Krag Sight Question

[jerrbear]

New to this Krag forum. I just purchase my 1st Krag this morning. Its a 1898 with SN201309. Nice cartouche stamped JSA1899. Have been getting info from this sight as well as online. My question arises with the sight on this gun. It is a 1901. Would that be correct or has it been changed. When did the 1901 sights start serial number wise. Fits handguard perfectly unless that has been changed too. No arsenal stamps of any kind. What would be the correct sight for this gun. No pics at this point yet.:icon_scratch:

[dave]

I'm not sure when the 1901 was put on but hang in here, someone will give you the serial number.

[Parashooter]

Any of the issue rifle sights from 1896 to 1902 is "correct" on a U.S. 1898 rifle, since any and all were installed by the arsenal at various times, accompanied by the appropriate handguard. Leave the absurd business of "correcting" a perfectly authentic rifle to the M1 crazies - Krags don't need it.

[Mark Daiute]

and enjoy what is for me the best of the sights! you got lucky.

[psteinmayer]

Amen to that... however I much prefer the 1902!

[jerrbear]

Thanks to all for the replies. I feel a little better about the sight now as I am new to this gun. Only issue I have with the gun now is that a small peice between the bolt and loading plate is broke out. I have seen this before on the Krags on the Gunbroker auction site. Is this a common problem? Other than that the gun is beautiful for its age. Also would anyone have any SRS info on the serial number? Thanks again for any help!

[madsenshooter]

Although it can be done by other means, I think the biggest cause of those missing pieces is people who shoot the guns without checking the tightness of the action screws. The wood shrinks as it dries over the years and God only knows when the last time someone checked them was. In some cases it might have been over 100 years ago!

[sdkrag]

I think most of the wood is damaged during careless dis-assembly. Been there and done that. A little twist or cock in the action when seperating the action and stock and you have yourself a wood chip.

[jon_norstog]

Jerrbear,

Welcome to the world of Krags. My own view is that any mods made at the arsenal or in-service are "correct" and I'm willing to include mods made by state police agency armories. It's all part of the history of an individual weapon.

I, too like the 1901 sight, and did some of my best Krag shooting through that funny little peep.

jn

[ebeeby]

Does the 1901 rear sight have windage adjustment? Will it fit an 1896 handguard?

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes it does, and, no, it will not.

[JOHN42768]

Sorry, no hit on your serial number in SRS. John

[dave]

I think/thought he wanted to know if the sight was "original" when manufactured, not what may or may not be proper as a re-fitting. First ones made had the 96 sight, I believe and then they were fitted with 1901's, correct? I was once told this info but mis-layed or can't find!

[madsenshooter]

First model 98s had 1896 rear sights, then the 1898 rear sight, (some were recalled when the velocity of the ammo was reduced and 1896 sights put back on), then either 1901 or 1902 sights. And of course there are those that never got changed.

[jerrbear]

Thanks John for your help on the SRS. Was crossing my fingers! Dave , You are correct in your assumption. Just trying to figure out how "original" this gun is.

[Kragrifle]

The more likely reason for that piece of wood to be missing is the manuever where the butt is bumped on the ground. This will break out this piece of wood. The tips broken off on either side of the receiver happen when one pulls up on the barrel rather than turning the rifle over to let the receiver fall out. These breaks can be fixed, but making them look good is a challenge.

[dave]

First model 98s had 1896 rear sights, then the 1898 rear sight, (some were recalled when the velocity of the ammo was reduced and 1896 sights put back on), then either 1901 or 1902 sights. And of course there are those that never got changed.

I have three 1898's, 382206 and 400869 have 1901 sights, 117704 has a 1898 unmodified (3 notchs). I was told the first two were correct as made and the 117704 is not. It was Bill Mook who gave me this info over the phone.
I would like to hear from Dick and 5mad on this?

[madsenshooter]

117705 likely started with an 1896 sight. The more powerful load the 1898 sight was graduated for wasn't issued until Oct of 1899 whereas the rifle would have been made around June of 1898.

[jerrbear]

Madsenshooter, What would SN201309 started out with as a sight? Also do you know approximately what month it would have been made?

[madsenshooter]

It would have been made in May 1899. Was Springfield working closely with Frankford arsenal at that time and were they already producing rifles with sights for the 2200fps load that wasn't issued until October? No, they started putting the 98 sights on just a couple months before issuance of the load. So my best guess for yours would be 1896 also.

[ebeeby]

Yes it does, and, no, it will not.

Thanks Dick. I got hold of a windage sight (with pop up peep) and have put a WYB in the want ads for a 1898 hand guard.