1896 Krag Carbine (early S/N)

[butlersrangers]

Original Poster's model 1896 Krag appears to show some discoloration, due to rust and rust removal - IMHO.

aaajoem.jpg

[joemel12]

Thanks again for the reply and believe me I see what you're reporting. I just unfortunately must have run into a collector "cleaning out his safe" selling off lower examples. Buyer beware. His information and explanation as to the discoloration sounded logical to me over the years along with limited research. My sons gifted me the posted example acquired from the same collector. Their only requirement was " the oldest carbine he was willing to part with". I hate to see they made a bad purchase from my example. Of course they'll never know that. None the less I truly appreciate your assessment and glad to see others comfortable posting their honest assessment.

Joe

[butlersrangers]

'joemel12' - Model 1896 Krag carbines are very desireable and you appear to have a nice example. (It is not my intention to have you feeling negative about your carbine or another collector).

Most 1896 carbines were subjected to rather hard service. I was just trying to explain my understanding of the Krag receiver's original finish.

[Dick Hosmer]

That does appear to be a very nice carbine, and there is nothing wrong with a mottled silvery appearance to a receiver. The original black oil case was not a permanent finish, and a blued receiver is almost always the result of being redone. 1896 Carbines and 1892 Rifles were the primary weapons used in Cuba. My only concern about that carbine would be the later thick-wrist stock, cut for oiler. It is probably not original to the gun as first issued.

[joemel12]

Mr. Hosner,

Do you ave any thoughts on what the rebuilds or referenced rebuilds of 96's to I thought '98 standards included? Again showing an attempt to learn.

Thanks Joe

[Kragrifle]

Pick up a copy of Brophy's and Mallory's books (second edition).

[Rick the Librarian]

They won't be cheap, but the best out there - Mallory is better although the photos in Brophy are better.

[Dick Hosmer]

Mr. Hosner,

Do you ave any thoughts on what the rebuilds or referenced rebuilds of 96's to I thought '98 standards included? Again showing an attempt to learn.

Thanks Joe

The biggest difference between the 1896 and 1898 is the receiver profile at the root of the bolt handle, so it is not really a case of "rebuilding to 1898 standards". The stock was gradually upgraded. The very earliest ones had a thin wrist and only two rod holes, then a third hole was added, then the wrist was thickened and, lastly, the oiler cut was added, in 1897. Presumably, if a carbine came in for R&R, the oiler cut may have been added - but thin-wrist stocks would have been discarded out of hand. All of these changes took place before the Model 1898, when the stocks lost interchangeability, due to afore-mentioned receiver profile. You can put 1898 metal in 1896 wood but not vice-versa, though the Armory would not have done so. They produced replacement (the earliest thin-wrist stocks had a severe problem with breakage) stocks to accept the 1896 receiver right up until the end, in both the original 30" length as well as the 32" stocks introduced for the Model 1899. While minor, interchangeable tweaking occurred, the major change in Krags was to sights and handguards. You might want to refer to my webpage at www.picturetrail.com/sa4570af


Note to OP: Received your PM - the webpage noted above will help you.