Odd upper band

[11mm]

34475
This is a photo of the bayonet band on my otherwise original appearing early (132xxx) 1898 Krag. It appears to be an 1892 model upper band, modified and re-blued to fit this rifle. There is no evidence that the loop for the cleaning rod, which should be there, was removed or filed off, although that could have been done very cleanly and it does not show. I have not removed the band from the rifle yet, as it will not clear the sight blade, though I did loosen it to look at the inside to see what happened to the cleaning rod tube..
From everything I have read here , any part that would fit could be used on any Krag, during any period in Government service.
The stock on this rifle does not show sanding, as the 1898 cartouche and the circle P are clear, and the other parts seem "right" and worn in equally.
The question I ask is why anybody would put this band on the rifle, since the "correct" one is common enough?

[Dick Hosmer]

Good morning John. What is "odd" about it? Looks perfectly correct to me - though I cannot see the upper surface. If you refer to (what you are thinking is) the missing slit, that did not come until 1901, so band appears to be just fine at 132K. Hard to say from just that pic if it has been reblued, though a rub with an oily rag would be good for it.

Actually, the fact that the band does not have the slit provides at least some evidence for the rifle NOT having been apart, since the slit one would likely have been added if it had been rebuilt, at least after 1901.

[11mm]

Good morning John. What is "odd" about it? Looks perfectly correct to me - though I cannot see the upper surface. If you refer to (what you are thinking is) the missing slit, that did not come until 1901, so band appears to be just fine at 132K. It does look refinished, though.

Well, Dick, If I had gone and looked at one of my 1896 rifles that has not been re-built, I guess I could have saved myself the trouble of making this post. Boy, do I feel silly.

[jon_norstog]

This is why I **really** like this site!


jn

[Kragrifle]

Mallory lists fiscal year 1900 as the time period that the slot was added. You would figure , then , that early 1898 rifles would not have the slot in the front band .

[Mark Daiute]

first of all this post is my kind of post. Literally.

I was under the impression that most all rifles that got sent in for inspection, repair as needed got the old barrel band replaced with the newer one with the slit. No?

[Kragrifle]

I have not seen data on this. However, a rifle as originally issued, would have parts produced in that time period. If worked on at Springfield parts may well have been updated. If around the campfire, anything goes.

[Mark Daiute]

To be clear there can be a difference between "as originally issued" and "as it left the service".

This is an important concept in collecting and evaluating Krag rifles.

I would highly recommend Joe Farmers book in regard to this.

[Dick Hosmer]

Excellent advice re Joe Farmer.

Some points that frequently get lost in our (very interesting nonetheless) impassioned discussions over angels and pinheads are these:

!. The items were tools to be used, and the government was - unlike today - extremely frugal, leading to some mixtures which can seem unusual today.
2. Further stirring the pot, many - perhaps most - of the military arms of the period went through the hands of the big surplus dealers at some point in time.
3. None of the prior owners/users had ANY regard whatsoever for keeping things straight for future hobbiests!

[11mm]

To be clear there can be a difference between "as originally issued" and "as it left the service".

This is an important concept in collecting and evaluating Krag rifles.

I would highly recommend Joe Farmers book in regard to this.

Oh, I looked hard in Farmer's book before placing my original (and somewhat embarrassing) post. I just did not see the trees for the forest.
No doubt about it. Farmer''s book is the go-to source now, and I have the other Krag books commonly cited.
I think Farmer's ideas expressed in his Krag book are a good test for assessing any military rifle from the old days.
However, a tool is only good if you use it correctly.

[5MadFarmers]

first of all this post is my kind of post. Literally.

I was under the impression that most all rifles that got sent in for inspection, repair as needed got the old barrel band replaced with the newer one with the slit. No?

No. Thus the covering of IRAN in detail.

Over time two kinds of improvements are made: correcting a flawed design and implementing an improved one. Not really the same thing. So let's take them individually:
1) Flawed design. "The gas tank straps on the F-150 fail. Recall them and replace them. All of them." If the flaw is less serious you can use the "replace them during overhaul and throw them." So a design flaw that is serious enough where you want to eliminate the old part.
2) Improved design. "While the trigger design was good one of the designers has developed an improved one. New manufacture going forward will use the new but the old design, being adequate, will not be discarded; even during an overhaul."

Adding a slit to the barrel band is a very minor improvement. There wouldn't be much value to recalling or even discarding them during the overhaul process. So new rifles would get them during manufacture but during IRAN the old would be reused with new only being used to replace non-recoverable ones. Thus in 1903 rifles coming out of SA, new, would have the slit band but the bulk of the rifles coming out of rebuild at RIA would have the old. I say the "bulk" as rifles, when issued, are not normally turned in for overhaul within a year or two and thus the rifles going through RIA in 1903 would not typically included 1902 production (only been in the hands of the troops for a year or less) or 1901 production. A rifle popping out of IRAN with a non-slit band in 1903 wouldn't be unusual. With the obvious exception of the 1892s as the old bands were made for stocks having the channel whereas the rebuilt and replacement stocks had it filled. Which, if you think about it, means that slit band helps date when an 1892 underwent conversion to 1896 format. Assuming it wasn't sent through IRAN after conversion and issue. Which most were not.

I have a cartridge belt from 1918 and one from 1941. The one from 1918 has a modification made from 1942 forward whereas the one from 1941 does not.
Towards the end of M1 rifle production rifles were noted to have a strange inclusion of "WW2" parts. Burning up stocks of NOS parts that had been replaced with improved designs but were from #2 above.

====

I'm going to make an observation about how a Krag is approached vis-a-vis the detail parts. People tend to assume, via hope, that every gun skipped IRAN. Then parts are examined looking for signs of rebuild. Reverse that. Assume it went through IRAN. Your review will be much faster. So pick up a Krag and immediately look at the cartouche. If it's not crisp you can pretty much stop right there. If it is crisp you can keep looking. I'd also observe that examining detail parts has, for ages, given people the false assumption that the gun is original as people really didn't think CPSD through. If your rifle was issued and turned in with 700 others they were likely made about the same time. Issued to your unit at the same time. Turned in at the same time. Went through IRAN at the same time. Thus the parts flowing through IRAN are from 700 rifles all very close in production. They'd all get a part swapped if #1 above was in force but, if not, they would not. So if 80% of the parts survive IRAN that means many pop out with all the parts being from the right production time-frame. Doesn't mean the rifle is "as made" obviously. So look at the cartouche. Those were sanded to recover stocks. If it was lightly used in service it'll fool you but for most it'll be sanded a might heavier.

[5MadFarmers]

Second post on this. This one a bit tougher for you and for me. It has to do with personality types.

Type N: Buy a book for the answers.
Type O: Figure it out.
Type P: variation on O. Buy the book to compare the answers against what you figured out.

Type N results in nothing new. Not much different from driving down a road stuck in the ruts left by the previous vehicles. I suspect the great bulk of people prefer this and thus we have trails and roads. Why cut a new trail and spend that effort when one exists right?

I think the understanding of IRAN, and the frequency, was greatly underestimated. That comes out in the book pretty well.

The book wasn't designed to provide "answers" as it was designed to alter your method of thinking. That linear "this replaces that" is just wrong on so many levels. The pre-existing books were all written with the wheel deeply embedded in that rut. Without that rut my view on them is radically different. Different enough where the 1896s, in IRAN during the late production era, getting new side plates with the rear curved didn't throw me a curve whereas Poyer's types simply cannot be wrapped around them.

When looking for originality you're in a rut. I give hints in the book but don't give precise details. Why not? It's not one of these "I know but you don't, na na na na na na" things. It's because to my thinking the book should provide enough for the arena to be painted, and enough details provided, for you to crack the remaining puzzles. Cracking them all is, to me, boring. Am I right? Well, I would mention that I don't spend time on Krags now as there simply aren't any puzzles that I haven't cracked that have my interest. When you finish a puzzle you put it away and break out another. So I didn't crack them all as I wanted to leave some of the puzzle in place. The hardest one is the advanced level of IRAN detection. I don't detail that in the book but left enough clues, specific clues, for it to be found. If you crack it and re-read the book you'll chuckle as it's obvious at that point.

So start thinking outside the box on rebuilds.