Carbine sight ridiculousness

[madsenshooter]

http://www.ebay.com/itm/290868768936?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649

The sight is an 1898 carbine base with a 1902 eyepiece. The 98 sights were only used on 1899 carbines, and most had their sights changed before they left the armory from what I've read.

This same seller had a 96 carbine sight that brought less! http://www.ebay.com/itm/290868766968?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

A week to ten days ago I saw a Krag sight bring nearly the same $240+. I did note something unique about that one though. In addition to the serrations or knurling on the side, and right now I can't remember which pattern it had, there were notches cut inside the groove that the pin on the slider rides in.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, the 96C which sold was a repro, and not a real good one at that, so I guess the price reflected same. Also, kudos to the seller for being up front about it, rather than hiding behind the "I'm not an expert in these" defense, and letting people take their chances, as so many sellers do.

For myself, I'd rather have a real 96R sight than something phony. Hard to figure where all the 1896C sights went to, as they have been scarce/rare for many, many years. What is not so apparent is that the 1898C sight is probably even rarer.

[madsenshooter]

I didn't look at the 96 carbine pics Dick, but now I see. E-bay is odd, I've gotten over $300 for Lyman Tru-Lock rings! I've seen quite a few of these 98 carbine sights slide by recently, either whole or parts of them.

[Kragrifle]

OK, have to ask. I am holding both a 1902 and 1898 carbine rear sight. The base on the one sold looks just like mine. The bases look very similar, but there is a slight difference in countour. However, the real differences can only be seen looking under the base. My 1902 has a tightened knob that is an older one with the groove cut versus the one sold which has the newer knob.

[Kragrifle]

Just noticed that the 1902 base is a bit higher than the 1898, but the slide on the pictured sight is forward just a bit so base "looks" lower. It looks real to me. What am I missing?

[Dick Hosmer]

I had noticed the forward slide too, but I do not think it is on the curve enough to have raised the top of the leaf sufficient to clear a 1902C base to the extent shown. The 1898C base is actually below the leaf when slide is off the rails. Do a little mental visual gymnastics and I think you will agree that the leaf could never sink below the base shown as it would have to do, were the base a 1902. Also, FWIW, the 1898 "C" is usually on the right side (as pictured) while that of the 1902 is usually on the left. The acid test, of course, is the bottom view which we don't have.

[Kragrifle]

"C" is always on the right side (side of the gate). Only way to tell about the base is to look at the bottom, two cut outs on 1898, one on the 1902. Looks like a good 1902 carbine sight to me. The 1896 carbine sight mentioned is interesting. Probably not correct, but you really have to look at these. Every time I think I have seen them all, I stand corrected!

[Dick Hosmer]

Here's a picture of a correct 1898C sight with leaf (which is not bent like the one on Ebay) all the way down, for comparison:

[Kragrifle]

The Ebay sight is interesting. It has the later knob on the slide, not the altered early knob. It also has the increased number of gradations on the leaf like the latest 1902 sight which was the model if you will for the rod bayonet rear sight. It does give the impression of being bent, but I wonder if that is just the photo angle. Anyway, interesting discussion.

[jon_norstog]

Thanks for the photo, Dick. Learn something every day!

jn