Tweet
Just picked up. Ser. 441281 1898. Ins. 1903. Nice cartouches. Barrel looks dark.Looks to be in great cond.
-
-
Oiler in butt also. -
Odd place for a 92 sight. Although there were times they fell back to the 92s, I think it was earlier in production than what yours would be."I have sworn upon the Altar of God, eternity hostility upon all forms of tyranny over the minds of man." - Thomas JeffersonComment
-
Very nice! Congrats..."I was home... What happened? What the Hell Happened?" - MM1 Jacob Holman, USS San PabloComment
-
Can't tell about an 1892 sight from the photo, but later rifles were never fitted with either variation of the 1892 rear sight. As for the bore-first check bolt headspace and clean bore as best you can with whatever bore cleaner you like. Then, shoot 4-5 jacketed bullets through the bore. I have done this on a number of cruddy Krag bores and be pleasantly surprised at the results.Comment
-
Uhhhh??????? The 1892 sight is quite clear - but whether or not it matches the handguard cut is not.
So far as usage is concerned, Mallory claims (if de-bunked I'm not aware of it) that 1892 sights were used, very briefly - in order to complete production while desired sight was in shortage - on some 1898 rifles. This should be checked very carefully before changing anything!! This might be a real snapshot in time. Of course it could also be bubba, but it surely deserves futher attention.Comment
-
I don't believe that. Impossible to know, I wasn't there, but everything argues against that.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that they did. Then the question becomes: "how many left Springfield with them?" Which again should be zero.
Not that I believe any were made that way as I don't.Comment
-
I wasn't either, but why would Frank make up such a thing?
You'll have to commune with his spirit, I guess. He wasn't a big footnoter.
Now, if Dusan had written the book, we'd have a better chance! :-)Comment
-
I would imagine that if M1892 sights were used on M1898 rifles, it would have been during the short time that the M1898 sights had to be dumped because of the problems with the new ammo. At that time they could have used M1892 sights due top a shortage of M1896 sights because the hand guards could fit either one and the screws were the same. However, those SN numbers would have been in the early range for M1898s, and the rifles made with the M1892 sights could have been retained at the Armory, ready to issue if need be, but changed to the M1896 sight as soon as possible. As an aside, the SAW ended about the time M1898 production began, and in February 1899 the Philippine Insurrection started. I'm not sure when the decision was made to dump the M1898 sight and continue with the M1896 sight, but the confluence of events may have had some to do with any temporary use of the M1892 sight.
Just speculating.Comment
-
Will post clear pics of rear site and mount.Comment
-
Problem with that theory is the early 1898s were made with 1896, not 1898, sights.
M-1898 rifles started leaving the line just before the Spanish threw in the towel. If they ran out of sights about that time why didn't the last of the 1896s get 1892 sights too? Next question: where did they get the 1892s? The 1892 rifle were still in service. Recall 1892 rifles to take the sights off them to field 1898s? The 1898 wasn't an "improved" Krag - it was a "less expensive" Krag. So why take the trouble to sideline one rifle for another?
By the time they stopped using the hotter cartridges the 1898s had been coming off the line for some time. The 1892s and 1896s still existed. So where was the demand? The PI? Count the troops sent and the Krags available and you'll find a surplus. Militia? Dick Act came well after the 1901 sight swap game.
After they dropped the 1898 sights they held the guns at SA until sights were ready. It's in their annual report.
So we're left with two problems:
1) Why would they do this when they had more rifles than they needed?
2) Where did they get 1892 sights? The 1892s were in service. Doubtful they made 1892 sights at that time in great numbers as it's just as easy to make the 1896.
Me thinks Frank was staring at his navel.Comment
-
Now we're going to confuse OP.
There is ZERO chance your gun had the 1892 originally. Ok, so .0000000000000001% chance. Same thing.
They set up additionally machinery to pound out the 1901 sight like samples. The idea was to retrofit all the guns with those. They then ran into a wall but the point remains that the equipment to make sights was something they weren't short of in 1903. The other problem with the 1892 sight in 1903 is they were cranking out the 1902 sights at a volume that was incredible; the '03 had entered production.
So the academic debate on 1892 sights on later rifles would be resolved by 1901 regardless. For 1902+ the choices are two depending on who was sober enough to work that day: 1901 or 1902 sight.Comment
-
I have read somewhere the last few Krags produced, or refitted, utilized 1901 style sights. My 1904 rifle has the 1902 rear sight.Comment
-
The 1902 sight was in vogue until 1905. At which point Blunt, then Commander at RIA, was the president of a board held at Fort Leavenworth to consider sights. Phipps, at SA, "didn't have enough time" to send a modified 1901 sight as requested by Blunt. Blunt had one made at Rock Island.
Thus the M-1905 sight - a return to the 1901 updated.
Phipps was apparently of the Mordecai school whereas Blunt was of the Buffington.
I'd expect a gun assembled in 1904 to have the 1902. They were current production for the '03.
What type of serrations does the leaf of your sight have (on the side - used for friction locking)?Comment
-
More Krag
This is my first Krag, Have had well over 200 garands.Comment
Comment