Krag Carbine Serial Numbers

[1mark]

I was looking at a Krag carbine. I think. The serial that I remember is 11,???, Carbine sight, 22 inch barrel, carbine 1896 stock no rear sling swivel.
Is the 11,??? serial number in a carbine range?

[Dick Hosmer]

Not normally - BUT - there were a few "sight test" arms made up, if I recall correctly, in APPROXIMATELY that area - will have to check my books later tonight.

You almost certainly have some sort of a mongrel, but further investigation is certainly warranted, just on the off chance that you have stumbled onto something REALLY rare.

Problem is, I don't know that anyone knows exactly what one of them should look like. The two (2) M1892 carbines made (both of which are accounted for) had substantial differences, as to stocks and furniture, from the "regular production" carbines, which commenced around 24600.

Pictures will be required. If the arm still passes inspection, some REALLY GOOD pictures may be required. If it STILL looks right, then inspection by an advanced Krag collector is probably warranted.

[1mark]

I will try and get pictures in the morning. I have to think that someone made a carbine from parts but will post pictures.

[Dick Hosmer]

The numbers to which I referred were: 11803, 11804, 15787, 15903, and 15969. I had thought they were all in the 11K range, or at least closer.

[5MadFarmers]

Guy1: "I have a stamp here. I think it might be from Europe."
Guy2: "If it helps I have a list of countries that were noted to be in Europe. Austria, France, England, Germany, Poland, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Greece, and Spain."
Guy1: "So what about China, Kenya, Peru, and Brazil?"
Guy2: "Not in the list."
Guy1: Well, that was interesting. Checks stamp. "Andorra?" Well, probably best not to bug him - it's not in the list.

Most likely it's not from Europe but without more information it'd be a might hard to tell. Might be interesting.

Yes Dick, I know you get it. The problem is others do not.


You almost certainly have some sort of a mongrel, but further investigation is certainly warranted, just on the off chance that you have stumbled onto something REALLY rare.

Problem is, I don't know that anyone knows exactly what one of them should look like. The two (2) M1892 carbines made (both of which are accounted for) had substantial differences, as to stocks and furniture, from the "regular production" carbines, which commenced around 24600.

Pictures will be required. If the arm still passes inspection, some REALLY GOOD pictures may be required. If it STILL looks right, then inspection by an advanced Krag collector is probably warranted.

That it the important part. Check the 5 numbers but then think about that part.

[5MadFarmers]

Interesting

[1mark]

So in short I have a Krag what started out as a rifle. And than converted to a carbine by the military, but I have no documentations or record of this so I still have a rifle that was converted to a carbine or a parts gun. Well done but still a parts gun. Now comes the dilemma, I have a Krag receiver that DOES fall in the carbine range. So do I strip this one and build up the some what correct carbine?

[Dick Hosmer]

Interesting

Yes.

While Bubba may not have done the front sight (= barrel might be an original carbine one) he certainly made the stock cut around the bolt handle! Definitely not SA work.

I'm of the opinion that - due to the relatively well-matched wear and color - that this is an assembly of mixed parts, possibly done quite a while ago. Too many late items/features for it be the remains of one of the sight-calibration pieces though, I would think.

As to re-re-doing it, that's 1mark's call. It will not be any more "right" then than it is now.

[5MadFarmers]

Yes.

While Bubba may not have done the front sight (= barrel might be an original carbine one) he certainly made the stock cut around the bolt handle! Definitely not SA work.

I'm of the opinion that - due to the relatively well-matched wear and color - that this is an assembly of mixed parts, possibly done quite a while ago. Too many late items/features for it be the remains of one of the sight-calibration pieces though, I would think.

As to re-re-doing it, that's 1mark's call. It will not be any more "right" then than it is now.

I made a longer post and nuked it. I wanted some more time to reflect on it.

Ignore the stock. Ignore the bolt cut. Just look at the metal for a bit. It's consistent.

So the receiver is M-1892 rifle material. At least that's the logical bit but let's not get bogged down on that either. The notched receiver tells us that the receiver was reworked post 1898. When the M-1892s were reworked to M-1896 standard they pretty much sat in the arsenals. They're generally in "newly reworked" shape. That carbine has significant finish wear. All of it. It's pretty consistent. So somebody banging together a carbine greatly after the fact doesn't work of course. The receiver wouldn't have that wear. Guns sitting in safes don't get the wear. The replacement stock also has more than just handling dings. So the bolt cut bothers me less than that the entire thing shows the appropriate amount of wear. I'd be happier if the stock had a bit more but it's not awful. That isn't Bubba's work. Bubba didn't do that kind of work. It's also not the work of the surplus dealers either as the wear is too great and too consistent. If a surplus dealer had banged it together it'd have a lot more finish. Deer rifles just don't get that kind of wear.

Now comes the rant. Ranges and "your gun was made in such and such a year." This isn't aimed at you Dick but the ones that seem glommed on to that kind of thing. They read a book which, while a credible effort, has mistakes. A poor understanding of the material and an inability to really understand these things gets them to hold on to the ranges and years. The end result is, as we see here, somebody wanting to take an interesting gun and "correct" it based on the idea that only guns in a certain range are "right." It's far more right as is than it will ever be after a receiver swap. Right now, skipping the oddity of it being an 1894 marked receiver and the interesting bolt cut, it appears to be government work to me. The finish is too much and too consistent to be otherwise.

So why is it the way it is? Nobody knows. We can guess. Which is pretty fruitless. Swapping receivers won't improve it. It'll turn an interesting gun into a Bubba. A Bubba in the right range but it'll be a "wrong gun."

The ranges are a tool. A guide. They're not a rule. Those that get too wedded to them are travelling in the wrong direction.

So, now, let me flip it. Hit it from the other direction. The ranges are only really useful for "normal" guns. They're not useful for "interesting" guns. So:

Use normal rules for normal guns.
Use oddity rules for oddity guns.

You'll see 400 guns go by. Bog standard guns. Not interesting. The normal rules will apply because they're normal guns. Then an oddity will appear. Using the normal rules to hammer a gun into your preconceived ideas of what's normal is the opposite of what should be done. Use the normal rules to evaluate the normal guns. When the oddity appears toss those rules out the window and take a good look. Normal rules will simply ensure you make a mistake.

If I sat here using normal rules on every gun I'd be missing a significant number of interesting guns I own. When you see an oddity remember you're in uncharted territory. Toss the rules and use your skills.

The bolt cut doesn't bother me overly much really. When looking at an M-1896 carbine in M-1899 format, having an 1894 dated receiver, showing consistent and very old wear I get cautious of thinking that it fitting my idea of what I'd like to see is going to happen. There could be many reasons for the bolt cut. There is really only one for that consistent and significant finish loss.

Leaving it be would be the best advice.

[5MadFarmers]

This is probably going to be long and not specifically about that carbine but will be about "ranges" and interesting guns.

300 M-1898 carbines are shipped from RIA to a unit. Two weeks later a trooper is firing one and the receiver, that square cut is a bummer, cracks. Stress from the barrel against that square cut receiver (there is a reason they change things). What nobody had noticed is screwing in the barrel when it was made had started the fracture. It survived some firing but cracked when the trooper fired the 9th round. The gun was sent back to RIA. In almost pristine shape minus that crack. They ordered a spare receiver from SA. SA took one from production, serial 178467, and sent it along. RIA re-assembled the gun on that receiver. In February of 1899. When the unit was due to exchange their M-1898s for M-1899s the Company Commander decided to keep that one for his own use. It was in the best condition. He duly mailed in a check and it became his property. Better than a century later that gun shows up on a board. "I have what appears to be an M-1898 carbine but the serial number is out of range. All the parts seem right. What's up?" To which he's told that Bubba did it or the surplus dealer did it. Thus an M-1898 carbine, which had not been sent in for rebuild, disappears never to be seen again. Amusing bit is, not having gone through rebuild, it's far more "correct" than the bulk of the M-1898 carbines out there which everyone and his brother has had a whack at "restoring." "Your gun is wrong, that receiver dates to 1899. Much too late to be made that way. It's also out of range. It's garbage."

In 1898, during the switch to M-1898 production, they were sweeping up the M-1896 receivers as they needed the guns. In order to push them out the door they took the 50 spare parts receivers and assembled them into guns. Serial 40,876 was assembled and duly given the cartouche of 1898. The gun shows up over a century later. "That couldn't have been made at SA in 1898. Serial is way too early. Your gun is 1896 production."

400 M-1896 carbines are turned in for rebuild. Out the other end come 395 rebuilt carbines. 3 of the receivers, there not being enough parts to assemble them as carbines, go into the parts bin. Next 500 M-1896 rifles arrive for rebuild. Out go 498 rebuilt rifles. To include two on receivers that had been carbines. "That rifle has a carbine receiver. Bubba or the surplus dealers."

On and on and on. If one thinks that every receiver left SA as a gun one is mistaken. If one assumes that they didn't do what was needed to keep the tools operational one is mistaken. They were big on models. Serial numbers are simply an accounting number. "Private Smith, why do you have serial 109333? You were issued 105988. I'd have to believe you lost your gun and stole Private Green's." Which is, and I'm sure of this, why M-1905s bayonets started receiving serial numbers. Krag bayonets weren't serialized and there was too much theft in the tents.

1904 dated Krags.
M-1896 rifles riddled throughout the first block of M-1896 carbines.
M-1896 rifles with post-1900 cartouches.

The list is endless. It points to an ordnance department not trying to keep things for collectors over a century later. Models they were big on. Serial numbers not so much. Until the M-1896 marking the receiver marking was a date, not model. Both rifles and carbines were assembled on 1894, 1895, 1896, M-1896, M-1898, and M-1899 marked receivers. On that last? "PCs and school guns." Rifles.

Ranges are a handy tool. Don't get too wedded to them. Strange stuff could, and did, come out of SA. More strange stuff came out of the rebuild process.

I've said it repeatedly: "a sample size of one is no sample size at all." Oddity guns need to be evaluated on the gun.

[5MadFarmers]

I like time to stew things. It helps.

Take that gun out of the stock. There are short and long stocks with that being the longer. The finish on the underside of the barrel wears based on stock length. If you pop that out and the wear continues on the underside of the barrel back to a clear stop point further back than expected it's a sign that the barrel was in a short stock. That would eliminate the stock from belonging to the rest.

Doesn't help with the metal bits though.

[Kragrifle]

Leave it alone.

[1mark]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

[5MadFarmers]

Whether it's whittled or done for some other reason ignored, that's an M-1896 carbine type 2 stock. A bonus post to explain that.

"Types." One of the biggest issues I have with Poyer's book is he makes up types. Which tends to over-ride the actual usage of them in military service. The army had "types" and they are very specific. There are "Models" and there are "Types."

A model is changed when interchangeability is lost.

The designations are designed to maintain the stuff. The DRMs were eventually replaced by Standard Nomenclature Lists (SNLs). This has to do with levels of maintenance. There are basically only two levels at the point in time the Krags were in service but that number changed to three during War 1.

Field level.
Depot.

The Depot is the Armory or an Arsenal in the Krag era. Sew them together and remember that it's all designed around maintaining them.

"We have an M-1892 rifle and the little thingy broke. How do we fix that?"
"Look at the DRM and tell us the proper term for that part and we'll tell you if it's field replaceable or if it's a depot thing."

Typically if it was field replaceable it would be a part number on an SNL but it'd be a "piece mark" on the blueprint (called tracings at the time) if it was a depot repair. In the Krag era they had to publish a list of what could be changed in the field and what was done in the depot.

With that in mind, when the M-1892s were turned in for alteration they became M-1896s. "M-1892/96" is not a term that makes any sense. They're either M-1892s or their M-1896s as that defines the parts. "I have an M-1892 rifle and need a complete assembled bolt." "I have an M-1896 and need a complete assembled bolt." Two different bolts. Right down to the pieces. Why two? Because later you might order an Extractor and it matters. M-1879 trapdoors were considered M-1879s, and maintained that way, until altered and then became the later model. They worked at keeping the models right for maintenance purposes. Using "Models."

"We have an M-1896 carbine and the stock is broke. Send a replacement." Oy. We have a problem. There are two. The barrel band is different. "Is it the type 1 or type 2?"

The correct usage of the term type. When a standard Model has two non-interchangeable editions they're types. Type 1, type 2, etc.,

That is the M-1896 Type 2 stock. To us it's the "long" stock. To them it's the Type 2.

If the part didn't affect interchangeability they simply didn't care. Didn't need to. It's only when it affected interchangeability that they did. Again, when the M-1892s were updated to M-1896 format they became M-1896s. If they retained parts from the M-1892 it would be a part where interchangeability didn't matter. If the part is specific to the M-1892s and shows up on one altered to M-1896 format either they screwed up or somebody has been playing with the gun. Models and types. They didn't like types so they started moving to models on the parts themselves. "Model 1901 sight." Not "M-1898 rifle sight, Type 2."

With me so far? The rifle receivers marked "1894" were used on the M-1892 rifles. Later those were upgraded to M-1896 rifles. The marking on the receiver isn't what they homed in on. That created problems so the "M" was added during M-1896 production. Then it did matter. M-1899. Same receiver as M-1898. They finally had the ability to remark receivers and M-1898 receivers used in M-1899 use were overstamped. If you think about it that can only be done once.

"1894" marked receivers, used in M-1892 production, were later upgraded to M-1896. There really weren't any production carbines that early.

But why would they get hung up on using one? See it? It disturbs us but if you think it through it wouldn't have mattered to them. An M-1896 carbine assembled on an 1894 receiver would simply be an M-1896 carbine. That stock though, presenting interchangeability issues, would need something to set it apart for support. "Type 2."

So why don't we see more M-1896 carbines on 1894 receivers? Because by the time the M-1892s were turned in for rebuild in large numbers the M-1898s were out. They didn't need lots of M-1896 carbines. "5Mad, how can you possibly know that?"

Because the guns, at that time, were typically issued to the regular army when new. After they were turned in they were rebuilt and sent out to the Militia. The Militia, not being a full time thing, had more infantry percentage-wise than it had either Artillery or Cavalry. "Horses." Horses need to be fed full time. The army complained regularly about the Militia not being willing to do the same percentage of mounted to dismounted as the army. The Militia had a very specific reason. In any event the Militia had a demand for more rifles than carbines, as a mix, than the army. Not saying they didn't have any Cavalry - just not as much.

Models and Types. Used to keep the parts straight. "Send me an M-1892 bayonet band." That part is model specific. "Send me a barrel band." Not so much.

An M-1896 carbine on an "1894" receiver doesn't bug me. That receiver has the notch so it's now, to the army of the time, an M-1896 receiver. Uses the M-1896 bolt. The stock is the Type 2. Whether it was made that way or whittled by somebody after the fact it's a Type 2.

[5MadFarmers]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

No problem. When this thread completes, assuming it stays on topic, print it and keep it with the gun. It'll save you much time and argument with "experts."

With that in mind, given the stock wear pattern on the metal matches, I'll cover the bolt cut.

"It's beyond our understanding and knowledge level." That is the correct answer. When was it cut like that and by whom? "We don't know." Wanting it to be a "standard cut" is pointless. It isn't a standard cut. Why it's not isn't something we know. That it's on a carbine with an early receiver means we toss our rules out the window and try to understand but the final answer is "we're guessing as it's beyond our knowledge." If that was a bog normal M-1896 we should be disturbed. It's not so we shouldn't be. We should be curious and cautious.

I'm going to make up an answer. "That receiver originally assembled as a carbine test mule for M-1896 carbine development. After that it was kept at SA as a test mule. The last test they did was with some funky bolt. Then the gun was sent out the door when M-1903s became the rage."

Is that the answer? Unlikely as I made it up but not impossible. The point is we don't know. No amount of guessing is going to be satisfying.

It's an interesting gun. Beyond our knowledge. I'll make up the three gun rule:

1) Bog standard.
2) Mucked up.
3) Oddity

When faced with #3 see if it's really #2. If you can't prove it's been mucked up by somebody in some obvious way apply the rule set from #3 instead. #2 is #1 after the butchers were turned loose on it.

If your gun had a recoil pad it'd immediately have moved to #2. If it had a rifle sight it would have immediately made that trip. That that metal has sat in the stock further moves it to #3 whereas the bolt cut doesn't move it to #2. It remains at #3 for now.

[Dick Hosmer]

Pretty much agree with most of the foregoing, except the bolt cut in the stock. Cannot believe that was done at SA. It would be interesting to see if the barrel shows any sign of having been in a short stock. The long stock (excuse me, that version of long stock) did not exist during the sight trials. Nor did the large binding knob on the sight for that matter (a detail not yet entered into evidence). When I said the "carbine" had probably been together a 'long time', I did not mean to run it all the way back to its' birth at SA. Oh Francis - is this something of yours?

I'd also agree with leaving it alone, as a bit of a riddle, if nothing else.

It has already served one good purpose - that of luring our friend Joe out of the shadows once again.

[5MadFarmers]

Pretty much agree with most of the foregoing, except the bolt cut in the stock. Cannot believe that was done at SA.

Not a question of that. I'll hit it from yet another direction in a moment.


It would be interesting to see if the barrel shows any sign of having been in a short stock.

Was checked. Been in that one for ages.


The long stock (excuse me, that version of long stock)

M-1896 Type 2 versus M-1899. Exact same profile but a different bolt cut. Two different models. If the M-1899s had not received a model that would be the M-1898c Type 2. Instead M-1898 carbines were rebuilt to M-1899 standard using M-1899 stocks. Model, models, models.


did not exist during the sight trials.

Didn't need to. Something they kept around would be used for whatever games they wanted to try next. Proof? The two 1892 carbines didn't retain all of their original bits. After that role was over they played further roles. During which parts were swapped. Neither of them kept their original sights.


Nor did the large binding knob on the sight for that matter (a detail not yet entered into evidence).

The 1892c at RIA never left RIA. It sports a sight which didn't exist until well into 1896. The sight didn't go back in time - the gun came forward. Isn't the only part that was swapped later - I checked it.


When I said the "carbine" had probably been together a 'long time', I did not mean to run it all the way back to its' birth at SA.

That's what I'm going on about. Trying to wind forward from SA is only one direction. There is the other. In one direction it's:

[.]

That dot is the point in time when the Ordnance Store Keeper accepted the gun the first time.

[.AAAAAAAAASSBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB]

In that line that dot remains. The "A" is army service. To include trips, sometimes multiple, through rebuild. "S" is the surplus dealer and "B" is Bubba. So you're trying to see if it is as it was for that dot. That's going to take you back to 1895. They didn't start peddling them until well after that. Krags were issued in 1917 but I'm not going to digress into that right now. So you can either judge everything based on that dot, in which case you might as well eliminate every gun as none of them stayed there given that "A" thing, or you can figure out something else. "Under government control" works. So the dot and the A. As the carbines were hauled up a certain hill in Cuba they're well past the dot. Does that mean we ignore time in Cuba? Might have already received a replacement Extractor to replace a broken one. "While your gun is documented as having been with the 1st Vol Cav in Cuba we note that the Extractor was changed in 1897, and not at SA I might add, and thus the gun is Bubba!" That doesn't work for me.

So looking for the dot and only the dot isn't really practical. In previous posts I listed the reasons that wasn't done in the "S" or "B" range. Which means back it up. Not to the dot. Perhaps John Thompson, at whatever Ordnance post he was at in 1903, whittled it so he could see if the O.D. was interested in some novel design idea he had which didn't work out in the end. Pick any theory you'd like, and an exercise in futility, but remember to account for the "B" and "S" as that's really the important bit. What theory you put into that "A" range is theory but it doesn't matter if you get it right. What's more significant is eliminate "S" and "B". Changing it now would put it squarely at the end of that "B" line. Right now it's likely in that dot/A range. Wanting it to be the dot doesn't really add much as none are there really. Every gun that was issued was beyond the dot. The crapload of spare parts they made were made to be used and they were.


It has already served one good purpose - that of luring our friend Joe out of the shadows once again.

Not for long though. A certain poster at KCA lowers the level of that board to the useless level. Having done that there they've moved here to do the same. In spite of saying they wouldn't. Four years ago there was intelligent discussion here. That's pretty much gone. I mentioned in a previous post in this thread people reading outdated books and not understanding them. Then insisting on ranges and "made in the year 2525." Nobody that has posted in this thread thus far. I deal with that personality type at work and when I get home if I look at this board now I see those posts. "Do I really want to deal with that in my hobby?" Not after dealing with it all day.

Dick, you're mentally nimble. Keep posting. Then the other poster can add much noise and completely destroy any possible signal that existed.

Bounce it off Madsen. He's logical. He's nimble also.

[11mm]

I am going to print and keep a copy of this with Farmer's Krag book. It makes a nice addendum.

[5MadFarmers]

I have to go to work shortly but I'm going to add a bit which is not directly related but then again what I'm attempting to do is paint an environment for you. Tunnel vision is a danger.

Dick, first a small poke. Mind you I like you so this is me chuckling. In looking at the period documents it was "advance frame, snap image, advance frame, snap image, ..." So not really reading it all. Tens of thousands of images. "When I'm retired I'll walk them one by one." Doesn't mean some don't pop out at me as some do. If fact the better half is scary aware of this stuff and she'd point out frames she noted as significant as she's snapping them on the other machine. The following is accurate: when the trapdoors were auctioned off by the army they didn't all contain 100% SA parts. I know as the document grabbed me and made my head explode. It shouldn't have as it was common during WW2. "We need 3,300 of this part to repair guns. Contract it out." I have the WW2 contracts so when I look at WW2 stuff that's a given but I never walked that sideways to 1898. They were short on guns and had many broken trapdoors on hand. SA was busy so they contracted out for a specific part. I don't remember to who or for what, cam latch if I trust my memory, but it was contracted to a commercial firm. Again that was common later but not so much in 1898.

That's the lead for the next bit. In 1903 they pounded out Krag parts. In massive volume. "For spare parts while they're in Militia service." Then the Dick Act pretty much negated that. Today that's a common practice and the two work in tandem: "We're nearing end of production. Pound out spares then retool. If they run out of spares they can contract for them." Less common at the time. I included an order from RIA to SA in the book for 100 or 200 sets of M-1892 and 100 or 200 M-1896 parts. I've forgotten the volume and am too lazy to dig it out. In any event I included that so people would realized that when the M-1898 was introduced the M-1892 and M-1896 editions still needed to be supported. More importantly SA could still make the parts. They also ordered trapdoor parts and SA still made them. Need a Krag stock in 1906? Order one. They had the template and could put it in their Blanchard at SA and grind one out. They had the tools and dies. When RIA ended M-1903 production they saved all the tools and dies and restarted production elsewhere during WW2. Until that point they still had the ability to make parts if they desired (no need as SA could and was making rifles and parts).

"Environment."

Why paint that?

Because one of the other things I noticed at RIA was a method and pattern to fabrication orders. Normal rebuild work never had fab orders. "Accounting." They couldn't charge it to the unit so no fab order. If a unit broke a gun and sent it in for repair that would result in one as they billed the repair. Again, don't look at this from an "SA manufacturing view" but from a "we're supporting products and bill for it" view. If you only look at the SA manufacturing angle you'll only see what existed at a point in time. Then, like Poyer, you'll want it all linear. "Type 1-19" spread over 10 years. No. In 1902 they needed to keep making M-1896 parts. The guns were in use. They weren't contracting it out so they made the parts.

I'll close this with a weird analogy.

Trying to determine if it "left SA that way" is akin to claiming a couple's children are only legitimate if conceived on their honeymoon night.
Using "under government control" is more akin to seeing the kids as legitimate if they were conceived while the marriage was in force.
Once the wife was kicked to the curb, it's more "surplus dealer and Bubba" time.

Ranges and dates are not rules. They're guides. Then we get into the "years" claimed being from books written by authors who:
1) Didn't find the complete records (I did).
2) Didn't take into account the spare parts receivers (Frasca is good but missed this too).
3) Never figured out how many were made in total. (That massive set of spare parts receivers in 1903 bums me but via tracking in the wild guns I have a real good idea).
4) Did bad math. (Mallory's numbers are based on simple math (total /12 = monthly) and completely ignores the production ramp up for the war).

Want a list of mistakes in my book? I have a list....

Knowledge improves over time. Using Mallory at this point is not much different from claiming the world is flat. He too took the SA view - not the "military service."

He wasn't alone. Those carbine sling swivels are easily found if one doesn't stop at 1903. Run that world to 1920. The USMC didn't give them up until 1910/1911. Thus the Navy Krag loop belts.

Environment. Don't approach it from manufacturing at SA. Think of it from what you'd see in a repair depot. Then it makes sense. Otherwise it doesn't.

[jon_norstog]

This is why I stick with this site.

jn

[1mark]

As 11mm said, I am going to print this out and keep with 5mad notes.
I do enjoy learning more. Cannot not wait until I get another oddity.

[5MadFarmers]

300 M-1898 carbines are shipped from RIA to a unit. Two weeks later a trooper is firing one and the receiver, that square cut is a bummer, cracks. Stress from the barrel against that square cut receiver (there is a reason they change things). What nobody had noticed is screwing in the barrel when it was made had started the fracture. It survived some firing but cracked when the trooper fired the 9th round. The gun was sent back to RIA. In almost pristine shape minus that crack. They ordered a spare receiver from SA. SA took one from production, serial 178467, and sent it along. RIA re-assembled the gun on that receiver. In February of 1899. When the unit was due to exchange their M-1898s for M-1899s the Company Commander decided to keep that one for his own use. It was in the best condition. He duly mailed in a check and it became his property. Better than a century later that gun shows up on a board. "I have what appears to be an M-1898 carbine but the serial number is out of range. All the parts seem right. What's up?" To which he's told that Bubba did it or the surplus dealer did it. Thus an M-1898 carbine, which had not been sent in for rebuild, disappears never to be seen again. Amusing bit is, not having gone through rebuild, it's far more "correct" than the bulk of the M-1898 carbines out there which everyone and his brother has had a whack at "restoring." "Your gun is wrong, that receiver dates to 1899. Much too late to be made that way. It's also out of range. It's garbage."

There is a "Where's Waldo" in there. "In February of 1899" isn't possible as the first batch was made the summer of that year....

I'm going to add some more random bits. Some directly Krag but some just more for environment lighting.

Series production of the Krags ended in, off the top of my head, November of 1903. In 1904 they banged some more out. Why? "Because they were told to." Beyond that I don't know. Those guns have lower serial numbers than the serial number on the last Krag assembled in 1903. "Your gun was made in" runs right into a wall there. It took about 6 months, start to finish, to make the parts. By this I mean if metal and lumber were delivered in January you could expect the first guns to pop out in July. Taken from M-1917 information when they were a bit more efficient. So "made" and "assembled" aren't the same. If I took an unissued M-1898 from stock and altered it to a G.P. in 1908 what year is it made? If you answer "1903" you might be correct. When was it assembled? "1903 and 1908." I'd also note that a dude filing parts at a station and dropping them into a wheeled cart, which is then wheeled to the next station, isn't going to be a FIFO affair. Wouldn't be wrong to say the guns "assembled" in the first three months of 1898 were made in 1897. With some parts from 1896 maybe.

Markings on stocks. I don't remember covering that in the book. The army had a restriction on that. The Militia bought the guns from the O.D.. Sometimes using Federal money and sometimes State. The attention they paid to army restrictions was haphazard at best. If you find a marking on a stock it's most likely????

In attempting to assemble a "serial/range" for M-1905 bayonets I gave up on those marked RIA from 1917-1919. Why? Because I hit too many 1919 ones with numbers earlier than 1918 and 1917 marked ones. Seriously. Head shaker. Serialized in 1917 and finished in 1917-1919 with it being kind of all over the place. Same Ordnance Department. The overlap in M-1898 rifle receivers and M-1899 carbine receivers is pretty much the same thing.

When the "school guns" were being supplied to wee kids in the 1910s, the schools were given the option of ordering the parts and having the work done or having the armory/arsenal do it. Thus the level of work will vary.

"Painting the environment." I use that term. "Sew all the random bits together in odd patterns that point to new patterns." That too. I'm going to do it. Right now. I'm going to sew bits of all the previous bits together in a new way and get a useful result.

In 1909, having Krags in their armory, a Militia unit might find that they now have 30 broken rifles. They own the guns. Figuring that sending them to the O.D. for repairs might be pricey what's to stop them from ordering new parts and then contracting the repair out to the William "Bubba" Jones's gun emporium?

So under government control and a Bubba? What if they bought the parts from Bannerman? :icon_lol:

[Dick Hosmer]

One of the points you made several years ago still governs everything:

Nobody KNOWS everything, for 100% sure, about the components of ANY given gun. Your hypotheses about the 1898 Carbine is clever, entertaining, AND quite plausible. Sorta like your truly masterful 1,000 word reply to the guy who wanted to know when his gun was made.

But, I think most of us try to follow some sort of "hierarchy of probability" which means that MOST out-of-range M1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR, the good company commander, and his friends in similar circumstances, notwithstanding.

I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[5MadFarmers]

But, I think most of us try to follow some sort of "hierarchy of probability" which means that MOST out-of-range M1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR, the good company commander, and his friends in similar circumstances, notwithstanding.

I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Good. Because I'm going to continue it. :)

Laugh Dick, it's always disturbing but it is amusing and gets people thinking.



MOST out-of-range M1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR,

Accurate.

And MOST in range M-1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR

Also accurate.

"How can he claim that?" See the guns, detect the pattern. Where are all the 1898Cs in long stocks? I have the sale paper on those short stocks! Ergo the guns removed from those stocks and altered to M-1899C format were placed in long bar-less stocks. Where are they? They seem strangely absent don't they? This pattern repeated when I looked at them: "checks stock, it's the M-1898C short stock, checks the cut-off, it's the later edition." Mismatch. The gun would have been restocked and that cut-off would be finished bright like the 1899s. "Reworked parts?" They were stripped and refinished. Thus the underside should glow bright like a 1957 Chevy front bumper. I mentioned that in the book. People restocked them but didn't typically get the cut-off bit. Hint: while you're at it you might want to check the trigger parts....

Sometimes it's the absence of something that catches the eye. Where are the long stock ones? It would appear that somebody ate them.

A new guide. The three types of guns:

1) Strange ones. Most likely to be complete.
2) The "common" yet in demand ones. Most likely to be mucked up.
3) The common and not in demand ones. Likely to not be mucked up.

Group one example: the BoOaF rifles. "Make them, test them, toss them into a corner as they're non-standard." They hit the surplus market intact.
Group two example: the M-1898 carbines. They get rebuilds and then peddled. They're in demand so they get "restored to original" wholesale.
Group three example: the late M-1898 rifles. Not much use and nobody bothers spending the time in attempts to get every bloody piece right.

Kind of strange isn't it? Most of what we "know" came from group one. The least typical of the lot.

Want to play it safe? Buy a late M-1898 rifle. That or a beat to tar M-1896 rifle.

Stay away from M-1896 rifles which started as M-1892 rifles. Why? Because half the people want to replace the M-1892 parts that remained with M-1896 parts while the other have is trying to maximize the M-1892 parts on the gun. One would suspect the two groups would get along famously.

[5MadFarmers]

Good. Because I'm going to continue it. :)

Laugh Dick, it's always disturbing but it is amusing and gets people thinking.


MOST out-of-range M1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR, the good company commander, and his friends in similar circumstances, notwithstanding.

Accurate.

And MOST in range M-1898Cs are that way because they actually are FUBAR

Also accurate.

"How can he claim that?" See the guns, detect the pattern. Where are all the 1898Cs in long stocks? I have the sale paper on those short stocks! Ergo the guns removed from those stocks and altered to M-1899C format were placed in long bar-less stocks. Where are they? They seem strangely absent don't they? This pattern repeated when I looked at them: "checks stock, it's the M-1898C short stock, checks the cut-off, it's the later edition." Mismatch. The gun would have been restocked and that cut-off would be finished bright like the 1899s. "Reworked parts?" They were stripped and refinished. Thus the underside should glow bright like a 1957 Chevy front bumper. Which on most it does. Ergo rebuilt later when the stocks would be swapped. I mentioned that in the book. People restocked them but didn't typically get the cut-off bit. Hint: while you're at it you might want to check the trigger parts....

Sometimes it's the absence of something that catches the eye. Where are the long stock ones? It would appear that somebody ate them.

A new guide. The three types of guns:

1) Strange ones. Most likely to be complete.
2) The "common" yet in demand ones. Most likely to be mucked up.
3) The common and not in demand ones. Likely to not be mucked up.

Group one example: the BoOaF rifles. "Make them, test them, toss them into a corner as they're non-standard." They hit the surplus market intact.
Group two example: the M-1898 carbines. They get rebuilds and then peddled. They're in demand so they get "restored to original" wholesale.
Group three example: the late M-1898 rifles. Not much use and nobody bothers spending the time in attempts to get every bloody piece right.

Kind of strange isn't it? Most of what we "know" came from group one. The least typical of the lot.

Want to play it safe? Buy a late M-1898 rifle. That or a beat to tar M-1896 rifle.

Stay away from M-1896 rifles which started as M-1892 rifles. Why? Because half the people want to replace the M-1892 parts that remained with M-1896 parts while the other have is trying to maximize the M-1892 parts on the gun. One would suspect the two groups would get along famously.

Note: Corrected cut-off bit. Parts Dyslexia at work