Strangely interesting

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-1.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-2.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-3.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-4.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-5.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-6.jpg

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-7.jpg


Love the cosmoline.

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-8.jpg

First picture makes the one look like the barrel is shorter. That's an optical delusion from the camera angle. The lengths are fine. As are the toes.

[jon_norstog]

Well that is a nice side-by-side comparison there. That '99 (98?) is almost too nice to shoot. I would not take that one into the woods!

jn

[5MadFarmers]

Well that is a nice side-by-side comparison there. That '99 (98?) is almost too nice to shoot. I would not take that one into the woods!

jn

The M-1898 or M-1899 isn't. Part of why it's so interesting. That's the mystery. There is one more photo for those two which I'll add later. For now it's Sherlock Holmes time.

Look deep into that gun which appears to be an M-1899. Tell me what you see. Don't worry about making strange guesses as it's going to surprise you in the end.

[Dick Hosmer]

LOTSA issues with the pretty one. Stock, receiver, cartouche, sight, etc.

[bruce]

Beautiful rifles. Ignorant of Krags. Will be following the thread for developments. Sincerely. bruce.

[5MadFarmers]

cartouche

The cartouche is simply gorgeous. Perfect. Matches the incredibly clean grasping grooves and proof cartouche.


sight

What issue do you have with the sight?

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-9.png

It's beautiful.

====

The bolt cut in that stock is obvious as is the reason for it. That, when the cosmoline is taken into account, gets interesting. As does the age of that bolt handle work.

Still not the interesting bit though. Interesting bits, yes, but not the main one.

[5MadFarmers]

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/creepy-10.jpg

Guess the serials on those carbines. The lowest serial in the photo added for math illustration....

The pictured M-1896 above is in the middle. The carbine in the 1899 stock is lowest in this photo.

Interesting, no?

[jon_norstog]

I thought the bolt cut was in the stock of the 95/96. Is that for real? And the 1900 cartouche?

[jon_norstog]

So what happened to the receiver shrouding around the bolt handle? And who did it and why? Cosmoline? What gives?

[5MadFarmers]

I thought the bolt cut was in the stock of the 95/96. Is that for real? And the 1900 cartouche?


So what happened to the receiver shrouding around the bolt handle? And who did it and why? Cosmoline? What gives?

I mentioned it was interesting.

Now look at the serials and model year markings....

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

[5MadFarmers]

Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

I think it's kind of cute.

You've heard the expression "cannot see the forest for the trees?" How about "cannot see the tree for the trees?"

Dick, ignore every piece except the receiver. Erase every other piece as I didn't buy it for anything other than the receiver. Anything else that came with that receiver was parts. What condition those parts were in was not really a concern.

Now, once again, go back and look at the serials and year markings.

[Dick Hosmer]

Finally, picture proof of the rumored overlap. Unless of course you dicked with the image to pull our chain. He He.

[5MadFarmers]

Tsk, tsk, such a suspicious type....

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/auction.png

[5MadFarmers]

Paul Harvey, the rest of the story.

People look for stuff. Often looking for what's not there instead of what is. The "1894" receiver in a carbine is something everyone would run from. Except me. I wasn't looking for what wasn't there - I was looking at what was. That year and serial number combination was interesting. What did I expect to receive?
1) A receiver.
2) Maybe a barrel. Might be bubba.
3) Maybe a stock with a crudely carved bolt seat. Recent work. Which is why it surprised me. I was expecting Russian grade cheap whittling on that seat.
4) Probably a bolt. What model would be a surprise.
5) A rear sight. 1902 the ad claimed. Probably rifle....

So basically a receiver. Whatever else came with it would be a surprise. I was expecting an unpleasant one on those bits so I received better than expected with regards to parts. The barrel is nice. If I want to recover that stock it'd be easy. I might just leave the entire shebang as is.

I bought it due to my Ripley's Believe it or Not gene. I have enough Krags. Now I just buy oddities. For amusement.

At that RIA regional I purchased revolvers. I really don't need more Krags. I'll buy oddities when they appear but I'm not really after them. I'm after the other missing bits.

That receiver was simply to curious to pass on.

Now, knowing that the receiver is the really interesting bit, why the cosmoline? Why the "not Russian grade whittling" bolt seat work? Why and who?

It's quite the conversation piece if you just look at what's there instead of what's not.

[5MadFarmers]

Almost forgot. I get an 1899 barrel band....

Which, given Cadet rifle needs, is a nice thing to have.

====

By the way I'm back.

Four years ago it was obvious that my job was going to be consolidated. A transfer to 9th level Hades was in the offing. I went to 7th level Hades instead. They gave me an extra $10K a year. Mentally taxing place. On June 16th I officially hit 20 years continual. Last January I actually had 20 but didn't want to make a mistake. Three weeks ago I ordered a Mustang convertible for the other half. Two weeks ago I turned in my notice. Last week I bought that interesting Krag and a H&A Belgian Mauser. Yesterday I bought some revolvers.

Tomorrow I won't go to work. I do not have a job.

Which is awesome.

Now I can get back to the books. I'll have my brain back. No more prison time for me!

[jon_norstog]

CongratulaTIONS, Joe. With the BS out of the way you can get down to some REAL work.

jn

[Fred]

Welcome to retirement!

[5MadFarmers]

CongratulaTIONS, Joe. With the BS out of the way you can get down to some REAL work.

jn

Indeed. Wrote a book for the wife last fall. Then a follow-on for her. That's half done. By August those two will be done and out the door. Then I suspect Vol 6, Part 2 is next. Then back to the first five volumes.


Welcome to retirement!

Um, well, technically I'm not retired.... :icon_salut:

I'm just not employed. A layabout. A slacker. The wife's workers told her now I'm a "trophy husband" whatever that is.

Money isn't a problem. I was a mite efficient in investing.

[Allen]

Welcome to retirement!

+1

I've been retired for 5 years now. I think about my last job that I spent 19 years at every day but I don't miss it. I take a nap every day, get up when I like and go to bed when I like, eat when I like and go to places when I like. What keeps me busy is all the years of neglected house and yard work.

Congrats !!!

[Fred]

I retired seven years ago when I was 54. There's all sorts of time on my hands now to do what I want. If I don't think of anything, my wife will involve me with something. Usually concerning the yard or constructing a stone patio or a dog obedience class or an event somewhere.
I'd be living in a trailer eating pork and beans every day if I hadn't met and fallen for my wife. She too has invested wisely in the Market. She's a smart gal whose abilities have made us financially independent. Neither one of us is high maintenance, so we live modestly and keep investing wisely. She says that if nothing were to improve for us financially over what it's been for the past 8 years, our money will last us if we lived to be 100 or more. If the economy really improves and once again thrives under a Trump presidency, as it certainly would and will, we've estimated we'll have more than we could ever spend in several lifetimes. It'd all be a waste of course unless we chose to pay off the mortgages of anyone we ever thought was worth sh!tting on. That wouldn't be very many people though. I'm leaning towards leaving it to animal shelters. No kidding.
In the mean time, I'm starting to get back into and interested in Krags. Im not looking to get one of every type in a collection. I'm just interested in picking up where I left off 30 years ago and learning from the guys who share their knowledge with me on the subject.

[5MadFarmers]

In the mean time, I'm starting to get back into and interested in Krags. Im not looking to get one of every type in a collection. I'm just interested in picking up where I left off 30 years ago and learning from the guys who share their knowledge with me on the subject.

Notice the indirection I used? Had people all interested in wanting to rip apart a carbine which shouldn't even be a carbine? Held out a squirrel so they'd not see the bear?

Go back and look at the M-1896 in the first photo. Look at the wear on that thing. Then go to the receivers photo and look at the serial. It's in the middle of the photo shoot. Right over the strange "1894" thing.

Twas an effective squirrel. Wonder if I should breed it.

[Kragrifle]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

[Dick Hosmer]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

How then do you account for what certainly appears to be an M1898C base? The M1902C base IS low, but it does still protrude slightly above the leaf, while the former does not, as in this sample. Granted, eyepieces, leaves, and binding screws could be and were modified, as well as swapped around, so the base is THE determining factor.

[5MadFarmers]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

You really want to open that can? Ok, let's do it.

That they made 1902 carbine sights is a given:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/sights_1902.png

The numbers were greater than is commonly known:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/1902_carbine_sights.png

Those are 1902s just based on the manufacture year.

Then the bus shows up:


Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

There is no such thing as the "1903RB knob." That's a bus. They were making the same basic sight for the 1903 rifles and the 1899 carbines at that point. Why would they need different knobs?

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/1902_sights_1903.png

Clearly 545 rear sights are made in that image while 30,503 M-1903s were being made. The following years have the same thing going on. They made 1896 sights that year too. Models, models, models.

All of that is pretty clear. Then we get into altered 1902 carbine sights. Something which presumably cannot exist.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/sights_altered.png

We could debate all day what that means. It's well into the 1902 carbine sight era.

I'm not going to debate it though. I really don't need to. Only by jumping on the bus does one need to really get stuck on that. I don't.

[Fred]

There is no such thing as the "1903RB knob." That's a bus. They were making the same basic sight for the 1903 rifles and the 1899 carbines at that point. Why would they need different knobs?
.

I'll bet that you already know this, but don't forget that the knob on the 1903 Ramrod Bayonet rear sight leaf is dished out on either side of the slot to allow a rimless cartridge head to be used to tighten the knob.

A true Krag knob as you know has only the slot in it, without the dished out areas on either side of the slot.

Of course when the decision was made to abort the Rod Bayonet rear sights for the 1905 sights, Springfield Armory started using the already manufactured 1903 knobs on Krag 1902 sights. That's why one can find so many on 1902 Krag sights today.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=36291&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=36292&stc=1

[5MadFarmers]

I'll bet that you already know this, but don't forget that the knob on the 1903 Ramrod Bayonet rear sight leaf is dished out on either side of the slot to allow a rimless cartridge head to be used to tighten the knob.

A true Krag knob as you know has only the slot in it, without the dished out areas on either side of the slot.

Of course when the decision was made to abort the Rod Bayonet rear sights for the 1905 sights, Springfield Armory started using the already manufactured 1903 knobs on Krag 1902 sights. That's why one can find so many on 1902 Krag sights today.


http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/knobs.jpg

Why would they continue to make two knobs at the same time? Why not make one? It's the same knob. That a Krag cartridge isn't the 1903 cartridge doesn't matter as it loses nothing. Whereas the reverse is less true.

[5MadFarmers]

By the way, that's a really nice RB. If I wasn't a shiftless unemployed layabout I'd be interested. Did you sell it? If not please let me know what you're after fundage wise. It's possible I can sell an organ or two. Maybe the liver - not really using it. Still have two kidneys and that's likely one more than I need.

I took a good look at the one at RIA. Serial #1 if I recall. Have some pictures buried around here somewhere. RIA #1.

I noted that early thong and brush system. Figured you'd know this but that cartridge belt is later than the gun. Not "wrong" but not specifically period. Which you obviously took the time to ensure on the cleaning system. The cartridge belt for that specific era is the one with the ends which angle in. That belt is a repro isn't it?

[Fred]

The belt is supposed to be original. It was made by Russell I think. I can't remember without looking up the information I had. Ive read that this type of early belt produced by the company hadn't any name stamped into the metal. The Five Round pockets were made without the puckering at their bottom which I've read was developed to protect the webbing from being worn though by the pointed Spitzer bullets of the 1906 design.
The suspenders are a reproduction. Originals are shorter to hold the belt up higher just under the rib cage.

[5MadFarmers]

The belt is supposed to be original. It was made by Russell I think. I can't remember without looking up the information I had. Ive read that this type of early belt produced by the company hadn't any name stamped into the metal. The Five Round pockets were made without the puckering at their bottom which I've read was developed to protect the webbing from being worn though by the pointed Spitzer bullets of the 1906 design.
The suspenders are a reproduction. Originals are shorter to hold the belt up higher just under the rib cage.

Indeed, my bad on the belt. Had to go poke my data to refresh my noggin.

The bullet poking thing is an urban legend. The real reason was costs and patents. When I put that book out that topic and those belts will be detailed in spades.

[5MadFarmers]

Since the rifle is composed of Original parts that've been assembled back into a rifle, it obviously isn't going to be one of the $55,000.00 specimens. However Most of the parts are pretty darned difficult if not impossible to find today. When they Are found, they're really expensive IF the owner even wants to sell them.

Interesting what one starts when one runs into parts. I ran into one from 1904. Altered. Might be in 30-03 - never checked. Guy I took it from said it was. Most was later.
CMP sent me a random '03. Later gun swimming in early altered RB parts. Why did it have them? No idea. Just ordered a LSN '03 and it was the next one to be mailed.
Was at an auction some years ago. Very early on for me. A loose stock on the table perplexed me. Looked at it twice wondering about the damage to the end. Then it hit me. It was an altered RB stock. That rod channel kind of a sign right? Last item to go. Bid, and won at, $5. When I looked at my closing bill they didn't even charge me.

Let me stew it. I'm interested.

[Kragrifle]

1902 carbine sights will be found with the altered 1898 knob and with the later milled knobs. The bases will all be the low profile, but can be found marked with the C on either side. The leaf assembly will be the same as the rifle, though I have seen one marked with a C like the 1898 carbine sight.

[5MadFarmers]

1902 carbine sights will be found with the altered 1898 knob and with the later milled knobs. The bases will all be the low profile, but can be found marked with the C on either side. The leaf assembly will be the same as the rifle, though I have seen one marked with a C like the 1898 carbine sight.

Pictures on page 218.

[5MadFarmers]

Now it's time to go over that oddity. I like to stew things like that for a few days while the noggin games it all multiple ways.

Back to 1mark's gun and the on-the-fly guide I made up:


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.

So it's an oddity. In that thread I added this:



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.

Then we add the rule: models, models, models, models.

I'm not a binary type. I'm a statistical probability type. So let's mix that in. Then review it in my circle the prey for a while until the prey gets bored waiting and then strike mode.

The rear sight. Patina is fine. In fact every bit looks new. 1902 top and 1898 bottom. Odd. That sight is really post 1899 on top of it. Sure, they retrofitted that sight, but the 1903s were on the way. So "late" and "odd" don't bother me.
The lack of sling swivels. Nobody noticed the swivels. That's because it doesn't have any. See what's not there and what is.

That actually creates the problem for the sight. If it was late enough for a bored gun worker to mash an 1898 and a 1902 together that really implies they just wanted a gun. Let's say 1903-1917. It'd likely have swivels if assembled in that era officially.

So due to that I'll give it an 80% improbable and 20% probable.

Now let's get to that stock. It's a very lovely 1899 stock. Assembled onto a gun in 1900. So second block. The era of the 1896 sight. So that receiver was unlikely to have been banged into a carbine at that time. They could make stocks and made 1896 long stocks. So it's 95% unlikely that receiver was originally in that stock.

What about later? Whittled, well, post 1899? Doesn't make sense. Why not?

Models, models, models, models. Industry, industry, industry, industry.

SA could make stocks. They recovered the RB 1903 stocks so they were known to alter stocks. But, it's key, on an industrial basis. "We have thousands. Toss them?" "Goodness no. Alter them." "This one is won't fit." "Toss it on the scrap pile."

So models and industry argue against that combination. So it's 95% unlikely to have been made that way and 95% unlikely to have been altered in government service that way.

1899 stock. Carbine barrel. 1898 carbine sight base. These are not parts just laying around. This points to one of two things:

1) Somebody faking a gun.
2) Somebody swimming in parts and wanting to peddle guns.

#1 is unlikely. Faking an 1896 carbine with the 1899 stock isn't going to work. Why not bake up on altered 1898c? Faking an 1899 carbine is pointless as they're marked. Turning an 1892 receiver into a carbine isn't going to fool anyone.

Thus we arrive to #2.

That gun was assembled ages ago. The bolt work is very well done. Not your run of the mill Russian level hacking. The receiver is still swimming in cosmoline. Which means what?

A perfectly good altered M-1892 was sacrificed to make that thing. Ouch. That does imply guns sitting around in their thousands. Guns which weren't considered particularly valuable. $10 each in a barrel at the hardware store.

I'd call this one a Bannerman or the like.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm a post bot. Post, post, post, post. Next week I'll slow down as I'll finally get out of my pajamas and start getting something done.

=====

I don't think there is an overlap. Statistical probability. I've seen too many. I've even targeted that range. That picture of three in that neighborhood is kind of a sign right? That's not all of them in that range that I have around here.

Lowry mentioned, if my noggin is providing good information, that he had an 1896 with a serial down in the teens.

I think it's a muck up. Somebody did something dumb at the stamping machine. We tend to think in modern technology methods. A rolling odometer type thing. That was over a century ago. I wonder if the dies were hand set? I watched hand set dies in operation making license plates about a year ago. We're a century later and they were still swapping dies by hand.

I think it's a booboo and not an overlap. More data points will tend to either disprove that or increase it. Another year or two of trolling that range should do it. Knowing me I'll do it just out of habit.

[Fred]

[QUOTE=5MadFarmers;462054]
http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/1902c/knobs.jpg

I never noticed before that there were these variations of knobs. Wonderful! Thank you!

[madsenshooter]

Now that's a model of Springfield ought to be going to Camp Perry Fred.

[Dick Hosmer]

I watched hand set dies in operation making license plates about a year ago.

Did some time, eh?

And we all thought you just went walkabout.

[Dick Hosmer]

Oh come on, a joke's a joke ferhevvinsake. I've asked Al Frasca for his input on the numbering machine.

[5MadFarmers]

Did some time, eh?

And we all thought you just went walkabout.

Prisons are very interesting places. Fascinating even.

At the end of the day if you really want to get out you just show your staff ID and hand stamp. They're full enough where they rarely have a bed free anyway.


Oh come on, a joke's a joke ferhevvinsake. I've asked Al Frasca for his input on the numbering machine.

The machines were deep in the bowels of a maximum. Prison jokes don't bother me.

It stands to reason that the serials were stamped before the model marking. I have no idea what type of machine they used but the 1898/1899 overlap would tend to indicate the serial numbers were stamped first.

[Dick Hosmer]

Been in the Big House myself. My company was doing some door modification work in a secured area of the San Quentin (big-time maximum) hospital, many years ago. Our work involved requiring access to several doors, for which we were provided one of the huge Folger-Adams keys for their monster 18th century prison locks. It so happened that a guard came by, with his hands full, who needed to get into one of "our" rooms. So, I unlocked it for him - and, ever the wag, couldn't resist saying "bet THAT doesn't happen very often". Gave me the strangest look before realizing what I meant, and then chuckled.

[Fred]

Now that's a model of Springfield ought to be going to Camp Perry Fred.

Wouldn't sight of that on the firing line cause a sensation? Too bad it's case hardened receiver eliminates it from competition.

[5MadFarmers]

Been in the Big House myself. My company was doing some door modification work in a secured area of the San Quentin (big-time maximum) hospital, many years ago. Our work involved requiring access to several doors, for which we were provided one of the huge Folger-Adams keys for their monster 18th century prison locks. It so happened that a guard came by, with his hands full, who needed to get into one of "our" rooms. So, I unlocked it for him - and, ever the wag, couldn't resist saying "bet THAT doesn't happen very often". Gave me the strangest look before realizing what I meant, and then chuckled.

When people ask me what I did for a living I told a few I'd been in and out of prison for some years. Talk about strange looks.

When I was a kid I was threatened periodically with being sent to kiddie prison. The first time I went into that place I chuckled. "They were right! I did end up here in the end." Actually that has an even stranger story in some regards. That particular facility opened when I was a kid. Previous to the opening of that place there was an ancient one which had been purposely built in the 1800s as a juvenile prison. When they opened the new kiddie prison the old one was converted to maximum for adults. Didn't take much to convert it. Think about that for a bit.

Prisons are fascinating places. It was the mental hospitals for what used to be called "the criminally insane" which are creepy. Went through one. Sad place.

====

Puzzles. Patterns and puzzles. Cadets were a puzzle but I'm pretty sure those are understood at a useful level. So 90% probability that they are as painted.

It's those thirteen hundred and change 1896 rifles in FY95-96 which bug me. The numbers don't come out. That puzzle still obviously bugs me. So I'll keep looking at that range. More pieces will appear.

====

Time to move on to the next book. Next books probably. Finish the fiction ones for the wife and start stewing and gathering more data for the second gun book. Volume 6, Part 2.

That's mainly what I've been looking for. Stuff for that book. So I'll keep an eye on Krags to finish that FY1895-1896 puzzle but it's time to start crafting the other puzzle.

That odd "Carbine" is an interesting item. I have no ideal what I'll do with it. In the end I suspect I'll unglue the entire thing and screw the receiver back together as a Cadet. Just to be weird. Time will tell.

[Dick Hosmer]

Are you still planning to follow through on your previously stated idea of actually becoming an actual publisher?

[5MadFarmers]

Are you still planning to follow through on your previously stated idea of actually becoming an actual publisher?

For my stuff? Yes. For anything else? No way. I can imagine what a disaster that would be. When you mentioned that it'd be trivial for me to find the stuff for a German breakfast around here I chuckled. I often don't remember to eat. I'd probably starve to death if it wasn't for the other half. The reason I take a couple of weeks to mail books? That takes the "can do routine tasks" gene. That thing is nowhere to be found in my DNA. If I wasn't married I'd be hopeless. A German breakfast is when I paddled out of my room and there was food down in the public area. Kind of hard not to notice as you needed to walk around the tables. Grab a plate and walk along the line and make something. If it wasn't in front of me I'd not remember to wander to where it was.

That hard drive I mentioned in the book? It's still sitting here on the floor. I will finally get that cleaned up now just by being home.

To be a publisher I'd need somebody to be able to do the routine stuff. Which would mean the other half. She has a job. The reason she doesn't like me selling anything? She'd be the one doing it. She's a particularly smart girl. She ain't buying in to that. So she'd like me to put the stuff I work on out for her own reasons. Which is likely the main reason why I'll do it. But she does know that if anything routine is involved she'll have to do it.

That disaster would be epic. That I have zero doubt on.

I'm pretty sure the reason I don't put my book up for sale on eBay is I know people might order it and that'd cause me to have to mail them. Easier to lie low. In the end I'll give them to the kid and he can sell them. He has that gene. So I'm pretty sure I know how it'll go with the following ones. Except the fiction ones. Those are different.

====

"Vanity Press." A term invented by the publishers to tar books. The logic is pretty clear. I noted you used that term. I've noted others using it. Care to see my take?

1) Option 1. Have an established publisher do the work on your book. They then take the bulk of the profit. So in this scenario you're doing the hard work on generating the content and they do the easy work of putting it out there. Yet they get the money. What do you get? "The ego stroke of having your book published by a big publisher."
2) Option 2. Do it yourself. Use the "Vanity Press." Except you get the profits.

Which sounds like more vanity? I'll go with #1. I'm firmly convinced the large publishing houses created that term for their own selfish reasons.

The publishing market has changed. The large publishing houses no longer have that power. Similar to the record companies in so many ways. Today you have the ability to do what they used to control - get it out there. It's different in many ways but effectively it isn't. The "print houses" have access to Amazon, Barnes & Noble, etc., I could have used the print house I utilized for the book and gone a different route. I elected not to. For my own reasons. For the fiction books I will. For the reasons specific to them.

Firstly, the market is now e-books. So you create your book. They have all the tools to help. They'll even get it edited if you'd like. I obviously skipped that step. It was intentional. Regardless, once your book is done you upload it. Then it goes out there as an e-book. On all the usual sites. Each takes a cut for those sold. If people want printed copies they can buy them. "Print on demand." "Just in time manufacturing" right? Order a dead tree edition and they print it and mail it. Author doesn't need to do anything.

So what exactly does a publishing house, in the old sense, provide? Pretty much nothing that isn't available via the new. The only thing that is different is you pay the costs up front. Which is fine because you get the profits.

Take a look:

https://www.bookbaby.com/ (https://www.bookbaby.com/)

[Dick Hosmer]

I've set up with CreateSpace, an affiliate of Amazon. For reasons I cannot divulge (but it wasn't lack of quality) NCP declined my second book. I was bitter at first, but have gotten over it.

You are correct, the entire publishing process has (due to modern electronic capabilities) changed from night to day, and been turned completely inside-out.

"Vanity press" was, I believe, originally intended as a derisive term for works which were so bad (or controversial) that no established firm would touch them, hence, the author had to pay for everything himself up front, or never see his name on a spine.

Of course, some truly appalling crap gets published under the new system. Had a consignor in our antique store who fancied himself a spinner of tales, and his work, self-published through LuLu, was the worst kind of middle-school drivel imaginable. Terrible dialog, bad spelling, sloppy layout, the whole banana - but, he's an "author" now.

[Dick Hosmer]

Oh come on, a joke's a joke ferhevvinsake. I've asked Al Frasca for his input on the numbering machine.

And here is his answer, for the trapdoor period - so - I would ASSUME a similar process was utlized for the Krag:

"The numbering system was automatically advanced using a machine with the numbers on a rolling index system. The numbers are very uniformly stamped and all nicely aligned and erect. Remember, one man stamped all the receivers and he had to keep about 1500 receivers ahead of production. He stamped for about a half a month to maintain the quota. Watch carefully at the fonts used. When one set of fonts were retired, another complete (and different) set replaced them. During the 1881 and 1882 period, the star was inserted at the end of the sequence and could be used or removed as needed to keep tract of the rebuilt National Guard guns. Looking through the list of employees in the Milling Shop and their duties for each month, there does not seem to be any one person singled out to do the stamping. Only C.O. Wood clearly specified stamping receivers in the 1881 and 1882 periods."

[5MadFarmers]

And here is his answer, for the trapdoor period - so - I would ASSUME a similar process was utlized for the Krag:

Evolutionary change. Slowly at that. So yes, I'd be surprised if it was radically different in the era of the '03 even.


"The numbering system was automatically advanced using a machine with the numbers on a rolling index system. The numbers are very uniformly stamped and all nicely aligned and erect. Remember, one man stamped all the receivers and he had to keep about 1500 receivers ahead of production. He stamped for about a half a month to maintain the quota. Watch carefully at the fonts used. When one set of fonts were retired, another complete (and different) set replaced them. During the 1881 and 1882 period, the star was inserted at the end of the sequence and could be used or removed as needed to keep tract of the rebuilt National Guard guns. Looking through the list of employees in the Milling Shop and their duties for each month, there does not seem to be any one person singled out to do the stamping. Only C.O. Wood clearly specified stamping receivers in the 1881 and 1882 periods."

1500 ahead. They appear to have gotten greatly ahead on the 1894s. If the receivers were, as the 1898/1899 overlap tends to indicate, serialized before the model marking was added it's possible that thing should be 1895. That just doesn't seem likely though. Why bother messing with the year marking at all at that point? They all get banged the same. With the 1898/1899 thing they have to change it but not for the 1894 or 1895.

24045 - 1895
24060 - 1895
24106 - 1895
24110 - 1895
24267 - 1895
24301 - 1895
24398 - 1895
24401 - 1895
24434 - 1895
24441 - 1895
24553 - 1895
24597 - 1895
24685 - 1895


Range seems strangely absent of them. Maybe they hung them on the wall as a reminder not to get ahead but missed that one.

[5MadFarmers]

I remembered correctly.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/24476-4f.png

Interestingly strange gun.

[Dick Hosmer]

Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".

[5MadFarmers]

Guess I'm wearing my really stupid hat again today, but what do you find remarkable? And, what model(s) are included in the list of dates and numbers? If they indicate early carbines lower than mine - "records are made to be broken".

The thread was about that interesting "1894" marked receiver. I own a receiver 600 in serial lower than that - it's in the picture. So I'm still trying to tell is that's a mis-strike or there truly is overlap. Thus far every serial I've encountered between my lowest 1895 and that 1894 is an 1895. Not a single 1894 in that gap. Presumably if it was an overlap 1/2 would be 1894. Just not seeing them. I don't know that they're not out there but I'm not seeing them. So I'm going to keep looking.

When I took 24597 or whatever the serial is, I'd have to go look, I listed that as the lowest gun I was comfortable was a carbine. Then that thing at Julia appeared. I looked at it at the time and passed.

"Some parts are altered to conform to changes found in later models"

So, no, you're not missing anything that the pictures wouldn't make stark. The barrel end is turned down. Kind of hard to mount a bayonet on a gun with a carbine stock. Ergo that stock and barrel do not really belong together. Ergo somebody put them together at some point. Who? When? I have no idea. I didn't bid on it though as I didn't like it.

So that one is in carbine format but I'm not comfortable calling it a carbine. I'm sure the new and former owner are but I'm not.

What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.

[madsenshooter]

Since I've played with a few of them, I know just how easy it would be to set a numbering machine so that it strikes a 4 rather than the 5 you'd planned. (If the machine used was anything like those used in printing). Throw that receiver away? Shoot no. As for the lower number of 24476 who's to say a 96 cadet rifle receiver didn't become a carbine instead of a long rifle at the Armory, or by others. It'd still count as a service rifle in the tally they wanted for the payment due to the patent holder. I found a guy on facebook who adamantly said he had a 94 marked rifle in the 28000 range. I think he just misread it.

[jon_norstog]

.......What do I think I'm seeing? "Lots of guns got turned into school guns. They're carbines now." Not much different from 1898Cs in so many ways. I think they're being assembled. I wonder if I know by who.

The fakes may be getting better then? If thaT is the case, sooner or later Gresham's Law will take effect.

jn