Krag at gun show---

[dave]

Saw a beautiful 1896 carbine at a small show yesterday. Metal well worn finish stock like new. It was in a 1899 carbine stock, 1901 carbine sight, barrel appeared genuine carbine, front blade not. No stamp on stock that I noticed. The 1896 on receiver looked at first glance to be 1898, did not have glass but the 6 did not look quite closed in upper loop. However I know a 96 receiver when I see one due to bolt recess. I have checked my Mallory/Olson book and glanced at Brophy (no serial ranges?) and Poyer. The serial on this carbine was 101171, which is way out of range for a 96 of any kind and falls in the 98 rifle group. Numbers looked genuine also, not a restamp or number added.
What's up with this? Any comments welcome.

[Dick Hosmer]

My only comment would be that it was almost certainly not originally a carbine - but it is time to invoke the "tool vs. collector item" adage. Since the arm has the long stock and later sight it is clear that at some point it was in for overhaul. It is certainly possible that an out-of-range receiver might have entered the mix at that time. Bannerman et al, and Joe Blow from Kokomo, are also potential suspects, of course.

It sort of depends what one wants, an "example" or a "probably (there are no guarantees!) correct example". One should not pay full collector retail for such an item, nor look upon it as an investment which will appreciate. And of course a pure shooter should never pay for any real carbine, due to the built-in premium.

[dave]

Oh, I had no intention of buying, wondered if perhaps there was an explanation for this odd ball. As I said serial looked original, I do not hold much stock in Joe Blow being able to stamp neat all in a row numbers in a case hardened piece of steel with hand tools. And the font was original style. If that is what you meant by "tool vs. collector item". If in for a rebuild would it not have been refinished? Hardly any blue left but stock almost w/o a blemish! The serial is way up in the 98 rifle range. The guy who had it was very old and said he had it for years. No reason to question that, was not a dealer.
Thanks for answer.

[butlersrangers]

Dave: If the metal finish is worn, but, the stock is almost without blemish, it is a pretty sure indicator this Krag is a 'parts gun' someone has made up after the Krag left the service. You said the front blade was not right. Did you mean the whole front sight (base and blade) or just the pinned in blade? (Oops, I forgot myself. I meant to resist posting on this page. Sorry!).

[dave]

I said BLADE and that is what I meant! The stock had the proper cut out for the bolt recess, looked like original arsenal work, not bubba unless he was an expert with wood. Poor bubba, sure catches hell on these forums! I figured it is a parts gun but am more interested in the serial number being a 98 rifle on a 96 action. That is what I was asking about!

[Ned Butts]

101,000 is not way out of the 1896 range it is at the very end of rifle production. 1898 started around 109,000. So that late wouldn't have been a carbine but was still model1896 production.

[dave]

Aw, yes, just rechecked the table, 96 production goes to 108 thou. 98 starts at 109 thou! Not seeing or thinking clearly! I suspected it was a rifle receiver (carbine are only five digit) but did not mention to the ol' guy my thoughts even tho I showed him the table. Did I say 'ol guy? I am 80, got a lot of nerve calling anyone that! hehehe.
Thanks for the heads up.