Help with Krag sight

[JimG]

I have all the books, but they are packed for my move next week, so I need some help. Can someone please tell me exactly what this sight is, and if it is correct for a 1899 carbine. The carbine also has a headless cocking piece. One of the ones that I have is also like this. Is this correct?

[Parashooter]

Model 1901 sight (carbine leaf and base). Original? Maybe. Correct? If that means "of a type that would have been installed in service", then yes. Ditto for cocking piece.

[JimG]

Thank you Sir. That is what I thought, but I always check my books. May be my CRS.

[butlersrangers]

"JimG":

I may be mistaken, but, it appears someone has added metal to the 'V' notch/eye-piece of this 1901 carbine rear sight to increase its height.

31189

[Dick Hosmer]

"JimG":

I may be mistaken, but, it appears someone has added metal to the 'V' notch/eye-piece of this 1901 carbine rear sight to increase its height.

31189

I do not believe that to be the case - looks to be normal height from the little bit of it that is visible in the side view.

[Kragrifle]

The "headless" cocking piece will show up on carbines in the 202000 to 242000 range (May 1899-January 1900. They are not peculiar to carbines and will show up on a few rifles. The 1901 sight shown above was originally used on 1899 carbines assembled in August 1901 till then end of production. Only 200 carbines were made in 1902. Both of the ones I have found were fitted with the 1902 carbines rear sight, but I have never seen a really new 1902 gun, so the 1902 sight could have been a refit. Around 1903 the 1902 carbine sights were fitted to earlier guns, but toward the end of production on the Krags were again fitted with the 1901 rear sights rather than the 1902 model.

[butlersrangers]

JimG:

Detail of the 1901 carbine sight 'slide'. It should have a small "c" to the left of V-notch.

3119331194

[JimG]

Thanks for all the great info guys. I would post pictures of the Krag in question, but the wife has the camera house hunting in Texas. The Krag I'm referring to with the headless cocking piece is serial # 285796. It has a model 1898 carbine sight on it. Front sight is "c" marked. Everything else appears correct. No sling swivels. correct carbine stock and hand guard. Stock has a cartouche date of 1900, would that be correct for this serial number? Thanks for all the help gentlemen.
JimG

[JimG]

Sorry to throw everyone off on the sight question!! Now I know what I have!!

[butlersrangers]

JimG: I believe your stock cartouche would be correct for your model 1899 carbine, #285796, likely produced around September, 1900, (Per Mook - "Krag Crap").

I would be suspicious of the 1898 carbine rear sight. They are relatively rare and were short lived in service, due to the cartridge loading they were sighted for, being abandoned. I have seen fakes (bogus "C" marked 1898 rifle sights). The peculiar 1898 carbine sight (base and leaf) probably eventually went on the scrap or surplus market.

Per Mallory (The Krag Rifle Story, 2nd. edition, page 128) the 1898 carbine sight base height should be 0.485". The base and eye piece are marked "C". ...."Calibrated for the 2,200 f.p.s. cartridge, this sight was fitted to Model 1899 carbines assembled from January to July, 1900. Thirty-five thousand were subsequently converted to Model 1902 sight configuration".

Note: Mallory's mention of "thirty-five thousand converted to Model 1902 sight configuration" makes me scratch my head. IIRC, only around 1,000 model 1902 carbine sights were made. It is known that 1896 carbine sights and 1901 carbine sights were put on most of the early model 1899 carbines to replace their model 1898 carbine sights. The 1902 carbine sight was the last Krag carbine sight to be produced. (Perhaps, Frank Mallory was referring to the 1898 rifle sight leaf being modified and used to make a variant of the 1902 rifle sight)?

I believe your model 1899 carbine, #285796, was produced after the 1898 carbine sight was discontinued. It is also outside the range, given by 'Kragrifle', for the headless cocking piece. (??? People are known to switch parts to make things "Right"???).

[butlersrangers]

FWIW: Detail photos of Krag (1898) carbine rear sight and fake "C" on 1898 sight (rifle leaf).

3120731208

[Dick Hosmer]

Chuck,

The eyepieces and bases differ, but how do you tell a rifle leaf from a carbine leaf?

There is a way, if you have a good mic, to differerentiate between eyepieces, so the ones with fake "C"s can be weeded out, but you need to know the proper notch offsets - which I'm not going to explain here to help a faker - the info can be looked up if needed, suffice it to say that the spacing is not the same.

[Kragrifle]

As opposed to the 1896 and 1901 style rifle/carbine sights, the markings on the 1898 and 1902 sights are the same for rifle and carbine, all being marked to 2000 yards. There are variations in those markings on the 1902 rifle sights, but are still marked to 2000 yards. Though it seems strange that the 1896 and 1901 carbine sights are marked out to a longer distance, it has to do with the trajectory of the bullet at longer yards coming out of a shorter barrel.

[Dick Hosmer]

As opposed to the 1896 and 1901 style rifle/carbine sights, the markings on the 1898 and 1902 sights are the same for rifle and carbine, all being marked to 2000 yards. There are variations in those markings on the 1902 rifle sights, but are still marked to 2000 yards. Though it seems strange that the 1896 and 1901 carbine sights are marked out to a longer distance, it has to do with the trajectory of the bullet at longer yards coming out of a shorter barrel.

True, but not the root cause. The reason that carbine sights (which, except for the graduations, are physically identical to rifle ones) are graduated to longer ranges is the 8" (Krag) to 10" (TD) difference in sight radius. This means that less distance is required between graduations, thus 'tightening up' the markings and leaving more room available. The space could have been left blank, but, since 'volley fire at extreme range' was an accepted doctrine at the time, they simply numbered the sights out as far as they could. There is but one example of which I am aware that is contrary to this. The carbine version of the M68/70 sight, used on the 1870 trials arms only, stops at "7", whereas it could have been marked out to "11".