Which Krag do I choose?

[RAS]

I have an opportunity to purchase either a 1896 or a 1898.
Both have been unaltered, I'm told.
The '96 sn#89xxx and the '98 sn#375xxx.
The '96 appears to have "1898" style sights and the '98 has the "1901" style sights.
Both stocks are original but only the '98 has a cartouche on the side. Both are for sale at the same price.
I set out to bring a K-J home to round out my collection, but now am intrigued by the variations (I collect Garands as well).
Would one of you help this newbie out please?
What else ought I take into consideration?

[Dick Hosmer]

Your descriptions of the features make sense, and raise no red flags, but, that's as far as I could go without pictures. Is the person who told you they were unaltered knowledgeable about Krags? Rear sights were changed a lot, but watch for the hand guard to match (NO cutting or patching at the sight cutout!).

Which is more pleasing to your eye, and in more attractive overall condition? If that comes out as a tie, and especially if you shoot, what is the bore/muzzle condition? The 1896 may have seen more service, and the ammo of the day was corrosive, so proper cleaning (or lack of same) could be an issue. There are no particular strength or design issues to make one more attractive than the other. The 1901 sight is more adjustable and gives better performance on the range, than the 1898 does.

And, FWIW, given these turbulent times it should be pointed out that 89K is an "antique" - exempt from FEDERAL law, while 375K is considered a "modern, fire-breathing, death-dealing terror to small children". An absurd distinction of course, but don't get me started on that subject. Of course, Federal law is only the the starting point - if you live in NJ or CA (as do I) you have your own little tin gods.

[jon_norstog]

If you plan on shooting it, go for the best bore. As a collector, the '96 might have gone to Cuba or the Philippines and got a refurb when it came back. There was supposedly a lot more machine work put into the '96es ... Or just take the one that you like best. Welcome to the club.

jn

[blackhawknj]

I'd take the M1896 on the off chance it saw action in 1898.

[sdkrag]

Why limit yourself? You have the beginning of a great collection right there!

[RAS]

I have a very understanding wife and I want to keep it that way. I just bought a paratrooper M1 Carbine that was a bring-back that didn't go through a rebuild. So I need to practice discretion with this one. I've been that kid in the candy store as of late!

[Dick Hosmer]

I'd take the M1896 on the off chance it saw action in 1898.

Well, speaking strictly from a collector viewpoint, I'd definitely agree with that - it is a fact that there are FAR fewer M1896s in existence than M1898s.

[Kragrifle]

Save your money and only buy condition, bore, originality, cartouche and firing proof. Run the photos through here and get feedback before buying. If you just bought a paratrooper carbine you spent a big chunk of money so don’t rush out and make a mistake. I love 1896 rifles (and carbines!)

- - - Updated - - -

Save your money and only buy condition, bore, originality, cartouche and firing proof. Run the photos through here and get feedback before buying. If you just bought a paratrooper carbine you spent a big chunk of money so don’t rush out and make a mistake. I love 1896 rifles (and carbines!).

[Lead Snowstorm]

I think we’d best know the price range under discussion before opining. But based on just what we know now, I personally would lean towards the 1898 despite the “modern” status, for a couple of reasons:

1. I, personally, am a cartouche junkie. I’ll accept poorer bores and metal appearance, lack of accessories, and even some stock cracks if the wood pleases the eye and has authentic and clear stamps.

2. I’m not the serial # expert, but the 98’s serial sounds good for a 1901 sight.

3. If the 1896 isn’t wearing a ‘96 sight, one wonders what other bits have been changed. The ‘98 has a better chance of having more original bits and pieces together.

Having said that, if the 1896 sight is actually an honest to God 1898 sight, and not a reprofiled 1898 eyepiece refurbished into a 1902 sight, that in and of itself might push me over into favor of the 1896.

Would love to see pics also...I can get things started:



For the 1896 stock, pay attention to the stock around the bolt handle - notice the scalloped cut-out.



Compare to the 1898:



The undersurfaces of the bolt handles differ as well. Here is the 1898; note the lengthier flat portion:



Note the undersurface of the 1896 bolt:



And together:



This is a re-contoured 1898 eyepiece into a 1902 sight:

[RAS]

Both rifles are at 1250.
I will need to revisit the rifles for pictures of pedigree.

[Lead Snowstorm]

Both rifles are at 1250.
I will need to revisit the rifles for pictures of pedigree.

At that price, I’d expect a top-flight 1898. Might accept a little more wood/metal finish wear for a like-new bore, or a little frosted corrosive ammo bore for a museum quality eye-appeal exterior. But you shouldn’t have to make many, or any excuses for a $1250 1898. IMHO.

A little harder to peg the 1896. I’ll let the experts chime in, but while I think some of the earliest 1898s may have had 1896 sights, I’m not sure about the reverse. That, and certainly the lack of cartouche suggest at least a re-arsenal. As I mentioned, if it is a true 1898 sight, depending on condition, you could come out ahead just on the value of that unaltered part. Otherwise I’d be leery.

Disclaimer - I’m no expert. Some of the folks here have literally written the books on these rifles. Listen to them.

[Dick Hosmer]

I agree with Lead's assessment. $1250 is no "bargain" for an 1898 rifle with 1901 sight - probably THE most common configuration extant. That money won't buy pristine, but the gun had better be pretty darn nice, with no rash or worts. I'd expect the 1896 to show more wear of course. The sight (and hand guard) situation needs to be clarified. Pictures would be good.

Speaking of pictures, thanks for the excellent illustrative items posted. RAS - FWIW - those rifles are way above average, very nice specimens. I've been collecting 'trapdoors' and Krags for 50 years (this month!) and do have a nearly new 1898, but my best 1896 falls quite a bit short of that one.

[Lead Snowstorm]

Ah, that’s probably too kind on the 96. It has two major detractions - the bore, while not particularly pitted, is very much worn, and the inspection cartouche is gone without a trace.





So yours probably measures up better than you think.

I almost passed on it, but started putting up bids when I noticed the faint earlier proof that let me at least imagine it is the original stock that stayed with the rifle through an arsenal refurbishment:



As a reference point, my winning bid was about $400 less than the OP’s potential purchases.

[Kragrifle]

Actually the 1898 sight had the sharp edges rounded off due the problems with the sharp edges, not to make it resemble the 1902 (which had several design changes).

[jon_norstog]

Both rifles are at 1250.
I will need to revisit the rifles for pictures of pedigree.

Wow, that's right up there. I would negotiate, but also go for the '96.

jn