Why so few 1896 rifles?

[Dick Hosmer]

I believe that Joe Farmer has lowered the breaking point into the high 108K range, and also - while overlap does apparently occur at other breaks, at this one there is a distinct physical change in the numbered part itself, a notable distinction. Of course, I guess they could have annealed the receivers, turned off the bolt shroud, and re-hardened them, but that is a lot of work compared to just paying attention to the numbering - and - I have never heard that such work was attempted.

[butlersrangers]

If a model 1898 Krag were found in the 108K range, that would prove some overlap occurred. Model 1896 Krags are recorded that are above 108K.

[03collector]

Both the 1896 and 1898 rifles were being made at the same time. In the beginning of the production run.

[5MadFarmers]

I believe Franklin Mallory found model 1896 Krag rifle, #109020, the highest model 1896 serial number to be reported in his research.

Model 1898 Krag rifle, #109128, was the lowest model 1898 rifle serial number, in Mallory's data. (Destroyed 5/17/1929, New Cumberland Guard).

I imagine it is very possible there could be some overlap in serial numbers, as 1896 actions were in parts bins going through manufacture and assembly into rifles and bins of 1898 actions began the process.

Krag #109100, as the model change, would fit pretty neatly between highest model 1896 and lowest model 1898, reported in Franklin Mallory's work.

But, there was a War going on when the transition was occurring, during June-July, 1898, and things don't always happen cleanly!

In a thread where the difficulty in telling "1896" from "1898" is discussed it's escaped you that that problem might possibly have existed at the time? Really?

"A sample size of one is no sample at all." Two or three are unlikely to be misread consistently but one?

The interesting thing about books is reading and understanding them is only the first two parts. They're designed to educate so you can make additional leaps of logic. Else-wise you're just a Parrot for whomever.

I believe that Joe Farmer has lowered the breaking point into the high 108K range, and also - while overlap does apparently occur at other breaks, at this one there is a distinct physical change in the numbered part itself, a notable distinction. Of course, I guess they could have annealed the receivers, turned off the bolt shroud, and re-hardened them, but that is a lot of work compared to just paying attention to the numbering - and - I have never heard that such work was attempted.

The overlap in the 1898/1899 receivers would tend to indicate that the serial was stamped before the model. Overlap in the 1896/1896 receivers would startle me not at all.

The SRS and such were gathered at the time. Written records. That makes them susceptible to two, not one, transcription errors - initial and the SRS people. I'll give you a very easy to find example of the first. In one of the Ordnance Notes the serials for trapdoors in a unit are given. With that document in hand I put them into a spreadsheet. The same number showed up in two different companies. I'd say that's likely a period error. One of the Marx Brothers films has Chico asking Harpo: "who are you going to believe? Me or your own eyes?" Today, as we speak, are sites on the Internet with guns for sale. Many showing clear images of serial numbers. Snap, file, snap, file, snap, file. No need to worry about transcription as you can go back on the odd ones and recheck. In no time at all you'll have a better idea of where and how the numbers lie than anyone before you. Just takes a bit of effort. In the olden days the guys had to go to gun shows. For years and years and years. The Internet makes more guns available for review in a year than all the gun shows in the 1970s combined. It's trivially easy today.

What will be found is that what those "ranges" are good for is "general usage." "Carbines of this model tend to be in this range." As soon as a specific number is mentioned all bets are off as "a sample size of one is...."

Might I mention again that, sitting on the floor near my computer, is a Krag with the receiver stamped "1894" and sitting right next to it are two with "1895" stamps. The "1895" stamped ones being lower in serial? Mis-strike? Boo boo? Doesn't matter. What it is is definitive establishment of an "1894" having a higher serial than an "1895." RIA bayonets from 1917-1919 sufferer the same problem so now we're up to the O.D. doing that twice.

Back to the OP's comment on 1896 rifles. If you mean "rifles" specifically I'd mention that, today, there tend to be more "carbines" than one would expect....

[5MadFarmers]

Both the 1896 and 1898 rifles were being made at the same time. In the beginning of the production run.

That's insightful. Take it further to men working receivers at benches and it goes to the next level. "After operation X the receiver goes to the serial stamping machine." How do we know that Bill, working an 1896 receiver hungover, finished that operation after Pete, at the next bench working one of the 1898s, was done? They'd hit the serial stamper out of order. I doubt there was a fine. I doubt somebody walked a queue reordering the dudes.

So, yes, it seems likely.

[Dick Hosmer]

I have apparently reached the age where I should look before I write. I do seem to recall that Joe moved the mark on the 1896/1898, but it must have been from 1092xx to 1091xx (his book not handy at present) not dipping all the way down under 109xxx. I hope he corrects me.

With all of the above responses noted, I still think the likehood of a blip at that particular changeover is much less likely than at any of the others. Not saying it could not happen, just saying it is unlikely.

Here are a couple of earlier examples with an obvious difference in the numbered part itself. Bear in mind that these examples were made by basically the same work force, on the same machinery, under the same basic system of operation, only a very few years apart.

(1) The trapdoor receiver underwent a significant change in late 1878, somewhere between 96271 and 96309. NO overlaps have ever come forward.
(2) The 100 receivers made in 1888 (from 4155xx to 4156xx) for the positive cam rifles, run (including a handful of overuns) consecutively. That is not random chance, some of the "experimental" models span many thousands of numbers.

[5MadFarmers]

(2) The 100 receivers made in 1888 (from 4155xx to 4156xx) for the positive cam rifles, run (including a handful of overuns) consecutively. That is not random chance, some of the "experimental" models span many thousands of numbers.

Yet the Krag Board of Ordnance rifles are scattered.....

What that points to is "what is the gun?" If the receiver isn't unique one can just grab standard receivers. If the receiver is unique it'd be more "tool room" type fab. I'd suspect the PC trapdoors were more tool room whereas the Board Krags were clearly not.

Which gets to the point of a serial number right? "Accounting." When an Officer signs for 20 guns he's responsible for them. They're listed by serial. Accounting. When he issues them to the men they are issued a rifle and sign for it.

Models for parts.
Serials for accounting.

No different from VIN numbers really. Unique number simply to identify that specific item.

In other words we tend to give serial numbers meaning they really didn't have. Thus we tend to give it meaning beyond what it had. Thus it's more important than it was at the time. Thus they just didn't sweat it as much as we tend to. The overlaps show that pretty well.

Guns in the 120K range are going to be 1898s. Guns in the 100K range are going to be 1896s. At the border one expects to see some weirdness as it's changeover. What I'd not expect to see is an 1898 rifle with the 1896 bolt. Models mattered more. At least during manufacture. During rebuild and in unit repair one never knows. "Does it shoot?" "No." "Make it so Sergeant."

[Dick Hosmer]

Of course the BOoFs were scattered - clearly they grabbed existing rifles from storage and modified them, the only 'newly-made' part was the stock. Even that could have been accomplished, on the "line" by omitting one router cut and sliding the stop gauge 4" before turning for the upper band. The sight leaves were stamped by hand, on carbine blanks - probably even the ramp flats were simply filed and stoned.

I accept all of what you say about "numbers" per se, but I believe what is important in this case is the significant physical change on the numbered part itself.

[butlersrangers]

FWIW: The attached three photographs are of model 1896 Krags, that were at one time, listed on gunbroker as "model 1898" Krags.

(I realize and accept, as Mr. Farmer appears to indicate, an error in reading the 'model date' or serial number, could have occurred as easily in the past, as it could today, creating some false data).

We have all probably seen Krags that had serial numbers or model dates, that were not clearly stamped, badly worn, or corroded and easily misread.

My point is: On auction sites, an item will sometimes be mislabeled. Having knowledge and spotting 'mistakes' may be to your advantage. Some sought after items are 'hidden in plain sight'.

krag 92 side-plate3.jpgneo-krag3.jpgredcoat1.jpg

[Kragrifle]

And then there is the Model 1897.....

[Dick Hosmer]

FWIW:

. . . . . My point is: On auction sites, an item will sometimes be mislabeled. Having knowledge and spotting 'mistakes' may be to your advantage. Some sought after items are 'hidden in plain sight'.

That is exactly how I fell into my two 26" BoOF rifles, the first was in a carbine stock, the second had the stock chopped and sold for just $350! In both cases, knowing the serial number range and what an arsenal sight and crown look like, made the deal. You can find plenty of shortened Krags - just need to sort the wheat from the chaff.