Value of 1896 carbine

[1563621]

Ser. 22176. Looks in good cond. asking 3500. Me thinks too high.

[sdkrag]

Is the serial number correct? I would call it a cut down with that number.

[Dick Hosmer]

Absolutely NOT a real carbine if the number was quoted correctly. Lowest known production carbine is 24685. Here is 24893

[1563621]

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2014/07/13/3274719_02_emergency_sale_1896_krag_rough_640.jpg On armslist now.

[Dick Hosmer]

Looks like "1896" and 33whatever to me. That is a proper carbine number, but not a bargain price.

[sdkrag]

I've got one I might consider selling for that kind of money.

[Dick Hosmer]

Me too!!!

I have got to start thinning the collection!

[5MadFarmers]

Me too!!!

I have got to start thinning the collection!

Send 24434 this way. I'll have three cadet stocks made instead of one. The next time anyone sees 24398 it'll be sitting in one. With the correct parts to boot.

"Making up a gun!!!" Yeah, kind of like making up the Titanic. Given none survived it won't be a mystery that this one is assembled. Might even cartouche it with my initials.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'll give it some thought.

[5MadFarmers]

Stocks don't exist. The butt plates are easy. The hard part is the other unique bits. Especially these:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/lugrifle.png

[TerryR]

I've got 24,173 it has a rear sight like the one on the right in your pic.
Any other differences to distinguish it?

Stocks don't exist. The butt plates are easy. The hard part is the other unique bits. Especially these:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2014/lugrifle.png

[5MadFarmers]

"Any other difference?"

Many.


I've got 24,173

Mattoon last year in January per chance? If so I was debating taking that one away from you but decided to save my pennies for the incredible selection of field gear. Most of which I took but I'm kicking myself for the bits I didn't. Took a box of "leggings" for $2. Had a Krag action cover in there. Sad part is I did that three times.....

http://www.5madfarmers.com/images_2014/1896sights.png

The three pictured initially were all rifle sights with the 1892 blank. Center above. Compare with the 1892 (left) and normal 1896 (right) and you'll see the lug is the same as the 1892. They burned up the 1892 blanks on the early 1896 sights.

[TerryR]

Yep, this ones from Mattoon! She's a beautiful rifle! I'm so very glad you passed on her!
The sight has the bevel on top of the leaf, and serrations on the very top to lift it.
So I'd say 1896 as it has the squared cut lugs .
Thanks for the info.

[5MadFarmers]

Wrong part to focus on. I've updated the picture so reload in your browser. Notice the two on the left have the same shape whereas the one on the right doesn't have that lug.

Left is 1892.
Middle is very early 1896.
Right is "normal" 1896.

It's that lug that identifies those sights. Early carbines have it also.

[Kragrifle]

Early, "lugged" rifle sights?

[TerryR]

I SEE now! Mine is the 1896 like the one on the right.
My 68,xxx 96 carbine taken from the same estate auction that was earlier in the month, has the early 96 sight.
thanks again for the help. Pics say a thousand words!
Terry

[5MadFarmers]

I SEE now! Mine is the 1896 like the one on the right.
My 68,xxx 96 carbine taken from the same estate auction that was earlier in the month, has the early 96 sight.
thanks again for the help. Pics say a thousand words!
Terry

While I collect bayonets I'm not a bayonet collector. While I collect guns I'm not really a gun collector either. I also have field gear, uniforms, tools, etc., Tents, sleeping bags, snow shoes, etc.,

When I saw the pictures for that auction what caught my eye first was the early M-1910 canteen. I'd never seen that edition. Then the cartridge belts. That was an impressive collection.

So I drove to Mattoon for the field gear. I looked at all the Krags and even bid on a few. I didn't bid enough to take any. I already have a lot of Krags. So that 1892/96 you took caught my eye. You did well with that rifle. That said I already have a pile of those so one more wasn't of as much value to me as the field gear - much of which I didn't have. So I didn't pass on that gun due to it not being a nice gun, it was a very nice example and you did well in taking it, I passed on it as I didn't know what the damage would be in the field gear. The field gear went after the guns. After all was said and done I probably should have taken that rifle too. :icon_lol:

I knew what it was. The damage in the field gear worked out to be less than expected. The only gun I "won" was a .22 rifle, NIB, after the auction ended. They raffled off, free tickets one per person, 4 rifles. I won the Henry .22. Given my FFL is C&R I gave that, and the FOID thing, thought and gave it to a kid there who lived locally. He did help me load my car. Fair trade.

====


Early, "lugged" rifle sights?

They're all the rage. No fashionable collection is missing one.

Yes, when Chuck Wright first mentioned he had one I wondered if he was jerking my chain. According to the existing Krag lore they shouldn't exist. Yet they do. Three of them sitting here have convinced me it's so. Thus the Krag lore is wrong. As it is in many areas.

====

Last Summer, August in fact, I took two weeks and wrote the Krag book. That included pictures which apparently made Mr. Hosmer upset. We're not in agreement on that. I get his view. I don't even disagree with it. I also get mine. Just because somebody likes Corvettes doesn't mean it's right for me. Perhaps a Jeep is.

Between the stop energy that caused, my new job eating my brain, and a birdy telling me I really did need to include some pictures of the peripheral stuff I just stopped. Putt he book away and didn't do any more work. Left it right there. A year later the guns are still sitting where I left them on the floor.

I also have the field gear. A surprising amount of it. Somebody with three lugged rifle sights is going to have a lot of stuff right?

Gathering up the peripheral stuff is no mean feat. It's all scattered in boxes. A box full of "canteens" contains "canteens." Not "Krag era canteens." Ditto meat cans and the rest. The Krag stuff, to include tools, was easy as those are in the safes. It's the field gear which was a problem. That's boxed. Lots of boxes. Bedrooms full of boxes.

Kind of long. That's ok.

I'm not a collector; the research is of more interest to me. I'm also employed in a field having nothing to do with this. Thus it's not paying me. Krags are a sideshow.

The research isn't finished. The Krag collection mainly is. It's time to move on and I have. I've been hitting WW2 hard.

All of which tells me it's time to get this Krag book thing out the door. I have other areas I need to focus on. The garage is currently filled with boxes. Yesterday we started opening the existing boxes and transferring. Sorting as we go. The "bulk" of the stuff is WW1 and WW2. Those boxes will get sealed. The ones left open will be those having the stuff of the Krag era.

I'll pull random Krag era stuff and take more quick pictures. I'll add information from the research material I have and toss it together. Like a salad. The pictures will again be gimpy and the research not fully leveraged. That's ok. It's a Renoir - not a Rembrandt.

The books I intend to do, once the research and collection is complete, will be Rembrandts. Not the Krag book. It's out of band. A quick and dirty book to get it out of the way.

Call it the "Austere" edition.

In fact I'm thinking I'll go even more austere. Buy a big laser printer and a ring binding machine and churn it out in the basement.

It's not the book people are expecting. Be prepared for that. It's also not what you'd think from reading that. Brophy and Mallory are the Battleships of guns. This isn't going to be a Cruiser or Destroyer. Nor will it be a pocket battleship. Different book entirely. A Prairie Schooner.

The lugged rifle sights are covered. As is much else. It's a readable book. An entertaining book. A book written in two weeks.

As soon as the boxes are done it's time to finish the pictures and push it out the door.

[Dick Hosmer]

So, after pretty much bashing and denigrating the work of all previous authors on the subject, you have managed to produce (or at least coalesce from your research) a work in two weeks which, after all the blather, may not be the promised be all end all we have been waiting for? That seems too bad. I will, of course, reserve judgement until I see it, but the status report sounds rather depressing. The value of any book is in its' content and accuracy, so, hopefully, regardless of the wrapping, the work will add to our knowledge. I'm sure we were all looking forward to something truly grand - refer numerous laudatory comments.

The picture(s) that "upset" me were the humped Cadet, right?

Glad you have returned to the fray, so to speak.

[5MadFarmers]

So, after pretty much bashing and denigrating the work of all previous authors on the subject, you have managed to produce (or at least coalesce from your research) a work in two weeks which, after all the blather, may not be the promised be all end all we have been waiting for?

A man once set out on a journey. Departing on foot from St. Louis he wandered the trails towards California. Given the difficulty of the journey he made it 200 miles before he couldn't continue. Another man set out to further that trail. The first 200 miles were easier as he had the journal from the first man. He extended the trail another 100 miles and then collapsed. The third man was able, via backing, to extend the trail another 150 miles before collapsing.

I have zero intention of pushing that trail another 100 miles given that the first man headed West when what he was after was East. No amount of work down that trail is, as far as I can see, useful. As to denegrating the previous authors let's narrow that down shall we? Find, and the Internet lives a long time, a single case of me claiming Brophy and Mallory did not do good work. Want multiple links to the contrary? I think they both did very good work. Thus we're left with a third author aren't we? I'll retain my opinion of that work. Even more so after doing mine.


That seems too bad.

Either that or it seems good. I'm heading East.


I will, of course, reserve judgement

That's a mighty tall horse. Belgian draft?


until I see it, but the status report sounds rather depressing.

I don't find it depressing at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want another Brophy/Mallory style book feel free to write it. Nobody is stopping you. I don't think it's the right book. You prefer the Vette, I'm more of a Jeep man. What you seem unable to grasp Dick is that the book I produce is the book I produce. It's going to suit and originate from my perspective.


The value of any book is in its' content and accuracy,

This, fundamentally, is where we disagree. In a fashion you don't see the other side of. The value of a book of this nature has entirely to do with whether or not it advances the state of knowlege in a manner that the reader finds useful. You're a fan of "tree" books. This isn't a "tree" book. This is a "forest" book. The intent, and it does it handily, is to get people to stop staring at those trees.


so, hopefully, regardless of the wrapping, the work will add to our knowledge. I'm sure we were all looking forward to something truly grand - refer numerous laudatory comments.


What too many people are looking forward to to Brophy(2) and Mallory(2). It isn't that.


The picture(s) that "upset" me were the humped Cadet, right?

There was no "humped Cadet." There were pictures of three guns digitally blended and photographed in such a manner that the end result is, visually, a perfect picture of a Cadet. As made. Let's repeat: there was never any such gun. So "humped pictures" of a non-existant Cadet; not pictures of a "humped Cadet" as it never existed. The distinction is quite clear - photo foo, not gun foo. Now, on your Belgian draft, let's talk about your seeking a sight for a Hotchkiss. Is that digital nonsense or are you intending to render that in metal? Which would be a "humped gun?:"
A) A gun which does not, and never has, existed. A digitally created photograph of a gun which does not exist.
B) A gun which had parts altered.

I think that part that upset people is I posted the photo without letting people know what it was. Everyone was sucked in. Which was my point. "Passes." As it did. As it should as it was nicely done.

Fix your Hotchkiss. But don't go telling others about "humped guns" when it's done.

I am going to "hump" a Cadet. The difference at that point is the "Cadet" will always be known as a fabrication of something which doesn't exist. Whereas "restored" guns do exist.

In fact I'm going to fabricate three of them.

====

Strangely the part of my job which was sucking my brain is an almost direct match for this situation. I detailed it for my project managers about two weeks ago. It's pretty simple really:

Vision
Model
==================<------ IQ line
Details

People with IQ focus below the line. Those without focus above. I have no IQ. I'm good with that.



Glad you have returned to the fray, so to speak.

I'll be honest. I needed to dig in those boxes for the Krag gunk. That said if it was only that I would not have. I also needed an inventory of WW2 uniform items so I can finish that collection. It took both together to get it done.

The Krag book isn't what people expect. Exactly two people have read it which is myself and PH. PH loved it. The only critic that matters if you think about it real hard. She paid for half of it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Truly, not your average Joe!

I had forgotten the fact that the Cadet was digital. My bad.

With regards to humping my Hotchkiss - non-invasive replacement of a clearly wrong part with an original is more like un-humping. The gun speaks for itself, it is otherwise correct.

Making up wannabe look alikes from 21st-century manufactured components is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm not planning to re-engrave a common sight and call it good. There is correspondence to the effect that SA was not happy with the sights originally put on the "old model" of 1878, which were supposedly corrected in the "new model" of 1879. So, while, I highly doubt it, the TD sight presently on there could have been an attempt to correct whatever they felt was wrong". In retrospect, I am beginning to wonder if the oddball sight on GB was a fake after all.

Sadly, I find your IQ comment to be rather condescending - I'd wager yours is near-genius. And, I suspect PH is probably predjudiced - which is a good thing! Ruminate on the consequences if it were not so. [GRIN]

Repeat line 1.

[5MadFarmers]

With regards to humping my Hotchkiss - non-invasive replacement of a clearly wrong part with an original is more like un-humping. The gun speaks for itself, it is otherwise correct.

Not terribly long ago the CMP received requests to "correct" some M1 rifles. With an eye to customer service they did. WW2 parts on "otherwise correct" 1950s production. Obviously wrong! At least so the books would indicate. Except those parts were put on there at SA. Why waste good parts? So a "clearly wrong" part may not be wrong. Let's assume that it's so bogus it declares its' bogosity. Now we're left with the question of what's right? That is where the devil enters the game. The reason for that is why half of the university programs are bogus. One basic assumption which is wrong. So we should tread lightly on correcting the sample rate of one item.

Guns are best left as found if originality is what you seek. Too much happened in their lives which is lost in the mists of time. How long were people told that slings on Krag carbines were the work of bubba?

Then again it's your gun. Knock yourself out.


Making up wannabe look alikes from 21st-century manufactured components is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm not planning to re-engrave a common sight and call it good. There is correspondence to the effect that SA was not happy with the sights originally put on the "old model" of 1878, which were supposedly corrected in the "new model" of 1879. So, while, I highly doubt it, the TD sight presently on there could have been an attempt to correct whatever they felt was wrong". In retrospect, I am beginning to wonder if the oddball sight on GB was a fake after all.

A sample size of one is no sample at all. We know generally what's true but that is entirely unhinged when it's distilled down to a sample rate of one.


Sadly, I find your IQ comment to be rather condescending - I'd wager yours is near-genius.

With respect to IQ, like Japanese Yen, I have none. Close enough to none for it to be within the margin of error for none. Zilch. On an IQ test I might even manage to turn in the only negative score they've ever encountered. I'm used to it. I've learned to adapt. I do mean that about IQ - I'm not guessing. The brain has two sides. Mine is completely dark on that side. "Dark matter." Except it's dark but that doesn't matter.

The other side makes up for it. I get textbook examples daily at work. I work in a sea of High IQ people. Brains put together differently. IQ people see one side of the coin. I see the other. Is one better than the other? Who knows? It's just the way it is. In any event the Brophy and Mallory books are from the IQ side. Mine will by definition be from the other. Hard not to be right? If all you have is grapes you don't make orange juice. Conversely if all you have is oranges you don't make grape juice. Different sides of the brain. I could create a easy test that would be even more accurate than IQ tests to determine who has which side. Easy for me as I'm dark on that other side.


And, I suspect PH is probably predjudiced - which is a good thing! Ruminate on the consequences if it were not so. [GRIN]

PH has a hobby. I'm it. I'm ok with that. She gets what she needs out of it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorta blending two threads here, but how do you rationalize s/n overlap as apparently being OK, yet, as you yourself have said, on many an occasion, NO ONE has followed ANY rifle from then to now, so, how can that be. Who says an overlap gun is correct?

I think it could be stated with equal accuracy that they were not intended to be so - particularly at the 96-98 break. What we see now, on any gun, is the result of Lord knows what. I'd have to have any alleged overlap gun in my hands. I know what I was able to do with a low-grade program (way below Photoshop) when combining images for my book. Given a person with your skill-set and a high-end program, there is no way in hell I'd ever accept a photo as "proof" again.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THAT THAT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO APPLY TO YOUR GIVEN WORD!!!

IF I can find a proper HC sight, I'll probably install it, and keep the other with the gun so that the next custodian can make their own choice.

[5MadFarmers]

Sorta blending two threads here,

Unlikely anybody cares. They're here for entertainment and there is that. If they do care they can just skip the thread. I'll post a picture of a Hollywood starlet photoshopped to carry a Krag in a new thread to distract them.


but how do you rationalize s/n overlap as apparently being OK,

Some things are black and white and others are gray. Overlap is black and white and then enters gray. Not the other way around. Patterns and puzzles - my noggin does those ok.

1898s and 1899s overlap. No doubt. Have examined said guns. So we have a fixed: 1898s and 1899s overlap.

Patterns repeat. If the 1898s and 1899s overlap the others do also. That's a given as it was non-linear production. The book covers that.

So overlaps don't bug me. Black and white (1898s and 1899s do in a fashion that cannot be disputed as physical specimens display it) shifting frequencies to gray (somebody who voted for Obama likely voted for Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, etc.). Springfield's production was non-linear and that is established with the 1898s/1899s and thus is likely true at other nearby destinations. Time based frequency distribution would tells us it dissipates the further from the nexis point one travels. Thus the M1s made at SA may not suffer as the distance (time) is great. 1896s aren't a great distance away. Ergo those are likely affected and overlap.

No problem.

That's generic. Nothing to do with sample rates of one. Overlap exists in the 1898s and 1899s and it exists with sample sizes greater than one. I've seen numbers of them that prove it out. Simple science on that one. I'll walk sideways. I saw a couple of RIA produced bayonets. With serials of course. Along came a 1919 RIA marked sample that was, get this, lower in serial than the top 1917 dated ones. That 1919 bayonet is thus a sample rate of one and something funky. Another shortly appeared and repeated the pattern. Two 1919 bayonets lower in serial than a group of 1917s. So what's up with that? It's not a sample rate of one and thus qualifies as a pattern.

A sample size of one is no sample size at all. Once it's two it's a pattern. Three is a stronger pattern. Four is stronger yet. 1898s/1899s don't just overlap at a sample size of one, they overlap at a higher sample rate. Thus it's a pattern. Patterns repeat and thus the 1896s are likely affected. Same workers and same work flow. Time nexis is close.

Not a problem for me. It's a pattern and not a sample size of one. Two different things.

You see 10 guys standing in a row. The first and last three have Russian hockey jerseys on. You ask all six if they're on the Russian hockey team. "Yes." Are the middle four? They have Russian hockey jerseys. You ask the next three. "Yes, yes, and yes." One remaining. "No, I'm just a fan." Sample size of one. You're speaking to members of the Russian hockey team. Except the fan dude. He's not. He's a sample size of one. You turn around and there are ten dudes with Canadian hockey jerseys on. Are they all hockey players? You ask. Eight players and two fans. Now your sample rate of one is no longer a sample rate of one. It's a pattern. "Around me tend to be ten dudes with the same jersey, of which most are players but some are fans." Patterns repeat. You look to the left. Ten dudes in Swedish hockey jerseys. What are the odds some are players and some fans? A sample size of one is no sample at all. A sample size greater is a pattern and patterns repeat. With dissipation as you travel further from the nexis. Five days later you're at your local bar and almost everybody is wearing American hockey jerseys. No players - all fans. Nexis distance too great for the pattern to hold true.



yet, as you yourself have said, on many an occasion, NO ONE has followed ANY rifle from then to now, so, how can that be.

Sample size of one. Thus true.


Who says an overlap gun is correct?

Me. Sample rate is higher than one and thus it's a pattern.


I think it could be stated with equal accuracy that they were not intended to be so - particularly at the 96-98 break.

Sample rate holds true with the 1898s and 1899s. This gives us a pattern. Closer to nexis the more likely it's true. Are you ready for it? Are you sure? 1898 rifles and 1898 carbines overlap. Duh huh? We know they do. Non-linear production again. Pattern held true. Thus the 1896 carbines and rifles likely have overlap. We've seen the pattern twice. Cadets and early 1896 carbines? Look for overlap.

Doesn't mean the 1896s and 1898s do though. That'd be a different pattern. This would require overlap when the receivers themselves are physically different. Doesn't mean it doesn't occur and doesn't mean it didn't. It means I've not seen a sample of overlap. So a sample size of zero. Not enough input to process. What we do know is it's more likely than not. There is a pattern which forces the overlap and, if you reason out that pattern, you'll see why it indicates that overlap in the 1896/1898 transition is more likely than not. I'll let people hang in suspense on that for a minute and cover it below. Figured you'd want to see if you can figure it out for yourselves first. My noggin just does patterns and puzzles. Answers just appear in flashing lights in that part of the brain.


What we see now, on any gun, is the result of Lord knows what. I'd have to have any alleged overlap gun in my hands. I know what I was able to do with a low-grade program (way below Photoshop) when combining images for my book. Given a person with your skill-set and a high-end program, there is no way in hell I'd ever accept a photo as "proof" again.

Trust but verify. Have at it. I've seen in in multiple occurances already. Just bought one. I held a rifle which overlaps it.


NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THAT THAT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO APPLY TO YOUR GIVEN WORD!!!

I never lie. Really, I don't. I tell tall tales and engineer realities but never lie. Personal quirk.

When they made 1898 rifles and carbines the receiver was the same as was the model marking. Let's skip that as uninteresting.

When they made 1898 rifles and 1899 carbines the marking was different. Overlap occurs. Thus one of two situations is true:

1) They marked the serial before the model.
2) They marked the serial after the model but the receivers hit the serial machine out of order.

In either case one of the two above being true would indicate overlap is likely for the 1896/1898 rifle transition. Same pattern.


IF I can find a proper HC sight, I'll probably install it, and keep the other with the gun so that the next custodian can make their own choice.

It would be best. Truth helps.

Dick, distances are an IQ thing. Shapes aren't. Neither are hues. I can spot an arsenal rebuild Krag on sight. The book will detail how. It's hues.

[Dick Hosmer]

Ahh, semantics! Perhaps we are not in agreement as to what is an overlap?

(1) 1898 rifles mixed with 1898 carbines is not an "overlap", it is simply utilization of the part
(2) high numbered rifles with 1899 receivers are not "overlaps", but, again, utilization of the part.
(3) high-numbered 1898 carbines are either arsenal mistakes (grabbed wrong part) or rebuilds, or fakes made for dummies, but are not "overlaps".
(4) rifles in apparent carbine blocks, and vice-versa, are arsenal mistakes, rebuilds, legitimate or otherwise, or fakes, but not "overlaps".
(5) an 1896-shaped receiver found with a number higher than an 1898-shaped receiver would be an overlap.
(6) a "Model 1896" receiver numbered lower than an "1896" receiver would be an overlap.
(7) an "1895" marked receiver with a higher number than an "1896" receiver would be an overlap.
(8) of course, an "1894" receiver numbered higher than an "1895" receiver would also be an overlap.

We know that (1) thru (4) exist.

I very much doubt that (5) does.

So far, AFAIK, we have not found a (6)

(7) and (8) are alleged to exist, but, AFAIK, only in the written (and transcribed at that) word. I want to see physical proof, in my hands, not in a book, not in a photo, before I will believe that they do. Color me very skeptical.

[5MadFarmers]

Ahh, semantics! Perhaps we are not in agreement as to what is an overlap?

(4) rifles in apparent carbine blocks, and vice-versa, are arsenal mistakes, rebuilds, legitimate or otherwise, or fakes, but not "overlaps".





overlap
verb

to lie over the edge of (something) : to cover part of the edge of (something)

to happen at the same time as something else


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlap

Overlaps. Argue it out with Merriam-Webster. I'd recommend against it though. You'll end up in librarian prison getting shushed all day.


When they made 1898 rifles and 1899 carbines the marking was different. Overlap occurs. Thus one of two situations is true:

1) They marked the serial before the model.
2) They marked the serial after the model but the receivers hit the serial machine out of order.

In either case one of the two above being true would indicate overlap is likely for the 1896/1898 rifle transition. Same pattern.

I'm not going to bother with the point by point. I mentioned "trees" before. This isn't to say I agree with those points themselves as I don't necessarily. What it means is I'll wait until people have had time to digest the book. Then at least people will understand the language I'm speaking.

I have boxes to process. Living room is a disaster.

[Dick Hosmer]

I think we are probably done with this topic - just two hardheads - clearly neither is going to give an inch.

[Jay Johnson]

I think we are probably done with this topic - just two hardheads - clearly neither is going to give an inch.

It appears so, still, interesting read, no matter the whimsical wanderings of the farmer...OMG, how many time does one need to explain what a pattern is, maybe twice, no more! Oh, and when is he going to post those humped pictures of Hollywood starlets with Krags in their hands, I'm looking for a diversion...

[5MadFarmers]

Oh, and when is he going to post those humped pictures of Hollywood starlets with Krags in their hands, I'm looking for a diversion...

*Sigh*

Why does everyone get it backwards? Dick mentioned pictures of a humped gun when it was humped pictures of a gun and now you want humped pictures of a starlet when it'd be better if it was pictures of a humped starlet.

*Sigh*

[Jay Johnson]

I'll post a picture of a Hollywood starlet photoshopped to carry a Krag in a new thread to distract them.

I'm just here for the entertainment and you're the one offering a picture of a photoshopped Hollywood starlet carrying a Krag, which does sound entertaining to me...

[Dick Hosmer]

How about some pictures of a couple of Hollywood starlets humping next to a stack of Krags?

This is going to get totally out of hand - I can just see it coming.

[Kragrifle]

OMG! What was the question?

[dave]

I've got one I might consider selling for that kind of money.

Me too---lettered to the !st Cav. just before they shipped to the Phippines, 1900 (if memory serves me). even has the correct sight!