You'll find them both ways which are considered correct. I like the looks of the headless cocking piece but just because it is different than normal.

Not something to worry about. there are often other issues more important like matching patina on the metal and stock and condition of the bore. The rear sight is a big concern about correctness, also for carbines especially.

Hopefully there is nothing altered from original military condition with the stock or barrel or front sight. All Model 1899s were carbines originally.

If you can post pictures, we'd love to see what you have. Welcome!

IIRC - Neither Brophy or Mallory claimed the 'Headless Cocking Piece' to be "standard" on model 1899 carbines.
Brophy incorrectly stated that it was only found on Model 1899 carbines.
 
(Although it most commonly is found on some model 1899 carbines, it can also be found on some rifles).

In reality, it was an economy move that proved to be more expensive to manufacture than the 'knob-version' and was discontinued.

It would originally have appeared on only a narrow (serial number) range of model 1898 rifles and model 1899 carbines.

Mallory wrote that the headless cocking piece was the idea of Lt. T. C. Dickson and developed in 1899. It was approved in late April, 1899, and disapproved in October, 1900.

Logic would indicate it to be "correct" only on rifles and carbines made during and slightly after that time period (until inventory was exhausted).

Although, with arsenal refurbishment practices, if the 'headless cocking-pieces' were just treated as a standard component, they could have ended up Krags outside the narrow production period.

FWIW - My 'headless cocking-piece' came off a 'cut-down' model 1898 rifle that was made in 1900.

Mike, the way I understand the use of this headless cocking piece is that Springfield Armory was trying to save money and redesigned this piece for that purpose. It was initially a standard issue but, when it was found to be more expensive and not any big advantage over the original cocking piece, the headless one was discontinued.

Not a big deal but Butlers stated what we all go on as the historic use of this piece. It was used briefly for the 1898 rifle and the 1899 carbine over a certain unknown serial number range then switched back.

It's one of those brief anomalies in the Krag history that complicates things but is towards the irrelevant side. I guess it's easiest to accept it and move on to more important concerns.

If you dig deeper and find any more relevant history on this piece, we'd love to update our understanding of its development and use.

I have a couple 1899 carbines with the headless cocking piece and I'm leaving them the way I bought them. They look different and are probably correct and original to these carbines.

Hi, Thanks for all the responses. I'm not trying to argue the fact that the cocking piece was correct or not. Someone is trying to sell and expensive firearm and I'm just trying to learn if it's correct and therefore worth the asking price. It's more than I want to spend, so it's probably a moot point. Whig's first response answered my question, regards, Mike

Mike, I was typing my response to your question at the same time as 'Whig'. Whig's fine information posted first.
I was not trying  to Speak Over his response, Kibitz, or Over-Kill with information.

FWIW:

'Local Boy' has been kind enough to loan me his interesting 'used' copy of Brophy's, "The Krag Rifle".

Bill Brophy signed that book for his friend and noted Krag authority, Bill Mook.

Bill Mook made blunt observations and notations for his own use. Both fine men are now deceased.
So, I see no harm in posting Mook's brief comment on Brophy's reference to the 'knob-less cocking piece' being exclusive to the model 1899 carbine.

(p.s. - A serial number range would allow KCA members to give helpful information to 'vet' this nice looking carbine).