4th block M-1899 carbine.

[5MadFarmers]

Page 256 in the good book. FY02-03. 1 M-1899 carbine.

41296

Not an over-stamp. Appears to be it's the only 4th block M-1899 carbine. :)

[Kragrifle]

Current auction?

[5MadFarmers]

Current auction?

Goodness no; it's on my dining room table.

[jon_norstog]

The armory only made one of them?

jn

[Kragrifle]

Not many

[5MadFarmers]

The armory only made one of them?

jn

Exactly one.
First block was 1899.
Second block was 1900.
Third block was 1901.
Fourth block is 1902. Just the one.

They took M-1898 receiver and "overstruck" them to 1899. Those I've seen. Obviously overstruck.

8 and 9. Notice 8 has two circles inside? 9 has one. Their "font" has a smaller circle on top in the 8. A 99 and a 98 can be detected as the metal left in that small upper circle is smaller on the 8 and isn't "expanded" on the overstrike. The circles on the 99s are different when overstruck as the second 9 has the smaller metal bit from the 8. Did that make sense?

1 complete carbine. Didn't check for spare parts receivers. That's possible. Given the overstrikes though I'd say it's unlikely.

[Dick Hosmer]

One of the little internal joys of gun-collecting, finding something that is incredibly rare, yet would be passed over, or even castigated, by 99.9999% of viewers, only looking for appearance and bore condition, and, oh yes, a "deal". Great find - you are the one person who should have that, really, you deserve it, after all your hard work.

[Kragrifle]

Hmmm, if we are including all 1902 dated carbines there will be close to 180. One? No.

[Kragrifle]

I own two 1902 dated carbines and part of a third. Granted yours would be the highest number as the high number documented is 420810. Still, a great Krag carbine!

[5MadFarmers]

Hmmm, if we are including all 1902 dated carbines there will be close to 180. One? No.

Exactly one was manufactured; no more and no less. Production report is abundantly clear.

You're conflating two different things. Manufactured and dated aren't the same thing. 1901 cartouches on 1896 rifles with serials in the expected 1896 range make that clear.

Exactly one was manufactured; no more and no less. Production report is abundantly clear.

====

I'll cover it. It's key to the M-1896 rifles in the 95-96 report as they are reported as manufactured but do not exist.

Springfield Armory was three things:
1) Manufacture facility.
2) Sales facility.
3) Rework facility.

In role #1 guns were manufactured. A very specific and detailed report was required on this activity and was duly maintained past WW1. Then dropped. The production records are definitive.
In role #2 guns were accepted from manufacture and then either sold to the army or other entities. Those entities could have them inspected and stamped per request.
In role #3 guns were accepted for repair. RIA mainly did that for the army. SA typically did it for other agencies.

If somebody, Park Service for all I care, wanted a carbine in 1902 they could order one. If they requested it be inspected it would be. That gun would have a 1902 stamp on it. That does not mean it was manufactured in 1902.

Stamped <> Manufactured.

Sitting in my gun cabinet is a beautiful Magazine Rifle having undergone the first alteration (all M-1896 excepting hold-open pin on extractor and notch in receiver). Perfect 1897 stamp. The gun was clearly not made that year.

====

Manufacturing report lists exactly 1 M-1899 carbine manufactured. If you believe that you have a "1902 dated 1899 carbine" I'd like to see a clear, very clear, picture of the model marking and the serial number marking. Stock date, as detailed, is useless for manufacturing. A clean "1899" and a serial number, out of range past the 3rd block guns, is key. No over-strike. As mentioned the production report was clear on one complete manufactured gun. Receivers are always a different issue.

Post pictures. Detailed pictures. I'm curious.

[Kragrifle]

Alas, I don't own 420810.

[Kragrifle]

From a reliable source, observed 1899 Krag carbine receivers include:
420391
420457
420460
420810
420969

[Dick Hosmer]

Aha, the red flag has been waved - will the bull charge? Getcher popcorn right here, folks!

Looking forward to an informative and spirited discussion. :1948:

[Kragrifle]

��

[5MadFarmers]

From a reliable source, observed 1899 Krag carbine receivers include:
420391
420457
420460
420810
420969

From reliable sources, observed WW2 rifles include M1s made by Singer and Vietnam M16s have Mattel stamps on the stocks.


Post pictures. Detailed pictures. I'm curious.

Didn't look like a photo to me. Looked like a bunch of text.

Add
420945
420946
420947
420948

to the list. See, anyone can do that.

Pictures. Could they exist? Sure, I'll dumpster dive the receiver for them. Pictures. I've seen enough overstrikes. No overstrikes.

=====

FY01-02. 20,000 M-1899 carbines. No spare parts receivers. With respect to rifles, 25 spare receivers and 10 receiver/barrel combinations were manufactured.
FY02-03. 1 M-1899 carbine manufactured. No spare parts receivers. 3 barrels, 3809 bands, 669 drift slides, etc., The report is detailed. 6 spare rifle receivers were made. Along with 250 M-1896 side plates. 500 M-1896 sight bases. 22,838 spare hand guards.

No spare M-1899 receivers in either year. Ergo detailed pictures are needed. It'd provide quite the mystery. Detailed pictures to detect overstamps.

Receiver were overstruck both before being completed and after. Those struck before are hard to detect as the metal wasn't finished. Those struck after are easier to detect as the metal is more affected due to the need to soften it first.

I have examples of both.

[5MadFarmers]

Aha, the red flag has been waved - will the bull charge? Getcher popcorn right here, folks!

Looking forward to an informative and spirited discussion. :1948:

No, a blanket was draped over a fire producing smoke. First it was his guns. Now it's "observed guns from a reliable source." What next? Rumored to have been seen in Botswana by Stanley and Livingston? What happened to his guns? We know don't we? Let me speculate on this.

Magazine Rifles. Without understanding those much was misty. I will in point of fact claim to be the first one to fully understand that and the implications. Cadets were cracked. I've now cracked the "M-1896 rifles manufactured in FY95-96" but haven't detailed that. Perhaps we should let Kragrifle have a go at it. Logic cracks that puzzle - nothing more is needed.

Understanding that parts were made after the fact for earlier models clears up much and invalidates much of what was accepted.

Shall we continue? Want more?

Tom I do respect. Very much so. If he, and I'd say that is the logical suspect, observed those numbers with that marking one needs to take note. If he claimed to have observed them I'd very much believe him. The problem is what they were. Tom didn't understand the M-1896 lugged rifle sights for what they are and grossly overestimated the numbers via that misunderstanding. I don't think anyone, before I just mentioned it, understood that guns were stamped both before and after receiver hardening. Which completely changes that picture. One overstamped before hardening is not obvious. It must be looked at very closely. So the question is, if those numbers were observed, are they clean 1899s? 1899s made from 1898s? Made before or after the fact?

I do get Tom wouldn't have a detailed picture if he did see them. That's modern technology. So, in that event, it'll remain unresolved until one appears. Detailed examination may be made. Conversely if one of the claimed guns is in known hands detailed digital photos can be made of that model marking. If it's a clean 1899 we have a mystery.

Right now what we have is "my guns" turned into "claimed by somebody else."

[Kragrifle]

Since you invoked his name, yes, Tom Pearce is the reliable source. It's too bad some people have over reacted to a discussion about Krags. It's also unfortunate when these people try to impress us with all their "knowledge " in such a condescending fashion. Try to make your statement, present your data and reach your conclusion in something less than 10,000 words and without mocking the intelligence of your would be readers. Such braggadocio is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[Mark Daiute]

Since you invoked his name, yes, Tom Pearce is the reliable source. It's too bad some people have over reacted to a discussion about Krags. It's also unfortunate when these people try to impress us with all their "knowledge " in such a condescending fashion. Try to make your statement, present your data and reach your conclusion in something less than 10,000 words and without mocking the intelligence of your would be readers. Such braggadocio is the hobgoblin of little minds.

I have a different assessment of Joe's comments. After reading and watching for quite a few years my view is that he makes blunt statements of fact devoid of condescension or braggadocio or any other regard for any emotion of any kind. He simply makes statements he knows to be fact based on his work. I can see where this could be misconstrued as condescension.

[Dick Hosmer]

You know, the substance is one thing, the delivery is another. One old friend can come up, slap you on the back and say "How the hell are you, you old SOB, haven't seen you in 20 years" and NO offense is taken. Or, someone can sneer through pursed lips "you f'n SOB" and a totally different response is warranted. Life is a sliding scale - we don't all see things the same way, but to dismiss the feelings of a longtime, serious, and gentlemanly collector is IMHO, not right.

[jon_norstog]

Peace, guys! I like 5MF (AKA Mr. Farmer) ... he reminds me of Thelonius Monk. he's a savant, someone you got to treasure even if you are puzzled by the way he expresses himself. Whatever he says, he's probably right, 'cause he did the research and dug into the primary source documents.

I ain't Emily Post and I will not lecture someone on their ettiquit especially given that mine needs a tune-up. We are all in this together and I would say we are having a pretty decent time of it.

I WILL make it to Camp Perry some summer.

jn