So there was this gun.

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/cadet/cadet-2.png

Which made me ask myself: what else would I expect to find?

http://5madfarmers.com/cadet/cadet-3.png

Hmmm.

[Dick Hosmer]

All right, WHERE did you come up with THAT? Or at least the pictures of that - which I HOPE we all know what it at least APPEARS to be. If so, you appear to have been correct about the numbers, not that you ever doubted it, I'm sure. Is it real, or one of your mock-ups?

[5MadFarmers]

It's better work than SA's redo for the museum don't you think? At least I used the right parts. Right down to the striker. I kind of like it. Did you notice the lugged rear sight? Correct cleaning rod? The bolt is pure 100% perfection. The cleaning rod channel is perfectly shaped as SA did the work. I think it's kind of cute.

I did learn something from that exercise though. They used the "cadet" band for the M-1899s but it's not the same. Shape of the stock changed. The M-1899 as made won't fit. Mine fits. Like it was made for it.

The best part is that it's all aged. Nothing shiny and new.

A fine rifle indeed.

I wouldn't call it "fake" though as it doesn't exist. It's a figment of my imagination. I've been told that I have a vivid imagination and am quite creative. Viola - the M-1896 Cadet Rifle.

[jon_norstog]

5MF,

that's a nice piece of work. I hope you put a note under the buttplate ...

jn

[5MadFarmers]

No note for that one as it's back to where it came from. The source gun was too interesting to me to leave it that way. Nothing was harmed in that exercise.

I do have the parts to make three though. I'm thinking if I do one I might as well do three. Setup and work isn't greater. The stocks will be new. The metal bits will be correct except for the cleaning rods. Those I can make now. I have a little milling machine. Not something I'm going to worry about in the near future - that's retirement fun.

I wouldn't worry about marking them overly much. None are real. Zero. Nada. I'm aware Brophy felt some may have survived. Not a prayer. The were quite thorough. Thus the reworks. If they originals had still existed there would not have been reworks.

I just needed a copyright clear picture for the book. So I baked one up.

[psteinmayer]

That's quite a sweet piece of cake 5MF... Nice baking! Too bad we all can't share a slice of it! :D

[CJCulpeper]

5MF

That is some kind of fantastic work. Great Picture. Please reserve a couple of signed copies of the book for me when it come out. I have money!

Culpeper

[Kragrifle]

Is there a cartouche on the stock? As to the serial number, I am sure you have an opinion. Brophy's book talks about numbers in the 24K range. However, most others I have spoken with over the years believe it is around 18K. I have a rifle that has been converted with an 1896 date (though smudged) and a number around 18K (can't remember exact number). The four made later are around 35K. Neat rifle.

[madsenshooter]

I believe that the 17-18000 range rifles sometimes found in modified cadet stocks were 92 rifles in for rebuild at the time the cadets were being rebuilt into service rifles. I have no way of knowing that for sure, just a hunch. Being remade into service rifles sometimes included being placed into thicker wristed stocks rather than waiting around for the woodshop to get done with the cadet stocks. They were being hastily modified into service rifles so that payment of royalties could be made, cadets didn't require payment of royalties. They already knew circa 1900 that a new rifle was coming, "Let's get this project over with and paid for". I also think that all 400 of the cadet rifles had an 1895 marked receiver. No proof for any of this, just a feeling. Speaking of royalties, I wonder how much Krag and Jorgenson got in the end for the nigh half a million rifles made here.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'll probably regret this, but, having been round and round with my publisher over photo quality, I'd warn you that what you presented above is nowhere NEAR what you need for publication. Needs a LOT more light, and, unless you want to do a LOT of Photoshopping (you don't) a no-texture background.

The only reason I bring it up is that I infer that you MAY (???) have already disassembled the gun, and are thus "done" with the photos - I say that based on the assumption that if you HAD taken the "book ones", that you would have used THEM instead of what you posted. If I am off track, I sincerely apologize, but thought I might save you some effort.

[5MadFarmers]

The cadets had 1896 cartouches. Of that there is no doubt as the one Gunderson had retained enough of it to be clear in his pictures.

Bob noticed that gun. Somebody either bought it or Gunderson realized the significance. Either way it disappeared. I snagged the photos before he removed them. I've never been a claim jumper - Bob noticed it first and had the right of passing from what I believe for myself. So it's in a location unknown but I have the bright glossy of it.

I'm aware of the opinions on the serials the cadets "should have." That's from one vector. I don't travel that vector. I hit it from an entirely new vector. Which, IMHO, is much clearer on what those guns were. You'll see that. The confusion should be removed.

Everybody is expecting Mallory Version 2 or Brophy Version 2. That it decidedly will not be. I really like their books but I also like the new Ford Mustang. I don't own one. That's simply a path I'm not going to travel. So, like it or hate it, it will not be Brophy/Mallory Version 2.

Bill could be entertaining. "I wonder where it was made." His other was "it has nice pictures." That gun was made in Massachusetts. The format you see was assembled in Wisconsin. In addition to not being Brophy/Mallory Version 2 the book will not be dismissed as having nice pictures. It won't. Will it suffer over that? Frankly that doesn't concern me overly much. That might bug some people but it doesn't bug me.

Dick, I'm not dismissing the value of nice pictures. I'm value engineering the book. It's a choice I made early on. In fact I made that choice right out of the gate. I walked away from color also. I'm going to walk away from many things. It simply won't be the book anyone expects. I'm ok with that. It'll be Farmer Version 1. There will be no Farmer Version 2. After the book is out the door I'm culling the Krags down to what I'm keeping and moving back to the CW carbines. I'll be liquidating the excess guns which were necessary for the book. I don't need the money - I need the room.

You may like it or you may hate it. It will not be dismissed over the pictures.

[madsenshooter]

But color is so cheap in the digital age! When it comes time to print, check with Courier Corporation. I'm no longer there to watch for typos or monitor quality for you, but they have gone to digital presses since I left. Never take credit for solving a major problem that makes middle managers look like dummies, they'll get you sooner or later. I've never seen Brophy or Mallory, but I'm certain your work will be an improvement on Poyer's.

[Dick Hosmer]

I will - as you know - purchase a copy of whatever you produce (you are self-publishing, right?) but, after all of the magnificent effort you have put into researching the text, with the chance to truly do great things, it would be a needless shame to put out such low-grade pics. The full-length shot, once reduced and processed for printing, will likely show up as no more than a silhouette with annoying backscatter. The band spring, a crucial point, will likely be invisible (it almost is now).

But, my conscience is now clear - you have been made aware. I cannot, and will not attempt to, do more.

[madsenshooter]

Hmm, I do see something in 5's pic that might help tell if the 17-18K Krags were cadets or not. Note the side plate, 1896 style, not 1892. My 22018, made in late 1895 has the 1896 style sideplate. I'm sure the 17-18K rifles still had 92 sideplates. Gunderson's 17724 appears to have had the original 92 plate, though I can't see it well enough to say for certain. Still it proves nothing as the plates could have been changed over the years. However, I would think that if they had pulled rifles that were made as early as mid-1895 out of storage to use to make cadets, the sideplates would have been updated, as it was already ordered that yet to be issued 1892 rifles were to be updated to 96 standards. Which sideplate does yours have Kragrifle?

[5MadFarmers]

Dick, you are a dinosaur. Takes one to know one right? I too am a dinosaur. I don't have a cell phone. I don't have an iPod or iPad. Given my career field that really cracks people up. One of the reasons those CoO and DRM books are available is dead tree is truly dead.

Google started scanning libraries. Out went the books. Today it's "Kindle" and such. Electronic books. Print media is a dead duck. The thing is that books are going the way of music. Albums? It's $.99 a song. Which they very well know you'll lose after a while and need to buy again as you don't retain a non-soluble edition. Google is an 800lb monkey.

Publishers sold their souls. Google rounds up books and digitizes them. Then sells them in electronic format. What if you don't want that? Tough. Publishers were sold down the river over that. They sold themselves.

I started a web site once. I was going to take it places. Web sites are modular. Errata sheet? No need. Update the page. Then I decided I didn't like the model. There are better ways.

Tie them all together. If I wanted nice pictures and dynamic content I'd do a web site behind a pay wall.
If I wanted the book to exist electronically I'd get a publisher to print it. Then Google could nab it on their terms.

It'll be the last of the dead tree. Nice pictures won't matter as the customer base is all old and blind. So says me wearing cheaters right now. I'll retain copyright and won't release it for electronic publishing. No publishing organization can sell me down the river.

Want more vectors? I have X amount of room. I have Y amount of time to ensure that room is available. The living room is stuffed with guns. I'd use the spare master bedroom but that's where they're coming from. I'd use the other spare bedroom but it's stuffed with boxes of gunk. The family room is my cave and stuffed with safes and stacks. It's incredibly hard to take photographs in the bathroom. So I've taken over the living room for the amount of time it takes. The wife is too tolerant.

I have access to a professional photographer. Am I supposed to haul it all over to his place? Some other place? Have him come here? If I want him to come here it'll be a full living room for months. Not going to happen.

Frankly I'm pushing this thing out the door as fast as it will go. That'll make it somewhat haphazard. I could wait until I retire but then we're dealing with different dynamics. Maybe I'll just walk away from it all at that point and focus on building a restaurant. So it's now or never for this one.

The other ones are different. Different information. Different presentation. Those I won't rush. This one I want done and gone.

So I decide to turn it into an exercise in speed. Wrote the text part, 200 pages, in about two weeks. Pictures are taking longer. Some will be dark and some will be light. Depends on if it's rainy or a workday. Need sun. Thus weekend pictures are light with the rest not so much.

If I did it the way you're thinking it'd be two volumes. Hard cover and in color. I'd get Chris to take the photos. It'd be slick. It'd be expensive. It'd take me a couple of years.

It'll be cheap and fast. The one concession to myself is it will have a hard cover. Thus it won't be dismissed as "it has nice pictures" as "it had solid covers" is available.

It won't be what you expect. Be prepared.

[Dick Hosmer]

It's your choice - I ALSO remember your saying that you might get pissed and just print ONE copy and put it on your bookshelf. I think - on more than one level - you'd probably be OK with that.

I was NOT humping for two volumes, or color, or a professional button-pusher, you are expelling chaff against a non-existant missile launch. All I suggested was better lighting and a featureless background, without shadows.

You have saved so much time on the writing you could afford to do more than lay things on a (rumpled) sheet, apparently lit from one direction only.

At least smooth out the sheet!!!!!!!!!!!

[5MadFarmers]

It's your choice - I ALSO remember your saying that you might get pissed and just print ONE copy and put it on your bookshelf. I think - on more than one level - you'd probably be OK with that.

It'd save paper and bookshelf space just to render it as a PDF and leave it at that. Which, handily, I already have a copy of as PH was reading it as I revised it. I generated PDFs for her use. Not all the pictures were embedded but the rest was done. I don't need the pictures embedded as I have memory pictures on demand. I don't think this is for me. I don't need it.


I was NOT humping for two volumes, or color, or a professional button-pusher, you are expelling chaff against a non-existant missile launch. All I suggested was better lighting and a featureless background, without shadows.

You have saved so much time on the writing you could afford to do more than lay things on a (rumpled) sheet, apparently lit from one direction only.

At least smooth out the sheet!!!!!!!!!!!

It's plastic. The carpet is new. While none of the guns have cartridges in them they're still dangerous. The carpet is pretty new. I already spilled some oil on it in one location doing what I shouldn't in that room. I'd rather not be known as "the last known person killed with a Krag." Beaten to death with my own unloaded gun.

The cave was set up for pictures and has the correct lighting. It's no longer usable for that as it's full of stacks and safes. I could pawn the lighting from there but I've broken my toe twice in the last year in walking into door frames with no lights on. I'd rather not go for three times.

Dick, I can come up with all kinds of silly reasons to keep doing what I'm doing. The real reason is I don't really care about that. I'll include a picture of Bogart in the front and call it "Krag noir."

Granted those are the darkest of the lot. It was raining. The ones from the weekend before were done on the driveway. When I spill onto the driveway with a bunch of guns I wonder what the neighbors think. Best to go with noir.

If you're going to get hung up on the pictures I'll do a book with drawings instead.

http://5madfarmers.com/100/cadet.png

http://5madfarmers.com/cadet/cadet-2.png

Put it to a vote. Only two candidates. One has a nice clear background and no lighting issues. The other one is noir. I'm going with noir.

Please note that both have the curved toe, lugged rifle sight, and barrel shaped rod.

[5MadFarmers]

Bah, this might be long.

Dick, I respect your knowledge and you're a saint. I'm fully aware that you want the book to succeed and are giving advice in that direction. I'm purposely ignoring it. I'm not saying I'm wrong or you are wrong. It's not "right and wrong." It's focus and belief. You have a belief as do I. You are taking what you know of publishing and applying it. I'm taking what I know of publishing and ignoring it. Not out of ignorance or malice or anything along those lines. I'm ignoring it as I don't care about that.

I used to do work in a knitting mill. I'm very aware of Pantone color. I used to support graphics artists in their rendering of nice glossy and slick printed material. I'm aware of dye sublimation printers and all that entails. I'm very aware of what "RGB" and "CMYK" are and the problems of converting from one to the other. I'm aware of ICC color profiles. I'm very aware of alpha channels and all the other gunk that goes into computers and printing. I spent a fair amount of my life in that arena. If you want a real education in the history and aspects of RGB I'm your man. Bits per pixel and all that gunk. I grok it. My pay check was generated by that. The first three nice pictures I took for the book were in CMYK format with the correct ICC profile. Calibrating color? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

I'm choosing to ignore it. Why? Because that's my choice. If I wanted this to be work I could easily drive down to my place of employment and log in. In this job we don't do glossy printing. We don't do color in fact. We do black and white and H.264 compression with b frames and all that other wonderfully technical compression stuff. Want me to detail what that entails? That's work. 30 frames per second is about right for television video. That takes room. Chop the frame rates. That doesn't do what people think. You see there is a side effect of chopping frames as inter-frame compression suffers greatly. If you're only doing intra-frame it doesn't matter but if you're doing inter-frame it does. Oh, that's today's job.

RGB is light. In CRTs there were three guns. You could control those three. In the wonderful days of VGA it was really 16 bit color. 16 gives 4 bits total for R, G, and B. That leaves 4 bits which can be used for alpha channels. Of course if you wish to ignore the alpha channel you can dial up the R, G, or B. Then we get into the methods. That was followed by 24 bit and then 32 bit color. 8 bits per color for R, G, and B = 24. Add the alpha and it's 32. That's 256 intensities for each color. Total color possibilities in 32 bits is 4 billion of course. The problem is that's light. Color printers aren't light - they're ink or wax or die or whatever. That reflects light. The opposite really. So turn off all three guns and you get absence of light. Black. Whereas absence of ink is white. Nothing. Mixing all the inks together is black. So how to map color light to color reflection? ICC profiles.

Dick, I'm not unaware of the field. I have simply chosen to not care. If that bugs people they're welcome to take nice color pictures and paste them over the ones in the book.

What will those images render as? That's easy to know. I have a laser printer. They're gray scale. I can print the PDF and check. If they're too dark I'll reshoot those that are. If they're at a level that doesn't bug me I'll leave them be. Because they're not important to me.

I also use an interesting set of font choices.

Which is fine as that's what is what I want.

Benefit number 4 of doing the work myself and not going through a publisher: they don't get to write my book for me. Is there a benefit to that? Yes. Is there a downside? Certainly. It'd be their book.

Call me artsy and realize I control my own output. So if it makes you unhappy you'll just have to skip it. I'm aware you're trying to help. Call me hard headed. It's a binary thing. I can either go full boat or simply jump into the canoe. I've elected to use the canoe. It's intentional.

[Dick Hosmer]

:eusa_wall:

[jon_norstog]

Aaah,

does this mean the book is coming out soon?

jn

[madsenshooter]

Not until the artist is done with all the drawings Jon. Back to the original subject. Maybe the rumored MGM Cadet was another one of the museum specimens. How many are accounted for?

[5MadFarmers]

Back to the original subject.

I wondered if I was the only one catching that. A picture of what is a very interesting area of the field followed by two pages of worrying about the background. If I look at the original Harley Davidson I don't spend my time focused on the rust on the spokes.

I bought a brand new truck once sight unseen. What's to see? I want the following options: X, Y, and Z. The told me they didn't have one with those options. Get one from another dealer. There are two in Minneapolis. Blue or Brown? You pick. I don't care. If it has the options I'm after the color isn't something that I'm going to spend time on.

Different strokes I guess.

My wife was very particular her car be dark blue. She didn't care about the options. She had red hair. That was my weakness. So not even the same with the same person.

Dick, I didn't say I couldn't do it. I said I didn't care enough to.


Maybe the rumored MGM Cadet was another one of the museum specimens. How many are accounted for?

CPSD. Wouldn't want to spoil the surprise. That term is in the book. You'll chuckle when you get it.

The cadets are solved.

[5MadFarmers]

Aaah,

does this mean the book is coming out soon?

jn

Before Christmas at the latest. Started on the 19th of July so it's going to be quick and dirty.

Of all the people I can think of I suspect you'll enjoy it the most.

That's a compliment.

[Dick Hosmer]

I never said I thought you COULDN'T do it. But, I'm done on that facet of the subject.

How did you fake the stock, or did you find one already cut for the band-spring? Butt swivel is easy, especially on edge in the shadows, though a grain-matched plug could be fitted for more realism, if the parts were to stay together. I was going to stretch a surplus carbine stock, but, as you pointed out, the wrist wouldn't be right.

[5MadFarmers]

When they made science fiction and submarine movies they used models. Hung from thin wire. Everyone knew that as you could see the wire if you looked hard. When the television Star Trek came out they used models. You couldn't see the strings. They hung them upside down and then did a 180 on the film. The wires are below.

I didn't need to know that. Now I spend my time looking for the strings. Best to keep the illusion. Perception is an interesting field.

The thing is kind of hypnotic isn't it?

====

http://5madfarmers.com/100/chop.png

Think I should use the mill to turn the barrel down?


Stare really hard at the grasping grooves. See it?

[Rick the Librarian]

I'd certainly like a copy of your book, as well. Ballpark idea on what the cost will be? If it would work better, feel free to email/PM me.

[Dick Hosmer]

Don't know what you are driving at with the grasping grooves, and you are not going to lure me into saying why, but, on the "cadet" you certainly could have Photoshopped the band-spring, or, simply laid a strip of metal, or glued a slip of silvery-colored paper, in the right spot. Once you start making things up, where do you stop? No, don't turn the barrel - you don't have a "school gun"?

[Kragrifle]

Four of the later cadets produced. One was brought back to West Point by Mallory and an accomplice. Tom had one he sold at Baltimore 2 or 3 years ago. One was owned by a lady collector , Mary? The fourth one, ?

[madsenshooter]

That's what I was thinking too, Kragrifle, guess I'll give up hope of finding one in some old barn that I can buy for a couple hundred. Got a good look at Schultz's Krag today, appeared to be a rifle with its barrel cut to 24", or maybe one of Dick's BOF rifles, certainly not a 30" barrel.

[Dick Hosmer]

So, Bob, HOW LONG IS IT???????

[jon_norstog]

Before Christmas at the latest. Started on the 19th of July so it's going to be quick and dirty.

Of all the people I can think of I suspect you'll enjoy it the most.

That's a compliment.

Well, thanks, 5. Sign me up for one.

jn

[madsenshooter]

So, Bob, HOW LONG IS IT???????

Might be awhile before I catch that episode again Dick. Banner played two characters in it, one a defecting Nazi financier, the other Schultz.

[5MadFarmers]

Once you start making things up, where do you stop?

I dunno.

http://5madfarmers.com/100/krag_revolver.png

While it's electronic maybe?



*my 1st Model Hotchkiss carbine has a trapdoor carbine sight (I'd greatly appreciate someone finding an HC sight for me!)

Keep the trapdoor sight with the gun. You stop before you screw it on. You think that through first.

Dick, don't worry about it. Really. You don't have context.

[Dick Hosmer]

Might be awhile before I catch that episode again Dick. Banner played two characters in it, one a defecting Nazi financier, the other Schultz.

Oh THAT Schultz! I thought it might have been. No way you are going to get a serial. I'm still looking for #3 - hell, I'd buy ten if I could shag 'em as cheap as the first two.

Had an interesting experience on eBay last week. Guy was selling a 1901R sight. As, I often do, I questioned whether the seller "had one like it, but graduated to 2100 yds". Usually, the answer is "no". THIS time the guy said - "the one for sale is so marked but the pictures got mixed up - email me". Finally turned out that he DID have one, BUT!!!!! The base was wrong, and the leaf had been heavily ground and re-stamped with some pretty non-SA-looking numbers. The interesting part is that he claims to have bought it from Bill Mook many years ago. Gotta be a story there, somewhere!

[madsenshooter]

I always take a look for you, if the pics are good enough to see. Wasn't looking for a serial, just noted the barrel wasn't full length. I'm 6' tall with long legs and the end of a 24" barrel comes to about belt level with the butt on the ground. I noted that's about where it came to on Banner.

[rayg]

WoW! Never saw one of those side fed, instead of cylinder feed, cap and ball pistols before. That is a real rare bird, Ray

[Dick Hosmer]

Must be the even-rarer long-range variant as the barrel is slightly elevated from the central axis! But, who cares?

[psteinmayer]

Here I was thinking "when did they start making a .44 caliber Krag pistol?" and "where can I get one?"

[5MadFarmers]

Must be the even-rarer long-range variant as the barrel is slightly elevated from the central axis! But, who cares?

That you posted makes the answer self evident.

Colt-Krag. Perhaps I'll bake up a Krupp-Krag also.

[Dick Hosmer]

I do many things, one of which is post. And - I THINK you may have missed the point.

[5MadFarmers]

No, I didn't miss it. I didn't miss it as I was making it.

Some people collect antique cars. To that crowd every car is valued on originality. Others create hot rods. To that crowd original doesn't matter as it's simply material to mold. When a collector of original cars encounters a hot rod their "judgement" won't be positive. What they fail to come to grips with is that it's simply opinion. Others do not agree. This doesn't mean they're wrong as it's not a question of right and wrong. It's opinion and style.

Guns are no different. You have an opinion on what's permitted and what's not. That's your opinion. I tossed that back via the Hotchkiss. Works both ways but I fully understand that and was making that point. The number of original M-1896 cadets is zero. Nada. They don't exist. Thus anything I bake up has zero possibility of being real. On guns that don't exist, but you wish to illustrate, you have to bake them. By definition. Baking up an 1898 likely isn't useful as they exist. Thus somebody can get burned. Baking up a cadet or Colt-Krag is a different horse entirely. They exists in electron format only.

That is the point. If given the choice of baking up a gun which doesn't exist or "restoring" one to a level where it'll be taken as real - I go with the former.

Everything baked in the book is listed as baked. I even show how it was baked. Do I need to do that here? No. This is a web site.

I posted the picture of that "Cadet" to see how well it was baked. The reactions told me the answer. It could have been an interesting thread. Instead it was hijacked.

[Dan Shapiro]

Wasn't that "pistol" the one used by Gen George Washington to execute Benedict Arnold at the Battle of Fallen Timbers?

[Festus39]

I picked up a Krag recently that seemed close to yours but then I remembered it is shorter than normal. I bought it for a shooter. Barrel measures 23 and three-fourths inches from the bolt face. All the metal and bands are there including the front sight which appears to be nicely soldered on and the rear is adjustable to 1800 yards. It is stamped 1895 Springfield Armory and the ser. no. is 25985. The bore,stock, and overall condition is really what I first noticed. As I originally said I bought it to shoot.

[5MadFarmers]

I picked up a Krag recently that seemed close to yours but then I remembered it is shorter than normal. I bought it for a shooter. Barrel measures 23 and three-fourths inches from the bolt face. All the metal and bands are there including the front sight which appears to be nicely soldered on and the rear is adjustable to 1800 yards. It is stamped 1895 Springfield Armory and the ser. no. is 25985. The bore,stock, and overall condition is really what I first noticed. As I originally said I bought it to shoot.

That, no matter how it's sliced, is a very interesting gun. Fascinating even. I'd pay money to see that gun in late 1896. It's guns like that which make me pound my head on the table.

Any chance you can post pictures?

There is no way, at this late date, to be certain what it is. It's in early M-1896 carbine range. Not all the guns in that neighborhood were completed as carbines. Thus they're interesting. If the barrel is a carbine barrel, and from your information it seems a might long but we might simply not be in accord on how to measure, it's a mucked up carbine. An earlier one. I happen to have the parts it's missing but that's another story. If the barrel is a sliced back rifle barrel then we're in another arena. That's the arena which makes me pound my head.

There is no way to tell.

You're either sitting on a mucked up carbine or an interesting rifle. Either way it's interesting.

[Festus39]

Well, whatever this thing is I'm going to load up some 180 soft points for it. I don't hunt but I do kill hogs.
I'm unable to do pictures so I'll try to figure something out on this Krag. The guy I bought it from collected seriously old lever guns;said he had owned the Krag for years but it didn't really fit his collecting.

[5MadFarmers]

Well, whatever this thing is I'm going to load up some 180 soft points for it. I don't hunt but I do kill hogs.

"Hey Jim, you won't believe what I read today."
"What's that."
"Two eggheads arguing about Krags. The thing is that one I have is pretty close to the one they're arguing about."
"Really? What'd you tell them?"
"Just mentioned the one I had."
"What'd they say?"
"Well, the one egghead said it might be a carbine or it might be a rifle."
"What'd you tell him?"
"I told him I kill hogs with it."

Thanks I think. Get your name on the ballot. You have my vote. You kill hogs with yours. Mine sits gathering dust in the safe.


I'm unable to do pictures so I'll try to figure something out on this Krag. The guy I bought it from collected seriously old lever guns;said he had owned the Krag for years but it didn't really fit his collecting.

Another egghead. Invite him over to kill a hog.

Sometime we get a reality check. Color it complete.

[jon_norstog]

Festus,

I'd like to see pictures of your Krag too. It could be a rare bird, or it could be a turkey. My Thai buddhist wife has been down on me for years about hunting, but I think she'd give me a pass if i brought home a tasty young sow. FWIW I think the Krag carbine is the best hunting rifle Springfield Arsenal ever made. It, and the little Swede Mauser carbine, are the only milsurps I can think of that are just fine as-is for hunting.

I don't need an invitation to bring home a hag. I just need the hog.

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

I'd think 23.75" from the bolt face is pretty damn clear, myself. And, when the same gun is described as also having a "soldered" front sight, I'd then think it probably was a cut-off rifle, which, as you say, makes it interesting.

It's when someone says: "the barrel is (fill in your choice of weird dimension) long" with no further info/qualifier, that's when I start to get antsy.

As to the book, I'm eagerly awaiting its' arrival, and I do hope that it gets the reception (whatever that might be, and I've given up trying to guess) that you want.