Krag Carbine Serial Numbers

[1mark]

I was looking at a Krag carbine. I think. The serial that I remember is 11,???, Carbine sight, 22 inch barrel, carbine 1896 stock no rear sling swivel.
Is the 11,??? serial number in a carbine range?

[Dick Hosmer]

Not normally - BUT - there were a few "sight test" arms made up, if I recall correctly, in APPROXIMATELY that area - will have to check my books later tonight.

You almost certainly have some sort of a mongrel, but further investigation is certainly warranted, just on the off chance that you have stumbled onto something REALLY rare.

Problem is, I don't know that anyone knows exactly what one of them should look like. The two (2) M1892 carbines made (both of which are accounted for) had substantial differences, as to stocks and furniture, from the "regular production" carbines, which commenced around 24600.

Pictures will be required. If the arm still passes inspection, some REALLY GOOD pictures may be required. If it STILL looks right, then inspection by an advanced Krag collector is probably warranted.

[1mark]

I will try and get pictures in the morning. I have to think that someone made a carbine from parts but will post pictures.

[Dick Hosmer]

The numbers to which I referred were: 11803, 11804, 15787, 15903, and 15969. I had thought they were all in the 11K range, or at least closer.

[5MadFarmers]

Guy1: "I have a stamp here. I think it might be from Europe."
Guy2: "If it helps I have a list of countries that were noted to be in Europe. Austria, France, England, Germany, Poland, Italy, Sweden, Norway, Greece, and Spain."
Guy1: "So what about China, Kenya, Peru, and Brazil?"
Guy2: "Not in the list."
Guy1: Well, that was interesting. Checks stamp. "Andorra?" Well, probably best not to bug him - it's not in the list.

Most likely it's not from Europe but without more information it'd be a might hard to tell. Might be interesting.

Yes Dick, I know you get it. The problem is others do not.

You almost certainly have some sort of a mongrel, but further investigation is certainly warranted, just on the off chance that you have stumbled onto something REALLY rare.

Problem is, I don't know that anyone knows exactly what one of them should look like. The two (2) M1892 carbines made (both of which are accounted for) had substantial differences, as to stocks and furniture, from the "regular production" carbines, which commenced around 24600.

Pictures will be required. If the arm still passes inspection, some REALLY GOOD pictures may be required. If it STILL looks right, then inspection by an advanced Krag collector is probably warranted.

That it the important part. Check the 5 numbers but then think about that part.

[5MadFarmers]

Interesting

[1mark]

So in short I have a Krag what started out as a rifle. And than converted to a carbine by the military, but I have no documentations or record of this so I still have a rifle that was converted to a carbine or a parts gun. Well done but still a parts gun. Now comes the dilemma, I have a Krag receiver that DOES fall in the carbine range. So do I strip this one and build up the some what correct carbine?

[Dick Hosmer]

Interesting

Yes.

While Bubba may not have done the front sight (= barrel might be an original carbine one) he certainly made the stock cut around the bolt handle! Definitely not SA work.

I'm of the opinion that - due to the relatively well-matched wear and color - that this is an assembly of mixed parts, possibly done quite a while ago. Too many late items/features for it be the remains of one of the sight-calibration pieces though, I would think.

As to re-re-doing it, that's 1mark's call. It will not be any more "right" then than it is now.

[5MadFarmers]

Yes.

While Bubba may not have done the front sight (= barrel might be an original carbine one) he certainly made the stock cut around the bolt handle! Definitely not SA work.

I'm of the opinion that - due to the relatively well-matched wear and color - that this is an assembly of mixed parts, possibly done quite a while ago. Too many late items/features for it be the remains of one of the sight-calibration pieces though, I would think.

As to re-re-doing it, that's 1mark's call. It will not be any more "right" then than it is now.

I made a longer post and nuked it. I wanted some more time to reflect on it.

Ignore the stock. Ignore the bolt cut. Just look at the metal for a bit. It's consistent.

So the receiver is M-1892 rifle material. At least that's the logical bit but let's not get bogged down on that either. The notched receiver tells us that the receiver was reworked post 1898. When the M-1892s were reworked to M-1896 standard they pretty much sat in the arsenals. They're generally in "newly reworked" shape. That carbine has significant finish wear. All of it. It's pretty consistent. So somebody banging together a carbine greatly after the fact doesn't work of course. The receiver wouldn't have that wear. Guns sitting in safes don't get the wear. The replacement stock also has more than just handling dings. So the bolt cut bothers me less than that the entire thing shows the appropriate amount of wear. I'd be happier if the stock had a bit more but it's not awful. That isn't Bubba's work. Bubba didn't do that kind of work. It's also not the work of the surplus dealers either as the wear is too great and too consistent. If a surplus dealer had banged it together it'd have a lot more finish. Deer rifles just don't get that kind of wear.

Now comes the rant. Ranges and "your gun was made in such and such a year." This isn't aimed at you Dick but the ones that seem glommed on to that kind of thing. They read a book which, while a credible effort, has mistakes. A poor understanding of the material and an inability to really understand these things gets them to hold on to the ranges and years. The end result is, as we see here, somebody wanting to take an interesting gun and "correct" it based on the idea that only guns in a certain range are "right." It's far more right as is than it will ever be after a receiver swap. Right now, skipping the oddity of it being an 1894 marked receiver and the interesting bolt cut, it appears to be government work to me. The finish is too much and too consistent to be otherwise.

So why is it the way it is? Nobody knows. We can guess. Which is pretty fruitless. Swapping receivers won't improve it. It'll turn an interesting gun into a Bubba. A Bubba in the right range but it'll be a "wrong gun."

The ranges are a tool. A guide. They're not a rule. Those that get too wedded to them are travelling in the wrong direction.

So, now, let me flip it. Hit it from the other direction. The ranges are only really useful for "normal" guns. They're not useful for "interesting" guns. So:

Use normal rules for normal guns.
Use oddity rules for oddity guns.

You'll see 400 guns go by. Bog standard guns. Not interesting. The normal rules will apply because they're normal guns. Then an oddity will appear. Using the normal rules to hammer a gun into your preconceived ideas of what's normal is the opposite of what should be done. Use the normal rules to evaluate the normal guns. When the oddity appears toss those rules out the window and take a good look. Normal rules will simply ensure you make a mistake.

If I sat here using normal rules on every gun I'd be missing a significant number of interesting guns I own. When you see an oddity remember you're in uncharted territory. Toss the rules and use your skills.

The bolt cut doesn't bother me overly much really. When looking at an M-1896 carbine in M-1899 format, having an 1894 dated receiver, showing consistent and very old wear I get cautious of thinking that it fitting my idea of what I'd like to see is going to happen. There could be many reasons for the bolt cut. There is really only one for that consistent and significant finish loss.

Leaving it be would be the best advice.

[5MadFarmers]

This is probably going to be long and not specifically about that carbine but will be about "ranges" and interesting guns.

300 M-1898 carbines are shipped from RIA to a unit. Two weeks later a trooper is firing one and the receiver, that square cut is a bummer, cracks. Stress from the barrel against that square cut receiver (there is a reason they change things). What nobody had noticed is screwing in the barrel when it was made had started the fracture. It survived some firing but cracked when the trooper fired the 9th round. The gun was sent back to RIA. In almost pristine shape minus that crack. They ordered a spare receiver from SA. SA took one from production, serial 178467, and sent it along. RIA re-assembled the gun on that receiver. In February of 1899. When the unit was due to exchange their M-1898s for M-1899s the Company Commander decided to keep that one for his own use. It was in the best condition. He duly mailed in a check and it became his property. Better than a century later that gun shows up on a board. "I have what appears to be an M-1898 carbine but the serial number is out of range. All the parts seem right. What's up?" To which he's told that Bubba did it or the surplus dealer did it. Thus an M-1898 carbine, which had not been sent in for rebuild, disappears never to be seen again. Amusing bit is, not having gone through rebuild, it's far more "correct" than the bulk of the M-1898 carbines out there which everyone and his brother has had a whack at "restoring." "Your gun is wrong, that receiver dates to 1899. Much too late to be made that way. It's also out of range. It's garbage."

In 1898, during the switch to M-1898 production, they were sweeping up the M-1896 receivers as they needed the guns. In order to push them out the door they took the 50 spare parts receivers and assembled them into guns. Serial 40,876 was assembled and duly given the cartouche of 1898. The gun shows up over a century later. "That couldn't have been made at SA in 1898. Serial is way too early. Your gun is 1896 production."

400 M-1896 carbines are turned in for rebuild. Out the other end come 395 rebuilt carbines. 3 of the receivers, there not being enough parts to assemble them as carbines, go into the parts bin. Next 500 M-1896 rifles arrive for rebuild. Out go 498 rebuilt rifles. To include two on receivers that had been carbines. "That rifle has a carbine receiver. Bubba or the surplus dealers."

On and on and on. If one thinks that every receiver left SA as a gun one is mistaken. If one assumes that they didn't do what was needed to keep the tools operational one is mistaken. They were big on models. Serial numbers are simply an accounting number. "Private Smith, why do you have serial 109333? You were issued 105988. I'd have to believe you lost your gun and stole Private Green's." Which is, and I'm sure of this, why M-1905s bayonets started receiving serial numbers. Krag bayonets weren't serialized and there was too much theft in the tents.

1904 dated Krags.
M-1896 rifles riddled throughout the first block of M-1896 carbines.
M-1896 rifles with post-1900 cartouches.

The list is endless. It points to an ordnance department not trying to keep things for collectors over a century later. Models they were big on. Serial numbers not so much. Until the M-1896 marking the receiver marking was a date, not model. Both rifles and carbines were assembled on 1894, 1895, 1896, M-1896, M-1898, and M-1899 marked receivers. On that last? "PCs and school guns." Rifles.

Ranges are a handy tool. Don't get too wedded to them. Strange stuff could, and did, come out of SA. More strange stuff came out of the rebuild process.

I've said it repeatedly: "a sample size of one is no sample size at all." Oddity guns need to be evaluated on the gun.

[5MadFarmers]

I like time to stew things. It helps.

Take that gun out of the stock. There are short and long stocks with that being the longer. The finish on the underside of the barrel wears based on stock length. If you pop that out and the wear continues on the underside of the barrel back to a clear stop point further back than expected it's a sign that the barrel was in a short stock. That would eliminate the stock from belonging to the rest.

Doesn't help with the metal bits though.

[Kragrifle]

Leave it alone.

[1mark]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

[5MadFarmers]

Whether it's whittled or done for some other reason ignored, that's an M-1896 carbine type 2 stock. A bonus post to explain that.

"Types." One of the biggest issues I have with Poyer's book is he makes up types. Which tends to over-ride the actual usage of them in military service. The army had "types" and they are very specific. There are "Models" and there are "Types."

A model is changed when interchangeability is lost.

The designations are designed to maintain the stuff. The DRMs were eventually replaced by Standard Nomenclature Lists (SNLs). This has to do with levels of maintenance. There are basically only two levels at the point in time the Krags were in service but that number changed to three during War 1.

Field level.
Depot.

The Depot is the Armory or an Arsenal in the Krag era. Sew them together and remember that it's all designed around maintaining them.

"We have an M-1892 rifle and the little thingy broke. How do we fix that?"
"Look at the DRM and tell us the proper term for that part and we'll tell you if it's field replaceable or if it's a depot thing."

Typically if it was field replaceable it would be a part number on an SNL but it'd be a "piece mark" on the blueprint (called tracings at the time) if it was a depot repair. In the Krag era they had to publish a list of what could be changed in the field and what was done in the depot.

With that in mind, when the M-1892s were turned in for alteration they became M-1896s. "M-1892/96" is not a term that makes any sense. They're either M-1892s or their M-1896s as that defines the parts. "I have an M-1892 rifle and need a complete assembled bolt." "I have an M-1896 and need a complete assembled bolt." Two different bolts. Right down to the pieces. Why two? Because later you might order an Extractor and it matters. M-1879 trapdoors were considered M-1879s, and maintained that way, until altered and then became the later model. They worked at keeping the models right for maintenance purposes. Using "Models."

"We have an M-1896 carbine and the stock is broke. Send a replacement." Oy. We have a problem. There are two. The barrel band is different. "Is it the type 1 or type 2?"

The correct usage of the term type. When a standard Model has two non-interchangeable editions they're types. Type 1, type 2, etc.,

That is the M-1896 Type 2 stock. To us it's the "long" stock. To them it's the Type 2.

If the part didn't affect interchangeability they simply didn't care. Didn't need to. It's only when it affected interchangeability that they did. Again, when the M-1892s were updated to M-1896 format they became M-1896s. If they retained parts from the M-1892 it would be a part where interchangeability didn't matter. If the part is specific to the M-1892s and shows up on one altered to M-1896 format either they screwed up or somebody has been playing with the gun. Models and types. They didn't like types so they started moving to models on the parts themselves. "Model 1901 sight." Not "M-1898 rifle sight, Type 2."

With me so far? The rifle receivers marked "1894" were used on the M-1892 rifles. Later those were upgraded to M-1896 rifles. The marking on the receiver isn't what they homed in on. That created problems so the "M" was added during M-1896 production. Then it did matter. M-1899. Same receiver as M-1898. They finally had the ability to remark receivers and M-1898 receivers used in M-1899 use were overstamped. If you think about it that can only be done once.

"1894" marked receivers, used in M-1892 production, were later upgraded to M-1896. There really weren't any production carbines that early.

But why would they get hung up on using one? See it? It disturbs us but if you think it through it wouldn't have mattered to them. An M-1896 carbine assembled on an 1894 receiver would simply be an M-1896 carbine. That stock though, presenting interchangeability issues, would need something to set it apart for support. "Type 2."

So why don't we see more M-1896 carbines on 1894 receivers? Because by the time the M-1892s were turned in for rebuild in large numbers the M-1898s were out. They didn't need lots of M-1896 carbines. "5Mad, how can you possibly know that?"

Because the guns, at that time, were typically issued to the regular army when new. After they were turned in they were rebuilt and sent out to the Militia. The Militia, not being a full time thing, had more infantry percentage-wise than it had either Artillery or Cavalry. "Horses." Horses need to be fed full time. The army complained regularly about the Militia not being willing to do the same percentage of mounted to dismounted as the army. The Militia had a very specific reason. In any event the Militia had a demand for more rifles than carbines, as a mix, than the army. Not saying they didn't have any Cavalry - just not as much.

Models and Types. Used to keep the parts straight. "Send me an M-1892 bayonet band." That part is model specific. "Send me a barrel band." Not so much.

An M-1896 carbine on an "1894" receiver doesn't bug me. That receiver has the notch so it's now, to the army of the time, an M-1896 receiver. Uses the M-1896 bolt. The stock is the Type 2. Whether it was made that way or whittled by somebody after the fact it's a Type 2.

[5MadFarmers]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

No problem. When this thread completes, assuming it stays on topic, print it and keep it with the gun. It'll save you much time and argument with "experts."

With that in mind, given the stock wear pattern on the metal matches, I'll cover the bolt cut.

"It's beyond our understanding and knowledge level." That is the correct answer. When was it cut like that and by whom? "We don't know." Wanting it to be a "standard cut" is pointless. It isn't a standard cut. Why it's not isn't something we know. That it's on a carbine with an early receiver means we toss our rules out the window and try to understand but the final answer is "we're guessing as it's beyond our knowledge." If that was a bog normal M-1896 we should be disturbed. It's not so we shouldn't be. We should be curious and cautious.

I'm going to make up an answer. "That receiver originally assembled as a carbine test mule for M-1896 carbine development. After that it was kept at SA as a test mule. The last test they did was with some funky bolt. Then the gun was sent out the door when M-1903s became the rage."

Is that the answer? Unlikely as I made it up but not impossible. The point is we don't know. No amount of guessing is going to be satisfying.

It's an interesting gun. Beyond our knowledge. I'll make up the three gun rule:

1) Bog standard.
2) Mucked up.
3) Oddity

When faced with #3 see if it's really #2. If you can't prove it's been mucked up by somebody in some obvious way apply the rule set from #3 instead. #2 is #1 after the butchers were turned loose on it.

If your gun had a recoil pad it'd immediately have moved to #2. If it had a rifle sight it would have immediately made that trip. That that metal has sat in the stock further moves it to #3 whereas the bolt cut doesn't move it to #2. It remains at #3 for now.