OK, I give up...........

[kragnut]

Where'd this front barrel band come from?

[Rick the Librarian]

Looks like a VERY early 1892 upper band - does it have the "hole" for the cleaning rod?

What info can you tell us on the rifle?

[madsenshooter]

Type 1B using Poyer's nomenclature. Used from serial #201 through 2100, when they started using the type with the cut out top. I'm curious if the cleaning rod hole is still there too.

[sdkrag]

IF the band is original you can name your price. I had a fake that was so good it took Bill Mook a couple of weeks to decide. Close to impossible to find.

[Rick the Librarian]

The rifle doesn't look like an 1892 or 1892/96 - I don't see the cut for the cleaning rod or the filled in place for one on an 1892/96. Can you post a picture of the part taken from the muzzle end?

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/100/solid.jpg

[5MadFarmers]

Type 1B using Poyer's nomenclature. Used from serial #201 through 2100, when they started using the type with the cut out top.

Good humor.

[Rick the Librarian]

Good humor.

Are you saying that Poyer's Krag book is about as accurate as his M1903 book?? :D

[5MadFarmers]

More "aspires" to that level....

Poyer and his "types." Types are nonsense. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

I have at least 6 variations of Model of 1892 butt plates. How many "types" does Poyer claim? Six isn't the total - that's just the number I have sitting in a bag.

I have 4 safeties sitting on a shelf. Two are thick and two are thin. Two are 1896 and two are 1892. If you follow Poyer's "types" that means the two thick are one model and the two thin the other. Except of the four I have 1 thick and 1 thin are Model of 1892 whereas 1 thick and 1 thin are Model of 1896. Try fitting those into his "types."

Types are nonsense. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

A particularly stellar example of the fallacy of "types," not Poyer material but it's a nice example, is eagle snap cartridge belts. How many "types" of them? Guess first then continue reading....


Ready?

Based on the blueprints the answer is "over a thousand." How's that for types? Krags aren't much different. Types are bunk.

[Fred]

Bill Mook told me years ago that the first type solid band didn't have a cleaning rod guide hole of steel. He showed a drawing of the first type in his book, Krag Crap, that had no steel hole. I guess the rod just went through a hole in the wood.

[madsenshooter]

When you get that book out with nomenclature more to your liking, that's what we'll use. In the meantime some of us have to make do with what info we have out of books we can afford. But I do understand, I've been seeing little variations in carrier/follower assemblies lately, some of the 98 assemblies have numbers on them, for example a 2 on one, like they could be swapped if a rifle was having a particular problem.

[Rick the Librarian]

More "aspires" to that level....

Poyer and his "types." Types are nonsense. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

Types are nonsense. If they understood the material


.

I couldn't agree more. I often get M1903 questions asking, "I have a Type 6 stock and ..." I usually answer back professing ignorance as to what a "Type 6 stock" is!

When Poyer published his first ed. of his M1903 book, I criticized the use of "Types". As a result, in his second ed., he at least said that the "type" invention was his own. More galling to me was what was obviously a proof-reading error in his first ed. He listed 1920-range serial numbers as 1921, 1921 numbers as 1922, and so forth. When I contacted him about this (expecting him to say that there had been a proofreading goof), he told me (in a quite pompous manner, I thought) that there was more than one way to interpret the data! I noticed it was corrected in the next edition.

When I did a review of his M1903 book on Amazon, his reply compared me to the Anti-Christ and also insinuated that I step on baby kittens and pull wings off flies. He even got a member of the Remington Society (for reasons unknown) to agree with him.

Needless to say, I'm not a Joe Poyer fan! :D

[5MadFarmers]

When I contacted him about this (expecting him to say that there had been a proofreading goof), he told me (in a quite pompous manner, I thought) that there was more than one way to interpret the data!

From what I can tell it travels in three stages. The first stage is simple typographical or proofreading errors. Then there are "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance..." type errors. His "guessing" at JSA's first name, a swing and a miss, I'll ascribe to that. Then we get to the third stage. This is the stage where one fabricates data outright to support a case. Poyer's trapdoor book:

http://5madfarmers.com/krag_krag/poyer.jpg

The Springfield trapdoor was the board's choice right?

The original report's results:


http://5madfarmers.com/krag_krag/schofield.png

No, it was the Remington.


Needless to say, I'm not a Joe Poyer fan! :D

To quote somebody whose work I respect, the estimable Mr. Beard, Poyer's books are good "for bird cage lining."

Don't get my going full stride on this one....

[5MadFarmers]

Meh, I'll carry it further. I once produced a document from Blunt during the Spanish Fair stating he wanted trapdoor sights to make guns serviceable and he mentioned either 1879 or Buffingtons would do. Mr. Hosmer about had a cow. The thing is they didn't just gather up 1879 sights and install them on rifles, which was apparently the idea of which launched Dick into orbit, they actually fabricated over 5,000 of them. They weren't made as "Saleman's samples" so presumably they were in fact screwed onto rifles. So if one encounters a trapdoor made in 1890 with the 1879 sight one will be told, with sternness, that it's incorrect! That the sight was made in 1898 and screwed on by ordnance workers at an arsenal is apparently not kosher - in spite of the records that it was done.

So what "type" are those sights?

My automobile is 10 years old. If I take it to the dealer and there is something amiss will they give me a new car? No - they fix it. Using the "Correct" parts. Which are the parts made in 2003. If they don't have them? They can make them. When Krags were in use post-1903 they weren't just living on OEM parts - they made parts to support them. One shouldn't assume that they only made the latest model parts either - they made stocks of earlier parts. For earlier guns.

What types would those be? Made 10 years after the first batch were turned out and long after newer bits were screwed onto guns?

Types are bunk. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. "This replaces that" is one of the golden fallacies of this stuff. It never did. They made .50/70 rifle parts in the late 1890s.

Very recently the CMP sold M1 rifles which were substantially new. Very late production and likely unissued. Except some small parts were from much earlier production. The customers asked for the early parts to be replaced with late "correct" types. That's the joke. Those rifles were made with those early parts. WW2 "type" parts being screwed onto mid-1950s rifles to get them out the door using up the sweepings from SA. The CMP abided by the customer wishes and swapped the parts for the "correct" types. The customer is always right. Except when the customer starts believing in "types" and "this replaced that" to a unrealistic level.

Types are nonsense. The 1896 sights which were used after the 1898s were pulled were new production.

Types as used by certain authors, like "interchangeable parts" as understood by the ordinance department, are fallacies. Neither group understood the material.

I guess they go together is some strange fashion because one begot the other. What a strange thought but entirely accurate. The O.D.'s inability to understand interchangeable parts directly led to the fallacy of types.

[Dick Hosmer]

Not wanting to be seen as carrying water for JP, but, from the selections posted, I fail to see the mortal sin. He does not say the arms were listed in order of finish. He does err in saying that the Model 1870 TD was one of the participants - it was simply the Allin/aka OD entry, the word "Model" was not applied until after the trials. And, how do you define "winning"? The Remington may have received more preferences, but, it wasn't ever built in quantity for the US, so did not garner the income/local glory expected. "US Model 1870" was bestowed upon the TD, whether it "won" or not. The deck was always stacked in favor of (pick the) TD entry, because of the musket part availability/interchangability

[5MadFarmers]

The Remington may have received more preferences, but, it wasn't ever built in quantity for the US, so did not garner the income/local glory expected. "US Model 1870" was bestowed upon the TD, whether it "won" or not. The deck was always stacked in favor of (pick the) TD entry, because of the musket part availability/interchangability

Horse hockey on a number of counts.

Dick, I'm going to start off by stating that I have tremendous respect for you and your efforts in the field. When faced with uncomfortable truths people typically go two routes - fingers in ears with "I'm not listening" or grudging acceptance. "Grudging" as it takes time to "un-accept" previous accepted truths. You've never been an ear plugger. We're all hard headed so the grudging is pretty universal for group two and I'll include myself.

It's a fabrication of data to support a position - a position that Poyer clearly takes. He's attempting to make the case that the O.D. wasn't playing funny games in favor of the trapdoor and he states that pretty clearly. We know that to not be the case but his books were written from that view. He then poisons the well by claiming that "serious researchers" are on that side. Poyer and "serious researcher" shouldn't be included in the same sentence. Poyer and "researcher" shouldn't be included in the same sentence. Altering data to support a case is the height of research fraud. There is no reason to reorder the guns and every reason not to. Especially given the context. Misappropriation of funds is a crime. Not as bad as outright theft of governement funds (check the G.O. about 2 before the one announcing Dyer's death for the ending of that strange saga) but not insignificant. When asked by who's authority those trapdoors were made Dyer was pinned to the wall. Congress let him off. Why? Congress can't enforce laws - that's the other branches.

The Remington didn't "win" as it wasn't a "contest." It was a legal mandate. Congress allocated that money and only the gun the board selected could be made. Dyer made trapdoors anyway. Congress then further tightened the text, and a huge irony was created, but the point is that the list isn't just "the" order - the gun in the top spot is the only one which could be made with the arms allocation for that year. So reordering the guns isn't a small mistake - especially given he didn't re-order the other four. That's not a low grade mistake. That's big. Especially given the context.


The deck was always stacked in favor of (pick the) TD entry, because of the musket part availability/interchangability

That's bunk too. I have the parts price list and I'm sure you do to. Take the trapdoor (.45/70) and add up the cost of the parts unique to it. Then total up the potential musket bits. That's always been nonsense - the trapdoor isn't an altered musket. There is no interchangeability with the muskets. The muskets were already sold (illegally) to the French and Germans in any event. It had nothing to do with saving muskets. It had everything to do with not paying for patents.

The order in that list matters at a level that only serious research really points out. It shouldn't have been reordered under normal circumstances but, given the congressional text, there is a bigger reason ordering it was not right.

Poyer doesn't have any understanding of the O.D. or the state of affairs of the time. Zero. I know this as I've done my research. I do understand it forwards and backwards.

Notice Poyer's "selected for field testing?" Notice Schofield's text in red? Schofield knew the game. Poyer isn't even aware of it. Shoddy. No research.

His forensics are no better than his research. His types are bunk for reasons he's not even aware of.

[5MadFarmers]

Dick, I'm on a roll. I'll hammer on another bit one more time. Research and why it's important. It's my observation that the O.D. reports are easy to find and therein lies a big problem. 100 years of "knowledge" is built on that. It's a house of cards. Let's take the Spencers as they're germain to that period. For the longest time "the Spencers were worn out" was bandied about as the reason for dropping them from service and using Sharps. Our mutual cavalry friend fell into that hole. Let's apply logic first and then research.

How many, total, trapdoors were made from say 1873 to 1890? About half a million? What percentage were carbines? Let's be generous and say 1/5th. 20 years with 100,000 guns. Now lets take those Spencers. Total made: 90,000. The next bit is the key. When were they made? The bulk were made in 1864 and 1865. Most, and I do mean the great majority, were made after the unpleasantness of 1861-1865 ended. I have the delivery receipts...

So 90,000 carbine were worn out from 1865 to 1870 yet 100,000 (less) trapdoor carbines lasted 20 years? Sound fishy? Was the Spencer that bad? I have a trapdoor carbine. I know what the weakness is. I also have a Spencer and know what the weak points are. Those Spencer's could not have been worn out. Now let's go to that Franco-Prussian War sell off. What do we find? Tens of thousands of Spencers sold new in the crate. Then Dyer claims the Spencers were "worn out." No they weren't - he sold them. Why? Because Spencer (the company) and then Winchester owned the patent. The Spencer company, not SA, supplied the parts. Dyer wasn't willing to pay the royalty to have them made at SA.

Instead he wanted Sharps. Why? "They must be superior." Bunkus. Patents were good for 17 years. Check the Sharps patents (we both know I indexed them right?) and do the math.

Dyer was death on patents. They picked their victim (a certain gentleman who threw his lot in with the South) and played fast and loose on his patent. Didn't stop them from getting sued, successfully, on others but it did get them past the initial one....

You're aware that the trapdoor was going to get rammed in by Dyer if he could. If he had to break laws he was ok with that and did so, repeatedly. That they favored the trapdoor to reuse musket parts is horse hockey. I'll undo that from another angle:

Board #1. Gun selected? Peabody. Claimed reason to not follow that? "We have too many muskets on hand. We should use them instead."
Board #2. Gun selected? Berdan. An altered musket. Reason to not use that? Patent fees.
Board #3. Gun selected? Remington R.B.. Claiming that the desire to use muskets at this point is bogus as board #2 already wore that one out...

Let's not claim I didn't do my research. I did. In great detail. On the research front Poyer is a fail. That's a given. Reordering the gun order is wrong in ways he didn't even begin to understand. Claiming it was a fair trial simply tells us he didn't do any research at all.

Then we get to types. That is, frankly, even more bogus than his research. The forensics paint a picture greatly at odds with types. The '03 groups sees it in that area. It's even more so in the Krag arena.

Types. Really?

[jon_norstog]

Thanks, 5MF.

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

Joe, with all due credit to your truly excellent and most persuasive arguments - how, when writing a simple "carry-in-your-pocket guidebook" to avoid getting screwed at gun shows, do you not resort to something like "types"?

The problem, as I now see it, is in depending too heavily on sequence and absoluteness, but you do have to have some way to succinctly describe the variances.

I also think that to some degree, we are letting the tail wag the dog a bit. While some really weird assembly may be technically "correct", it shouldn't be taken as the norm (read 1879 sights on 1888RRBs) for the model. In this same connection, you can go on all you want about the legitimacy of 1899 Carbines with sling swivels, but I will still take mine without, thank you very much.

And, I still say, that for all his faults, Poyer does NOT say that the arms finished in the order he gave, at least not in that paragraph.

[Rick the Librarian]

I hope I'm not getting off the original off-topic discussion (remember, this started out as a discussion on an early Krag upper band, way back when? :D), but I think Dick makes a good point. There are only three major works out there on the Krag -- two of them (Brophy and Mallory) are out of print and extremely expensive in used editions. That leaves Poyer (and it makes me grind my teeth to say this!). For someone new to the Krag, only Poyer's book is available. It has long been my contention that one or more of you gentlemen should write a "Krag primer". I'd be willing to bet you could almost do it off the top of your head.

Yes, I realize if you are going to spend several hundred dollars (at the least) on a military Krag, you should be willing to pick up a decent book (Mallory?) or spend a lot of time asking questions on this or other Krag forums, but the guy on the street that is married with a couple of kids may not be able to do that. What is needed, I believe, is an "introduction". Not all the "one off" types but just the "major" Krags one is liable to run into at the gunshow and/or gunshop. I know what scared me off for a few years was all the rear sight and handguard variations.

Yes, I wish there was also a "primer" on the M1903 - you have much the same situation - no good "starter" book.

My .02.

[5MadFarmers]

Dick, that was research fraud to support a point. The numbers are the determinate. Consider the following:

"Amongst the guns selected were: the Remington, the Ward-Burton, and the Sharps."
and
The guns which finished the trial were:
1) The Remington
2) The Ward-Burton
3) The Sharps.

In the original report the numbers were ranking. To retain them means you retain the ranking. If you don't want to do that you use commas and lose the numbers. Which also doesn't cover the point that he only reordered the top two and he did it while attempting to make the point that there wasn't O.D. funnyness in favor of the Springfield. He did it and did it for a reason. Otherwise he wouldn't have reordered them at all. That's the key. There is no reason to reorder them, unless one is playing funny to support a point, and every reason not too.

[Dick Hosmer]

I think you are allowing your prejudices (to which you are entitled, and with which I frequently agree) to color your judgment on this one little item. Maybe he intentionally juggled the list but maybe he didn't.

A far more egregious mistake, IMHO, is the attribution of "Model 1870" to the Allin guns, prior to the test. The Allin trials arms, 1000 rifles and 340 carbines, while clearly of "Model 1870" configuration do not bear the word "Model", and the sights are located differently. While very similar, they are not the "same" guns as the production version (carbine was not adopted).

[5MadFarmers]

I think you are allowing your prejudices

Prejudice? I think you're after the second definition thereof:


2
a (1) : preconceived judgement or opinion (2) : an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

No Dick, I had to go through it before I discovered the fraud. In fact it hit me in stages. At first I was willing to chalk most of it up as just sloppy. Then that reordering hit me. That's when I moved from sloppy to dodgy. So not prejudice. More disgust.


Maybe he intentionally juggled the list but maybe he didn't.

Maybe Bellesiles was sloppy in "Arming America" and maybe he was dodgy.


A far more egregious mistake, IMHO, is the attribution of "Model 1870" to the Allin guns, prior to the test. The Allin trials arms, 1000 rifles and 340 carbines, while clearly of "Model 1870" configuration do not bear the word "Model", and the sights are located differently. While very similar, they are not the "same" guns as the production version (carbine was not adopted).

That's sloppy rather than dodgy.

[5MadFarmers]

Joe, with all due credit to your truly excellent and most persuasive arguments - how, when writing a simple "carry-in-your-pocket guidebook" to avoid getting screwed at gun shows, do you not resort to something like "types"?


There are only three major works out there on the Krag -- two of them (Brophy and Mallory) are out of print and extremely expensive in used editions. That leaves Poyer (and it makes me grind my teeth to say this!). For someone new to the Krag, only Poyer's book is available.

Really the same theme. First, with all due respect to Brophy and Mallory, and I do really respect them, their books suffer from a massive case of bunkus too. Sad to say that but true. For reasons you're just not getting.

A pocket book for buyers cannot be written easily. To really appreciate it you'd need about 500 pages of information before reading the pocket book. The pocket book would contain one sentence:
"None of them are original. Don't delude yourself."

Before you get into a tither over that as there are some original guns let's be honest: less than 5% of the guns thought to be original are. Thus in 95% of the cases that statement stands whereas it's inaccurate in 5%. I'm being generous as it's more likely less than 1%.

A pocket book intended to help a novice buy a Krag is no different from a book of strategies on how to leverage $1,000,000 into $5,000,000 at the Vegas tables. The entire premise is false.

It goes so much deeper but that's the 500 pages. Most of the guns most "gun experts" consider to be original aren't and that's what's missed. I'm not going to detail it. I'm just going to say that the current collector crowd just isn't getting it. They're not original. Say this to yourself: "most of the guns I think are original aren't" and you'll get it. Only if you start to understand that's accurate.

Yes, eventually I'll push the book out. I'll take the 500 pages to explain that from all angles so it's unmistakeably driven home. People just aren't getting it. I can pretty well prove that. It's inescapable. Duff and Canfield recently gave us an example that they don't get it. For whatever reason nobody is getting it. So I'll explain it but it's a lot of work. A lot of vectors need to be covered.

Brophy didn't get it.
Mallory didn't get it.
Poyer didn't even try.

[Mark Daiute]

I'm going to the basement, where it's safe and load some ammo.

OK! Less than 5% of the Krags are "Original" but there exists the 5MF "collector's gradient".

Given that fact, establish the gradient and then give us a cheat sheet by which we can evaluate Krag specimens in the wild, please and thank you.

[Rick the Librarian]

OK! Less than 5% of the Krags are "Original" but there exists the 5MF "collector's gradient".

Given that fact, establish the gradient and then give us a cheat sheet by which we can evaluate Krag specimens in the wild, please and thank you.

Just what I was saying.

I realize neither Brophy or Mallory was totally correct, either. I liked Brophy's pictures and I thought Mallory had more to say. But, in the end, what do you tell the poor slob just looking for some basic information? Our hobby is rapidly "graying" - unless we stir up some more interest, collecting guns (and especially Krags) might be going the way of the Dodo bird.

While agreeing you can't just publish a 16-page book, you could publish (I believe) a 150-200 page paperback with the basics.

[5MadFarmers]

OK! Less than 5% of the Krags are "Original"

No. :icon_lol: 5% of the guns thought to be original by collectors. So if 5% of Krags are thought to be original, 5% of those. :icon_lol:


Given that fact, establish the gradient and then give us a cheat sheet by which we can evaluate Krag specimens in the wild, please and thank you.

It can't really be done. If I may I'll address that, and Rick's post, but first the fork on Poyer's trapdoor book. Incorrect information doesn't make me lose patience. I'm not even sure that dodgy does. Dodgy followed by well poisoning is what set me off there. Overly harsh? Probably but the dodgy bit isn't what did it - it was the well poisoning.

Mallory and Brophy did what they could with the information available. I respect that a lot. Let's not lose that. I'm just on a path they missed.

Krags and collecting. That's really only 1/3 of the market though right? Shooters care more about bore. Rightly so. Re-enactors care about the history of it all. Rightly so. I don't class myself as in the "shooting" group and I don't re-enact. Which leaves me in the collector group. If we had a caste system like India did that would be the lowest caste... :eek:

Shooters. You're the right ones.
Reenactors. Second place.
Collectors. We're the insane ones. The lowest class. Think about it. Who cares if the gun is correct? What does that lead to? Rack queens, which are primarily rebuilds, being highly prized and the beat to tar ones being looked down on. Yet those beat to tar ones have the evident history. Thus reenactors rank higher.

The collectors are the ones on the wrong path. I'm aware of that in spite of being on that path. So every time Jon posts "embarrassed" about adding shooting or history bits he's reversed. That's the more important stuff.

So where does that leave the collectors? A house of cards. I'm going to undo it. Using research and footnotes. Why? Why not?

This started, about a decade ago, with me receiving a captured pistol and an Ike jacket. The move to complete that ensemble started me on this path. I'm nearing the end.

In order to write a Krag book I'll need to unravel the rest first. Then rebuild it. Only then will the Krag book make sense and the reasons for my claim that the existing books are all wrong will become clear. Sadly we're all obstinate people. Thus a pile, an irrefutable pile, is necessary.

Not this year. Not until I'm done processing the data I'm sitting on and I finish the collection. Then I'll be ready. I keep trying to rush it for people other than me and that isn't the correct path.

Don't underestimate the work involved. I've done most of it but that was in survey mode. A second pass is "vacuum, complete" mode is harder. It'll come but it's a lot of work.

[John Beard]

I find this thread very interesting. I have no desire and certainly don't have the knowledge to join the fray. But I will point out that anyone writing a serious Krag book without studying research done by the Society for Industrial Archeology will have made a grievous mistake!

For what it's worth.

J.B.

[Kragrifle]

Late to the fray. John, what is the Society for Industrial Archeology? I will do an immediate Google search!

[5MadFarmers]

I find this thread very interesting. I have no desire and certainly don't have the knowledge to join the fray. But I will point out that anyone writing a serious Krag book without studying research done by the Society for Industrial Archeology will have made a grievous mistake!

For what it's worth.

J.B.

Glad you're all having a good time. :icon_lol:

I'm not feeling particularly charitable this week as I was legislated out of a job. No, that didn't bother me overly much as I'll be shifted to another. I supervise people and that is a problem. So I probably shouldn't post anything anywhere for some time as I'm not in a particularly good mood.

I've been aware of Poyer's playing funny with the list for some time but this thread opened it up. I'll be perfectly clear for all concerned - it wasn't even that reordering that bothered me. It was his assertion that "serious researchers" were in agreement that they O.D. wasn't playing funny to ensure the trapdoor was made. That is the bit I call poisoning the well. Why does that bother me? Because it's rude. So I'm therefore free to be rude in return. I rarely consider myself to be much of anything but I'll be honest enough that the hours I spent in archives would likely place me in the category of "researcher" at this point. I won't extend that same title to Poyer. Anyone, with access to the Secretary of War reports (mainly the report of the General Commanding), would not have taken the position that Poyer took. To then reorder the list to support that point, and then further to poison the well, is not kosher.

Society for Industrial Archeology you say? I'll poke and thanks for the pointer. I found the "American Machinist" to be incredibly informative. Surprisingly so. Sounds like it runs along the same lines.

[jon_norstog]

I hadn't known about the sell-off of the Spencers before. Interesting story. A bunch of them ended up in Asia, including (thanks Wikipedia) arming the Tosa Domain forces during the wars that broke the samurai class and put the Meiji Emperor on the throne. A lot of them ended up in Thailand.

First time I went over there, my wife told me there were some long guns under the bed. So I looked. Two muzzle-loaders and a Spencer long rifle in the white with the Chakri stamped into it. Her grandfather had been an instructor in French and music at their Naval Academy. After the coup in 1932, some loyal military put together a force with what weapons were still available and marched on Bangkok to free the royal family. I'm guessing the Spencer is the weapon he carried. In any case, the army had Mausers, machine guns, armor and air support. There was a huge fight where Don Muang Airport is and the Royalists were wiped out. Grandpa survived and made his way to Vietnam. There was an amnesty after WWII and he came back. With a second, Vietnamese wife and family!

The palace has a list of all those who fought the good fight, and their descendants. When one of them dies, the palace sends someone with fire from king to light the pyre. What happened when my mother-in-law passed away.

The story that goes with the gun.

jn