restoring Krag carbine

[Battis]

I have an 1896 carbine that I'm restoring. So far, I replaced the saddle bar and ring with a reproduction. I put a 1903 front sight on it and an earlier Krag rear sight that fits perfectly. I put a repro handguard on it, and a repro barrel ring. All that's left, other than fitting the handguard better, is to figure out what to do with the end of the stock. Someone cut the end off and screwed a rubber recoil pad on. Is there any "good" way to replace wood at the end of the stock or should I live with the recoil pad?

[psteinmayer]

It sounds like you may have a rifle that was cut down to carbine length and sporterized. Did the barrel always have a 1903 front sight? What is the length of the barrel as measured from the muzzle to the closed bolt face? anything other than exactly 22 inches is suspect.

If the butt of the stock was shortened to add a rubber recoil pad, you might as well leave it. Grafting a new fore-stock is one thing, but grafting on a new butt section is another thing entirely. Replacement stocks are available from Boyds, but beware... some have reported receiving a stock that resembled being roughed out with a chainsaw, and requiring extensive work to get a proper fit. Also, carbine and rifle stocks do show up on EBay from time to time.

Pictures of what you have will definitely help us give better advice, however.

Hope this helps...

[Battis]

I had posted about this carbine when I first bought it. After some research, it was determined to be an 1896 carbine that had been "worked over."
I'll probably just leave the recoil pad.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?44786-Krag-ID

[psteinmayer]

Ah yes... now I do remember from the previous post. Too bad about the stock, although it obviously was cracked, and subsequently repaired. Yes, I would leave the pad and just treat it as a sporter at this point. If you really wanted to make it a correct Krag, you would need to install the proper front sight post in addition to a correct carbine sight and replacement stock.

[Battis]

The rear sight was from an 1892 Krag (according to the seller). The holes in the sight line up perfectly with the barrel mounting holes. I went with the 1903 front sight because the original front sight dovetail had been filled in, but I might open it up. I'll post a pic of the carbine as it is now -it looks pretty good (and it's a good shooter).

[Battis]

http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/9a532f1c-fff6-4fa7-8520-25f2ab7c0d79_zpsra5ioqcp.jpg

I'm still working on the handguard and positioning the front sight
http://i105.photobucket.com/albums/m217/pohill/cdd09793-cd45-4040-8b04-54221545d12d_zpswnsxxkx0.jpg

[psteinmayer]

An original front sight post and blade are available from Joe DeChristopher's site, should you decided to open the dovetail. Joe passed away recently, but I believe his sons are keeping the site going. Otherwise... it's looking good. Just out of curiosity, is that 1892 rear sight marked as a carbine sight?

[Battis]

No, it's not marked as being a carbine sight. The holes line up perfectly (the holes in the barrel had been filled with set screws and some sort of filler).

[dave]

All Krag sights/rifles/carbines have the same rear sight hole spacing. A proper 96 carbine sight is very scarce and if found will cost 5-600 bucks. Watch gun show junk carbines, I have found 3 that way, had to buy the whole carbine but paid less the 300 ea. for them.

[Battis]

I went with that rear sight mainly because it fit, and it was only $35.00. Repro screws were approx. $8.00 and they fit perfectly. I only paid $150 for the carbine (it was mistakenly sold as a cut down rifle) and besides being a good shooter, it's a great project gun.