Krag Rifle Sale question

[GrinerBros]

According to the Military Dates of Manufacturing website, my 1898 Krag was built in 1902. Is the law that I can sell it without an FFL that it has to be built before 1898 or is it that it has to be 100 years old?

Thanks in advance, Griner.

[M2Phil]

It'll have to go through an FFL if you're selling it out of state, and depending on WVa's laws, maybe in state as well. The cut date for antique firearms is sometime during 1898, and for Krags anyway the cut comes at a certain serial number. I don't know what it is offhand, but if yours was manufactured in 1902, it won't fall into the antique category in either case.

[Rick the Librarian]

For reasons best known to themselves, the BATF has divided up the 1898 Krag (which in my opinion shows the stupidity of the whole list!). IIRC before about serial number 158,000, the Krag is an antique and does not need an FFL or C&R to make a transfer; after that serial number it is not considered and antique and you must use an FFL or C&R to mail or transfer out of state.

Other members can probably correct me as to the exact serial number "break".

[Dick Hosmer]

152670, according to Flayderman, which, so far as I know, was never challenged by the ATF. You are correct, the split shows exposes the UTTER stupidity of the government. How a difference of one number changes something from a harmless "who cares" door prop to a registered/tracked fire-spitting monster, liable to harm small children on sight, is so far beyond rational thinking as to defy description.

There are many such examples of course - LOTS of guns were made both before and after the cutoff.

[Rick the Librarian]

152670, according to Flayderman, which, so far as I know, was never challenged by the ATF. You are correct, the split shows exposes the UTTER stupidity of the government. How a difference of one number changes something from a harmless "who cares" door prop to a registered/tracked fire-spitting monster, liable to harm small children on sight, is so far beyond rational thinking as to defy description.

There are many such examples of course - LOTS of guns were made both before and after the cutoff.

Thanks, Dick - knew it was in the 150s somewhere. I'm quite in agreement on the rest of the "editorial", as well!! :D

[GrinerBros]

Thanks for the info fellows. At the SN of 3760XX this one will need a FFL or a C&R to ship. I'm waiting for an answer from a friend and if he says no I will list it on the seller page.

[Mark Daiute]

I didn't know the serial number but the cut-off date wise is 01 January 1899.

M

[psteinmayer]

Not that I would ever sell either of my 1898s... but one falls under and one falls over! Both will do the same job, as will an 1873 trapdoor, 1856 musket, or even a smooth bore flintlock! I agree 100% with Dick's comments also!!!

[11mm]

On the other hand, let's not make too much of a case about it, or the Gov't will decide that all such rifles, where some are made after 1898, will then be considered "modern". Let sleeping bureaucrats lie....

[madsenshooter]

Agreed, I don't wish to be forced to register the antiques I have that will soon become my grandson's.

[psteinmayer]

Grandsons???? I thought you were going to leave the K31 to me???? Whats up with that????? Heehee

[madsenshooter]

It has to do with sometimes seeing two bullseyes vertically where there was only one, when I was shooting yesterday. This might be my last trip to Perry.

[Kragrifle]

Careful guys! You know who is listening!!!
:)

[Dick Hosmer]

Careful guys! You know who is listening!!!
:)

And has been for years - we're ALL screwed - see you in camp. Try to avoid the showers.

[madsenshooter]

Oh, I definitely will Dick, found out back in the 90s there's nothing but cold water in there! It was spring, the Ohio state championships, we got rained on and I thought I could get a shower to get a bit warmer. Wrong!

[Dick Hosmer]

Wrong camp, wrong showers (hint: think Zyklon B)

[IditarodJoe]

152670, according to Flayderman, which, so far as I know, was never challenged by the ATF.
I wonder if the whereabouts of 152670 has ever been reported. :icon_scratch:

[Rick the Librarian]

I wonder if the whereabouts of 152670 has ever been reported. :icon_scratch:

I had a guy email me a couple of years back, saying he had been offered Rock Island M1903 #285,507 (the rifle that represented the "cutoff" between low number and high number RIA M1903s. I never heard back if he bought it or not.

[Fred]

Makes you wonder why he bothered to email you in the first place. Was he just wanting to brag and get a response for his ego? Who knows...? :icon_rolleyes:

[Rick the Librarian]

He wondered what I thought it was worth - apparently the seller wanted an offer.

[Dick Hosmer]

Is that the highest bad one or the lowest good one - no such thing as between! :-)

[Rick the Librarian]

I believe the first "good" one, if memory serves me right.