1898 Carbine rear sight

[JacobCR]

I’m a bit of a sucker for orphaned rifles, and recently found myself in a small carbine frenzy (three in two weeks). One of them was this 1899 wearing a very modified 03 Springfield stock (somebody did a lot of work to get it to fit):

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/12170835/rifles-for-sale/bolt-action-rifle/springfield-model-1899-sporterized-.30-40-krag-cal-bolt-action

It has what appears to be an 1898 carbine rear sight:

http://imageshack.us/a/img7/8339/ia0m.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img842/5282/5xt4.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img855/351/33yp.jpg

More:
http://imageshack.us/a/img835/5743/ryio.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img526/5109/bj3y.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img703/7928/ny6b.jpg
http://imageshack.us/a/img706/3161/tpl5.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img692/9079/ik0x.jpg

http://imageshack.us/a/img16/9369/rwlo.jpg

Has anyone seen any reproduction (fake) 1898 carbine sights? I did a quick check online, but only saw references to the faked 1896 sights. I’m wondering about the rear sight’s validity due to the grinding marks on the leaf, as well as the fact that not many were made. The base profile looks okay, and the numbers look to be the right font (to my layman’s eye), but I’m still a bit suspicious.

Even if the sight is fake, I still have a decent 1899 barreled action project with a surprisingly good bore. The rust isn’t actually that deep, and there doesn’t appear to be any pitting under the surface rust. From what I’ve read online, it looks like this one (228967) was born in Oct. 1899. It joins my other 1899 (227030) which is pretty close to the other, time-wise. Incidentally, they both have turned-down muzzles (and correct 22” barrels, from what I understand).

[Rick the Librarian]

The Krag you are showing is an 1899 carbine. The "C" markings don't look fake to me, but this is one I'd turn over to Dick, 5MF or one of the other "advanced thinkers". It is not listed in SRS, but is in the middle of a batch of 1899 carbines.

If you got it for less than two hundred bucks, even with the screwy stock, I think you got a good deal, especially with what may be a 1898 carbine rear sight.

I once had what was probably a cut-down Krag with a similar type of stock. If you look farther down the list of threads, you'll see that I can also be a sucker for "orphaned" 1899s! :D

[Dick Hosmer]

Unquestionably an 1898C sight, though it has not led a sheltered life, nor is it wrong for an early 1899 Carbine. In fact, my arm could probably be twisted into saying that it might even be original to the gun. You basically stole the piece. Stocks come along. Here is mine:

[madsenshooter]

From what I read somewhere, there were few of the 99 carbines with the 1898 sight that got issued, most were still at Springfield and had their sights changed. Also, I had read somewhere that they were some of the first Krag sights sold as surplus. Bannerman was fond of shoehorning metal into wood other than the original, and I've seen a few of them in Springfield stocks. Some of the 99 carbines did get issued with that sight, so it's entirely possible both yours and Dicks were.

[psteinmayer]

Seems to be fitting a Boyd's stock would be simpler, LOL. I like that the description stated "MSRP/Retail: Blue Book 100%=approx...... $3,000" - I didn't know that Springfield had placed an MSRP on the Krags in 1899.

[JacobCR]

Great news. Thanks for all of the extra information. Browsing the auction sites with the search term “Krag” is usually a very sad affair, with so many sportered/butchered beasts, but sometimes it works out.

As an added bonus to this carbine, I also found a nice '03 nickeled oiler with pull-thru and brush in the trap (the oiler side still has oil in it).

One good thing about the '99s is that they all came as carbines, so there's usually no question as to whether or not it was a cut-down. (I also got an 1898 “carbine” in an 1899C stock from the same seller at the same time, but I’ll put that into another thread.)

I’ve been watching RTL’s 1899 project—it definitely has character. I kind of like rifles with “character,” as they had probably lead much more interesting lives than the pristine safe queens. I just don’t feel a sense of history with an old rifle with no wear.

[JacobCR]

Seems to be fitting a Boyd's stock would be simpler, LOL. I like that the description stated "MSRP/Retail: Blue Book 100%=approx...... $3,000" - I didn't know that Springfield had placed an MSRP on the Krags in 1899.

I got a kick out of their retail value quote, as well.

I actually found them very friendly and easy to deal with--they understand what a C&R is, and they are one of the few left that willingly still sell to us unfortunate Californians. (And they only charged $30 to ship two carbines with no skimping on packing materials.) :D

[madsenshooter]

I wonder if there is any identifiable characteristic of the rod bayo 03 stock that might be visible in the stock of your Krag. Bannerman would likely have gotten his fingers on those 03 stocks at a time when Krag wood wasn't available.

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, I'd think the full-length hole would probably give you a clue! Sorry, Bob! :-)

[Kragrifle]

Could you show the front band? I believe you have a Bannerman carbine from what I can see.

[5MadFarmers]

Take another look at the knob....

I took an altered RB stock some years ago at auction for the grand total bid of $5. That was the last lot of the day and they lost the receipt so total outlay was $0 for it.

[JacobCR]

Could you show the front band? I believe you have a Bannerman carbine from what I can see.
Imageshack isn’t cooperating, so I can’t upload more photos right now. The stock has the spring-slot filled and is solid at the nose where it was cut (between lightening grooves). It has a smooth buttplate and milled front swivel band with a “U” marking.


Take another look at the knob....

http://imageshack.us/a/img706/3161/tpl5.jpg

The rear sight slider does look to be off--that might also explain why the leaf was ground to get the slider to fit. So not correct, but maybe not exactly faked. (Bannermanned?)

[Kragrifle]

Bannerman carbines used altered 1903 stocks filled in as yours is. The front band is a sheet metal affair, well made that you will only see on a Bannerman carbine. While most collectors think little of these Krags, I always thought they were interesting. And if you are trying to find one, you will look a long time.

[Dick Hosmer]

Imageshack isn’t cooperating, so I can’t upload more photos right now. The stock has the spring-slot filled and is solid at the nose where it was cut (between lightening grooves). It has a smooth buttplate and milled front swivel band with a “U” marking.



http://imageshack.us/a/img706/3161/tpl5.jpg

The rear sight slider does look to be off--that might also explain why the leaf was ground to get the slider to fit. So not correct, but maybe not exactly faked. (Bannermanned?)

I'm missing where the leaf was ground? All M1898/1902 sliders should fit all M1898/1902 leaves, though they will not engage correctly because the left leaf edges come in three styles, with matching binding surfaces on the respective sliders. The knob has the relief millings which allow tightening with a rimless cartridge and were intended for use on the RB1903. Some found their way onto Krags when sights were rebuilt.

[madsenshooter]

You want a more correct slider, I'll trade you the one off my 98 carbine sight. It's otherwise Bubba'd. Outside edges of the eyepiece ground to the point that the eyepiece is no wider than the usual 22 rear sight. Leaf is bent, but instead of straightening it, some genius, noting that the eyepiece didn't sit right on the flat at the rear of the ramp, elected to file said flat crooked so that the eyepiece bore all the way across. Or, you could buy the real and correct one on GB for over $500! And to think I sold one for around $60 not long ago.

Dick, you said three varieties of leaf above. I have one leaf that is knurled on the left side. One can catch 4 little slots between each 25yd marking that is on the leaf. Each of those little spots one can stop at should equal about .75" at 200yds. The slider has the 03 binding knob. Now all I need is a Krag that'll hold .75" at 200yds!

Other sight trivia, I just ran across an old ad on ebay, a company claimed, in 1927 that they had 14,000 model 92 Krag rear sights in stock. Going for $1 ea.

[Rick the Librarian]

Other sight trivia, I just ran across an old ad on ebay, a company claimed, in 1927 that they had 14,000 model 92 Krag rear sights in stock. Going for $1 ea.

Although I haven't checked, lately, eBay and Gunbroker used to have several M1892 rear sights available.

[Dick Hosmer]

They are commonly available, having been removed from about 25,000 arms with minimal (on a small batch of M1898 rifles, when the desired sights were not yet completed) official reuse.

Beware anyone who tries to tell you the sight is "rare" - the rifle yes, the sight, no.

[JacobCR]

I'm missing where the leaf was ground? All M1898/1902 sliders should fit all M1898/1902 leaves, though they will not engage correctly because the left leaf edges come in three styles, with matching binding surfaces on the respective sliders. The knob has the relief millings which allow tightening with a rimless cartridge and were intended for use on the RB1903. Some found their way onto Krags when sights were rebuilt.

Here's a slightly clearer view of the grinding marks (across the 17-15 and 12-10). Any ideas on what went on?

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/4751/t8rk.jpg

A photo of the stock nose and band:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1856/uj27.jpg

I think I'll just clean up the rust and leave the sight as-is. If I come across an 1899 stock I'll swap it out (and keep the 03 stock with it), but for now, I'll keep it mostly as I got it. (Just a little less rust.) :D

[Dick Hosmer]

OK, now I see what you meant, and I think what you have there is some sort of damage or abuse, not something to do with any manufacturing process. I had thought you meant some sort of uniform slimming somewhere, which I could not see.