Strangely interesting

[5MadFarmers]

Love the cosmoline.

[5MadFarmers]

First picture makes the one look like the barrel is shorter. That's an optical delusion from the camera angle. The lengths are fine. As are the toes.

[jon_norstog]

Well that is a nice side-by-side comparison there. That '99 (98?) is almost too nice to shoot. I would not take that one into the woods!

jn

[5MadFarmers]

Well that is a nice side-by-side comparison there. That '99 (98?) is almost too nice to shoot. I would not take that one into the woods!

jn

The M-1898 or M-1899 isn't. Part of why it's so interesting. That's the mystery. There is one more photo for those two which I'll add later. For now it's Sherlock Holmes time.

Look deep into that gun which appears to be an M-1899. Tell me what you see. Don't worry about making strange guesses as it's going to surprise you in the end.

[Dick Hosmer]

LOTSA issues with the pretty one. Stock, receiver, cartouche, sight, etc.

[bruce]

Beautiful rifles. Ignorant of Krags. Will be following the thread for developments. Sincerely. bruce.

[5MadFarmers]

cartouche

The cartouche is simply gorgeous. Perfect. Matches the incredibly clean grasping grooves and proof cartouche.

sight

What issue do you have with the sight?



It's beautiful.

====

The bolt cut in that stock is obvious as is the reason for it. That, when the cosmoline is taken into account, gets interesting. As does the age of that bolt handle work.

Still not the interesting bit though. Interesting bits, yes, but not the main one.

[5MadFarmers]

Guess the serials on those carbines. The lowest serial in the photo added for math illustration....

The pictured M-1896 above is in the middle. The carbine in the 1899 stock is lowest in this photo.

Interesting, no?

[jon_norstog]

I thought the bolt cut was in the stock of the 95/96. Is that for real? And the 1900 cartouche?

[jon_norstog]

So what happened to the receiver shrouding around the bolt handle? And who did it and why? Cosmoline? What gives?

[5MadFarmers]

I thought the bolt cut was in the stock of the 95/96. Is that for real? And the 1900 cartouche?

So what happened to the receiver shrouding around the bolt handle? And who did it and why? Cosmoline? What gives?

I mentioned it was interesting.

Now look at the serials and model year markings....

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

[5MadFarmers]

Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

I think it's kind of cute.

You've heard the expression "cannot see the forest for the trees?" How about "cannot see the tree for the trees?"

Dick, ignore every piece except the receiver. Erase every other piece as I didn't buy it for anything other than the receiver. Anything else that came with that receiver was parts. What condition those parts were in was not really a concern.

Now, once again, go back and look at the serials and year markings.

[Dick Hosmer]

Finally, picture proof of the rumored overlap. Unless of course you dicked with the image to pull our chain. He He.

[5MadFarmers]

Tsk, tsk, such a suspicious type....