Parashooter you are correct sir!  Thank you for the explanation and illustrations!!!

After my last posting I took a look at my 1896 rifle and carbine sights and realized my error.

Just too busy getting the yard ready for winter before I could post my mistake.

Here's some side-by-side pics.

Interesting note... The front of the carbine sight measured 0.23 of an inch while the front of the rifle sight measured 0.20 of an inch.

Is there any way to determine if the cleaning rod in this rifle is an original or a repop?  I have not found markings of any kind on this rod.

There was an earlier post where dimensions for a Krag (I believe from an 1894 manual which I haven't yet gotten a copy of) were compared to an Argentine cleaning rod.  I've taken the 'Krag' measurements from that post, added a column that has measurements Joe Poyer has in his book, and a 3rd column with measurements from the cleaning rod I have.


                             Krag            Poyer's Book      This One

      Total Length      29 5/8            29.5 / 29.25      25 9/16
    Rod Diameter      0.196            .2" -> .189      .199 - .201*
   Head Diameter      0.259            .267               .266 - .268*
      Head Length      1.165            .95                  .95 to start of taper
Head Slot Length      0.430            .410               .430
  Head Slot Width      0.120            .110               .110
   Thread Rebate      0.181            .179                .175
              Thread      24TPI            26TPI               24TPI

* I found slight variations in the diameter along the length of the rod (or head) due to differences in corrosion, 'patina', etc.

Any thoughts on whether this is original or not?

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 6:53pm:


I don't know what I was thinking (or not thinking) with that one.  I'm surprised I forgot to take a closeup of something this easy to get to.  Let me know if you want some additional photos.

The threads and head shape of your Krag 'cleaning-rod' look vey good to me. The area, where the patina color suddenly changes, appears to be the point where the rod clears the front barrel-band. The patina color looks very consistent with that of the barrel and front band.

IMHO - It has been on that rifle for a long time and looks legitimate.

(Others, on the KCA Forum, know a lot more about the early Krags than I do).

Boomer - Your excellent photos have been very educational. Your Krag is a wonderful 'time capsule' with a complete and correct bolt, its original serial numbered side-plate, and great non-updated features.

I even like the 'chip' missing from the Toe of your stock. This shows why the later Krag butt-plate was a 'curved one.

Good advice has been given in terms of just putting Linseed Oil on the wood and just wiping the metal patina with a quality gun oil.

I would advise contacting Movieman630 - aka 'Grandpa's Gun Parts' and seeing if he has a suitable front Stacking-Swivel and screw for an early Krag. A loose model 1892 rear-sight would be nice item to keep with your "Gem", just to show 'evolution'. (But, leave your Krag with the parts it came with)!

Thanks for sharing.

Hey, what history came with it and how was it acquired??

p.s. I love this picture: it tells volumes!

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

I haven't reached out to Movieman630 directly, but I have checked 'Grandpa's Gun Parts' website.  They have a stacking swivel listed for an 1896, but not an 1892.  If I can't find an 1892 soon, I will put an 1896 on it for display until I find one that is correct.


butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Sadly, I have no history whatsoever - acquired at Rock Island Auctions.  I suspect it was in an old collection they were liquidating.  I may have paid too much, but it went for less than I expected.  Part 2 of that statement keeps me happy regardless of part 1 

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

My wife went with me when we picked the rifle up.  She was thrilled (ok, that's an exaggeration) with the rifle until she noticed the chunk of wood missing.  She wasn't happy about that until I explained how it told a story about the history of Krag rifles.

On another note, I will be taking some additional pictures later today that I will use to ask the next (final?) question I have about this rifle (correctness).  As a teaser, I will tell you the source of my question is visible in this photo.

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Thanks for that.  I try to provide good photo's whenever I can... they say a lot more in less time than I can type, and most folks like them more.  That's one of the reasons I still can't believe I didn't give any decent closeups of the cleaning rod earlier.

And since you've seen pretty much everything else on this rifle, here's the naked butt with no lightening holes.  There is a marking from a previous owner that appears to have been made with a sharpie or something similar.

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

The butt plate is about .08" thick (it tapers at the edges), which matches the dimension Joe Poyer gives in his book. I haven't been able to find when they changed the screw type.  Did they change the screw being used when they changed to the toed butt plate?  Maybe this is right for originally issued with a round headed screw, which was then 'improved' to a flat screw.