carbines are legitimate issue arms.  Just not as desirable as the unaltered version.

remington:  I've been watching that carbine myself.  The owner does not specify the condition of the bore.  I believe the serial # is 132592 (Sept. 1898).  The exterior metal and wood appear quite good.  I believe it is a correct up-graded 1898 Carbine.

psteinmayer wrote on Jul 26^th, 2012 at 1:44am:



And that's the problem with the "1898 Carbine".

You almost never know if one is real, or not. The safest position is to assume it isn't.

All one needs to do is take a common 1899 and fit it with a believable receiver - voila - instant "rare" gun. In that condition, if marked 1899, the price would probably be at triple what it is now.

FWIW, there are no (as in zip, zilch, nada) carbines known between 131535 and 133725. Caveat emptor!

Thank you again gentlemen. I also get a refinished feeling and that barrel band looks awfully "newish". Charlie

This will give you some idea of the odds:

5003   1898 Carbines were made, with short stocks, etc. Very soon after production they were called back and restocked.

Around 160+ are recorded.

13 are known @ 118xxx
52 are known @ 119xxx
49 are known @ 120xxx
Everything else is in single digits, but there are apparently significant blips at 125xxx and 131xxx.

Clearly, that (118-120xxx) is where the bulk of them probably occur (SA made arms in batches, based on the quarter of the year, and changing over the stocking machinery) upset only by pulling receivers from the bins using FILO).

The lowest verified specimen is 112864; the highest 134317, giving a difference of 21453 (plus some statistical allowance for not being positive of the high/low) say 22000 - dividing by 5003 = 4.4, which inescapably leads to the conclusion that around 70% of the offerings are, shall we say,"incorrect"!

Joe Farmer says he can positively ID genuine 1898 Carbines. When he makes such an unequivocal statement, I tend to believe it to be accurate, though in the case he has not shared the method with me.

So - it's a crap-shoot. 

Charlie, Poyer's book states left, but Brophy states right side of base. Since the bases for the '98 & '02 are basically the same with different leafs. The difference in the base for the carbine is the height of the base. The '96, '98 & '02 carbine has the C on the right side and '01 it is on the left side. According to "The Krag Rifle" by Lt.Col. William Brophy. Now that the new photos have been added, one can see the back of the sight. Your call, John

Actually it shouldn't take long.  If I took a city phone book and tore it into pieces and then gave you 9 pages it's possible that 7 are sequential and the other two random from later in the book.  "Based on documented records we can say that the bulk of the people in Colusa had last names starting with the letters B, C, and D with a few having last names starting with H and some with S.  If you find a letter sourced from anyone with the last name Thompson it's likely a forgery."

Under 200 serials from a base of 5,000 isn't statistically significant. Especially given those 200 will be in larger groups on single records.  So if I find an issue document with 30 guns, 3 chests, it's well over 10% of found numbers and paints an inaccurate picture of the range.

FWIW Mook's list had him owning 132231 - listed as a carbine.  I own 131545 and I'm comfortable with it.

It's unsafe to poke into the range with SRS's records and draw conclusions.  Best to establish the bookends instead.