Updated 1898 carbine?

[BradB]

Thanks for pointers on previous thread (1898 carbine SRS check). After several trips back to examine, I purchased this at a local auction this morning. Slow day for the firearms they had; an original finish 1897 production Winchester Model 94 with octagonal barrel in caliber 32-40 sold for $600 immediately prior to this lot. I paid $500 plus fees for this as the only bidder, so even if "humped", I have my money back in parts (which included a correct 3-piece rod and tool in the buttstock). Crappy pics on the web helped. Comments and analysis requested and appreciated. I know the front sight blade needs replaced, but all else appears to be original as updated in the field (hence the absence of a stock cartouche which would not be correct anyway?). Finish is as nice an original blue as I have seen to include excellent nitre on the extractor and a near mirror finish blue on the trigger guard and barrel band. Much dust and age settled into nooks and crannies which I will clean later (wanted to take photos "as found" first since this helps ID anything messed with recently). The stock MAY be cracked along the grain at the base of the loading port/sideplate. I'll see when I take it down, but it does not look promising. If so, hairline only with no opening. (Don't plan on shooting anyway). I am not going to remove the HG for cleaning as I do NOT want to crack it.

The "story" from consigner is that their great grandfather was stationed at Guantanamo Bay in World War One and was given this carbine for guard duty of some type. Because it was obsoleted, he was not required to turn it back in when he transferred. Irrelevant but interesting. I will see if I can get more detail / provenance. Thanks in advance.

2517125172251732517425175

[BradB]

Barrel is correct 22 inches with pristine bore. Crown is evenly rounded with no sharp edges and worn finish that matches barrel in color and depth.

2517625178251792518025181

[BradB]

Any other photos desired to help ID please let me know. Thanks!!

2518225183251842518525186

[madsenshooter]

Good deal for you!

[BradB]

I bought an 1898 carbine about 25 years ago out of Shotgun News (pre-internet). It showed up with a correct but heavily sanded stock and little finish. I returned it and have been looking for a correct Krag Carbine ever since that was not humped up, boogered, trashed or priced at the upper end of retail. Because of all the fakery, I was looking mostly at 1899s which is what I thought this one was until I looked at the SN. Everything looked good to me except the front sight blade; I think I may have started 2014 off right. =-)

Suggestions on where to get a replacement front blade (original "C"-marked if possible) appreciated. I will likely have to settle for a standard 98 blade? Any requirements on profile or height?

[dave]

Rear sight base and ladder are correct carbine but have never seen the c on the slide before.

[BradB]

Stock was indeed split behind the sideplate and loading gate... and previously repaired under the trigger guard with two wood screws angled into the "meat" portions of the wrist. They do not interfere with function, but clearly not Govt. work. Guard screws were "set" in old hardened grease inside the receiver. I have encountered similar in WWII era "put-aways". The barreled receiver seems to have been very well reblued; there is some old pitting that is present on the bottom portion of the barrel where it is covered by the forearm of the stock. Blue around and over it is same color as rest of barrel. The loading gate is also a poor match for the weapon in finish and also appears to have been redone. At this point, sadly, I am thinking this was put together in the 50s or 60s using a refinished receiver and barrel, a repaired stock and excellent condition original bolt, buttplate, band, handguard, rear sight with rod sections and tool added as well. That is all I can come up with; this was made by a collector for display with the best parts he could get his hands on in that timeframe. Reblue is professional job without any obvious buffing that I can see except a slight thinning of text in the middle of the springfield designation. Could this be an arsenal or depot reblue with updated parts? (I know; doubtful). So, although I did not get burned too badly, this is not the example I wanted for my collection. Based on responses, I may consign at a local gunshop with all appropriate disclosures. Expert comments and shared analysis welcome. Thanks!

252002520125202

[jon_norstog]

Brad,

I would give it the benefit of the doubt for now. That sight blade means you have someone's hunting rifle, at least. The hunter may have left it in a closet or behind a stove too long ... I'm trying to see how this could be a fake, rather than a real carbine that was used as a hunting rifle and maybe neglected a bit. You'll probably never be sure unless you can track down the previous owners.

Real or fake, I would repair the stock and shoot that carbine.

jn

[sdkrag]

Rear sight looks right as rain to me. Tiny C on the slide is correct.

[Dick Hosmer]

Jon, it could be a fake if someone built it up on a rifle receiver with M1899 carbine parts. That is the problem with 1898 carbines - only about 160 numbers are known out of the 5000 made.

5MF claims he can tell if a particular arm was a carbine, but he has not, and I suspect he may not, tell us how he can tell. He has hinted that "Tom" (presumably Tom Pearce, a fine gentleman, and a Krag guru/expert of long standing - see KCA site) has alluded to the same feature or circumstance, but not what that "key" might be. So, we will all be in suspense for a while longer, I guess.

[BradB]

I can see keeping some information tight to the vest; an existing specimen is already correct or not. Release a "foolproof" method to tell and soon bumpers will be working to add the characteristic. I would appreciate an assessment of this one.

[Dick Hosmer]

I will concede that - at first blush - your point has some merit, but, I feel that when all is said and done, the more knowledge that is openly available to all, the better. To have one or two people dispensing the gift of legitimacy is not, IMHO, a good thing.

Of course, at this point, not knowing what the point may be, makes it difficult to construct anything other than an abstract argument based on general principles. Perhaps the feature is not easily replicated, and of little worry? The 1898 Carbine is already well-poisoned, so I'm not sure that disclosing anything "new" would change that.

This (and I don't mean it to) may sound elitist, since I am fortunate to have a carbine in what appears to be original configuration, though I have never stated that it was untouched (in fact quite the opposite) but I personally do not see anything truly exciting in a specimen which - save for an unverifiable number - is, for all intents and purposes, an 1899 Carbine. I look at this issue from the standpoint of displaying a sequence of items on a wall, where physical differences are visible to the the (discerning) eye, and the design progress may be followed. This, IMHO, demands the presence of the special 1898C stock (once available, but no longer, and which would not be commercially viable to fake) and an 1896C sight, where fakes already abound, due to its' broader usage. Older readers may recall the articles from the 1960s (70s?) in "Gun Report" magazine - it is clear that there was a great mystery afoot until someone found (or finally noticed - "aha") an original stock.

You have a very nice looking carbine, which, following (I think) certain points of 5MF's logic, may well be more "original" than mine!

We'll probably never know, though I hope some of the mist is cleared by 5MF's hard work, and thank goodness we don't all lust after the same thing, or demand would be higher, and prices even worse.

[5MadFarmers]

It's perfect. Exactly as it would be expected to appear. The sight blade is bogus but that's a given.

It's an 1898 carbine rebuilt circa 1902 - no earlier. That's also a given due to the rear sight and hand guard.

Very nice gun. Fresh from arsenal rebuild.

Scrumptious in fact.

_______

[5MadFarmers]

I can see keeping some information tight to the vest; an existing specimen is already correct or not. Release a "foolproof" method to tell and soon bumpers will be working to add the characteristic. I would appreciate an assessment of this one.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2013/fake1.png

What do you think? A nice "M-1941" field jacket tag. S.M. Wholesale. Real or repro? The contract number is right in a group of PQD-20A contracts so they got that right. Specification date is right on for that jacket. Date is right on for that contract. Ergo they copied the data from a real one. Stock 55-S-230? That's wrong thrice over. That part they couldn't copy as "46R" is not something easily found in a jacket designed for a 21 year old kid. Outside of the bogus "5" in the middle the stock number on that tag tells us something; the jacket they copied was a 38R. 55-J-230 is a 38R jacket. Would it be helpful to know that 55-J-270 is the stock number for 46R? They'd have enjoyed knowing that.

Who is "S.M. Wholesale?" ATF, WPG, and SEMS, and WW2 Impressions I was aware of. "S.M. Wholesale" was a new one on me. You'd not appreciate the number of bids that jacket, sold as original, received.

ATF uses originals as templates also.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2013/copy.png

Copied a jacket from Cohen-Fein. Notice they duplicated the P.O. # but changed the date to D-Day? Pattern date changed to match that....

48R would be a hard jacket to find. They just scaled the stock number up to what they expected "48R" to be. 55-J-192-90 is the correct stock number for 48R.

Yes, I have mixed feelings about writing "howto" books. Some things I think it's just better to not print. I'll print more than I like but not all of it as I really hav mixed emotions about it all.

[Kragrifle]

Probably forever!

[BradB]

Thank-you all. Much appreciated. Into the safe she goes. Any recommendations on a source for a C-marked model 99 front blade or a really top notch (and reasonably economical) wood guy to tidy up the stock repair?

[Pentz]

Brad, I've had occasion to have repairs done to duffle-cuts and cracked wrists on collectible firearms. Wound up going to a local professional sporting clays stock shop; they do stock mods all year long. Their repairs are nearly undetectable and were reasonable for the firearm concerned.

[Dick Hosmer]

Also see work by Rick Borecky, who posts here as "RickB".

[BradB]

Thanks again. Looks like S&S for a sight blade and a few emails/PMs to decide on stock.

[jon_norstog]

Brad,

If you have a new stock made, hang onto the original. Cracks and all, it is probably the wood that the arsenal put on that carbine. Long as you have all the pieces, it can be repaired, almost good as new.

Good luck!

jn

[BradB]

I'm all about the original. Just want it repaired right. ;-)