My 1898 Krag - Is It A True Carbine?

Sometime in the late 1920s or early 1930s, my father and grandfather bought US Army Krag rifles through some government sponsored program which I suspect was something akin to our CMP of today. I know it sound crazy, but I seem to remember their saying they paid something like $1.50 or $3.00 for each of the rifles. I may be all wrong about that price, but that is the cost that sticks in my mind. My father immediately sporterized his rifle by shortening the barrel, fitting a new stock, and bluing the steel, but my grandfather choose to keep his Krag in the same condition it was when he bought it.

Years later, my grandfather gave me his beautiful Krag, and I used it for hunting deer. I always like the fact that it was still a military rifle rather than a sporterized rifle. I allowed a friend to borrow my Krag to go deer hunting, but while he was deer hunting, he also did some dear hunting, and the rifle was stolen out of his car while he was in a place he should not have been. Needless to say, I was quite upset at the loss. He was my friend and he agreed to replace it as soon as we could find one of like kind and quality. It must have been in the late 1960s when we read a newspaper notice that a local gun dealer won a bid from the Pennsylvania State Police to buy a dozen or so 30-40 Krag carbines the police no longer required for their mounted troops. I immediately went to the dealer and picked out what looked to be the nicest one of the lot. My grandfather’s gun was a Krag rifle, and while these were Krag carbines, I thought I would rather have the carbine. That is how I came to own my Model 1898 Krag with the 216299 serial number.

Since I bought the Krag about 40 years ago, I have always assumed it was a true carbine because it looked like a carbine, and the State Police reportedly used them for their mounted troops. Then I found this forum and started reading some threads that seem to call into question whether my Krag with its serial number could actually be a true carbine. It is clearly a Model 1898, but the stock cartouche is marked 1899. I am pretty sure the stock is a true carbine stock, and the front sight looks like a carbine sight to me. From what I have read, however, my serial number calls into question whether it truly is a carbine or not. It is a very nice looking piece and I have included about 15 pictures in the hope some of you all may have an idea about it.

Click PICS to Enlarge

The first three pictures are from the right side with a full length view, a back half view, and a front half view.

Attachment 8082 - Attachment 8083 - Attachment 8084


Picture 4 is a close view of the front sight, and Pictures 5 & 6 show the barrel band from both sides.

Attachment 8085- Attachment 8086 - Attachment 8087


Pictures 7 & 8 show a side and top view of the rear sight.

Attachment 8088 - Attachment 8089


Pictures 9, 10, & 11 are views of the action, with #11 being a close up of the model and serial numbers.

Attachment 8090 - Attachment 8091 - Attachment 8092


Picture 13 clearly shows the side cartouche marked 1899, and Picture 14 shows a numeral marking and a “P” cartouche on the bottom of the stock behind the trigger guard.

Attachment 8094 - Attachment 8093


Picture 14 shows a number “12" stamped onto the bottom of the stock butt. Could the “12" be a rack number stamped by the Pennsylvania State Police?

Attachment 8095

Picture 15 is a stamping on the leather sling, and it looks to me like it says “W.H.M&M.CO.” with “S.M.G.” directly under it.

Attachment 8096

I hope you folks can appreciate the pictures, and I hope you might shed some light on whether my Krag is truly a carbine or not.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Hi David … :)

… and welcome to the site ... :thup:

Compare it against the Model 1899 Krag (Caliber 30-40) Carbine (click here), in the United States - Milsurp Knowledge Library (click here)

Do you know if the serial number appears in Brophy's book? I don't have my copy with me, so I can't check it right now. The one in the Milsurp Knowledge Library is serial # 341336 and was manufactured by Springfield in 1901.

Is there a "c" stamped on the sides of the sight and sight base, as per the example from the one shown below in the Milsurp Knowledge Library? (see pics below)

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...1632Medium.jpg(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...1636Medium.jpg

Regards,
Badger

Hey Badger,

The serial number on my Krag is 216299, and according to a list of Krag serial numbers attributed to Brophy, my Model 1898 Krag was produced in the 1899 fiscal year which ended 30 June 1899. The receiver is clearly marked Model 1898, but the stock cartouche is dated as 1899. Based on this information, I would assume my Krag is a Model 1898 which probably came off the Springfield production line prior to 30 June 1899. The rear sight seems to be an 1898 sight, and I cannot find any "c" marked on the rear sight at all.

I would also point out there is no saddle ring or whatever it is called on the left side of stock as I have seen on some carbines. Actually, I have no idea how these slide rings were used, but then I never was a horse soldier.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

The carbine's front sight was also stamped with a "C". In one of your pictures, your front sight appears to have the "C". I think you do have an original carbine stock. The carbine rear sights were graduated to 2300 yds instead of 2000 I think (I may have those numbers wrong). I believe you have a rifle sight. Only 5,000 Model 1898 carbines were manufactured - original ones are rare. Most Krag's stamped 1898 were full-length rifles and many were cut down after they were sold off (mine for instance). An 1899 cartouche would not be incorrect on an 1898 rifle. The S/N on your Krag is very close to mine - I suspect you have a cut down 1898 rifle mounted in a carbine stock.

The saddle rings were deleted on the later carbines (1899 for sure - not sure about the 1898s).

I cross-checked my copy of Mallory last night and your S/N is definitely in the 98 rifle range. Still a nice looking Krag! Enjoy it:)

Your carbine could still very well be a real carbine Dave. The 98 carbines are very hard to prove. The only thing I see wrong is the rear sight, and that may have been changed when it was sent to state service. If I were you I'd post the pics on Culver's Krag forum where some more in the know folks will get a gander at them. The 1899 cartouche would be in line for this rifle, cartouches were done by calendar year and as you've noted the fiscal year, runs into the 1899 calendar year. The barrel appears to be genuine carbine, and not a cutdown rifle barrel. http://www.jouster.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12

andi makes a good point. I wasn't trying to say you don't have an original carbine, its just that the s/n looks like it was in the range of rifles per my reference books; however, there is new evidence coming to light regarding Krag's. There's a guy over on the jouster forum that goes by 5MadFarmers as well as Dick Hosmer that can probably tell you a lot more about this rifle. 5MF has some very interesting research work going on in the area of Krag's that is worth reading.

Model '99 carbines did not have sling swivels.

5MF on another forum has uncovered Ordnance Dept memos directing units to install sling swivels on the carbines. I think this occurred after the '03 rifle was adopted. Unlike what the published works state, sling swivels on a carbine are not necessarily incorrect. Of course, it would be very difficult to determine if the work were genuine. Then too, the sling swivels very well could have been added after the rifle came into state possession.

Hey folks,

In Post #4, Kragluver mentioned the carbine's front sight was stamped with a "C" which he thought the picture of my front sight seemed to show. I looked at the picture of my front sight, and I could not see any "C" marking. I did notice the pin through the post of the front sight, but I could not see and "C" stamping. So, I got my Krag and looked in bright light. I still could not see a "C", but I did notice something on the right side of the blade pinned in the larger post. I got my magnifying headpiece on to get a better look at the blade. Down where the blade goes into the sight post on the right side, there is a tiny marking that may just be a "C". If it is a "C" on the blade, it is really small, and it seems to be partially buried in the main sight post.

According to rear sight pictures posted in the Krag Collectors Association site, it would seem I have a 1902 rear sight. Their site pictures show 1898 and 1902 rear sights to be very similar with their rounded sides. The 1902 sight has a slot in its elevation wheel on the right side, and it seems to be what I have on my Krag. My graduations go from 2 to 20, and it seems the 1898 and 1902 rear sights also have the same graduations. It seems strange that the 1898 and 1902 rear sights seem almost identical except for the elevation knob, yet the 1901 rear sight is completely different. They used the rounded rear sight in 1898, then changed it completly for 1901, and then essentially went back to the rounded 1898 sight for 1902?

I know Kragluver suspected my Krag is a cut down 1898 rifle in a carbine stock, but if it was cut down, it sure was not done by someone in their garage. The barrel and front sight look like they were assembled in the Springfield Armory.

Trying to identify these things seems to be very daunting. I see some carbines with saddle rings, yet mine does not have a saddle ring. Then Kragluver informs us saddle rings were eliminated on 1899s and maybe 1898s. Of course, my 1898 was probably an 1899 by serial number date. Then Musketshooter tells us that 1899 carbines did not have sling swivels, and mine does have sling swivels and an old leather sling. As a counter to Musketshooter, Kragluver responds that information exists that would indicate that sling swivels may actually be correct on my 1898/1899 possible carbine. Whoever does this research work has a special talent and would probably be very good at geneology research. It is real tedious work, and I commend those who have done it and continue to do it.

In the case of my sling swivels, again I would point out that they were not simply screwed on by some back yard mechanic. The stock is very carefully inletted for a tight fit on the swivels, and again, it makes me think of Springfield Armory work.

Has anyone had any experience with the "12" (Picture 14) stamped on the bottom of the butt stock? It almost seems like a rack number for storage purposes, and I wonder if the Pennsylvania State Police may have made the stamping? Also, does anyone have any information on the stamping on the leather stock (Picture 15)? Thanks to all of you for your insight and comments on my Krag thus far.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Wile

Hey folks,

In Post #4, Kragluver mentioned the carbine's front sight was stamped with a "C" which he thought the picture of my front sight seemed to show. I looked at the picture of my front sight, and I could not see any "C" marking. I did notice the pin through the post of the front sight, but I could not see and "C" stamping. So, I got my Krag and looked in bright light. I still could not see a "C", but I did notice something on the right side of the blade pinned in the larger post. I got my magnifying headpiece on to get a better look at the blade. Down where the blade goes into the sight post on the right side, there is a tiny marking that may just be a "C". If it is a "C" on the blade, it is really small, and it seems to be partially buried in the main sight post.

---

Here David?

Attachment 8139
(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Regards,
Badger

Hey Badger,

Yes sir. That is the only mark I thought might possible be a "C". As I started writing this response, I went and got my bigger magnifying head set and a brighter light. I think I can now say that the tiny little mark does look like a "C" even if it is very tiny as you circled on the picture. Is this the "C" to which Kragluver refers? If it is, would that not be more of an indication that the barreled action was originally made by Springfield Armory as a carbine? You know, I never would have noticed that mark, let alone guess that it was a "C", if it had not been mentioned by folks on this forum. Thanks to all.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Yes, that's the mark I was talking about. I think its very possible you have an 1898 Carbine (again, only 5001 were made) although the s/n is not in the range of published Model 1898 carbine s/ns. I encourage you to post your pictures over on the Jouster Krag board. There are a couple of Krag experts over there who are very knowledgeable. You're right, Krag research does seem like genealogy. 5MF over at the jouster Krag forum strikes me as just one of those researchers:)

Oh yes, and the "12" is most likely a rack number.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kragluver

. I encourage you to post your pictures over on the Jouster Krag board. There are a couple of Krag experts over there who are very knowledgeable.

---

Hi Dave/kragluver ... :)

Dave .. kragluver has a good idea, unfortunately since we've been informed that we're not welcome on the Culver's new site, I can't go over there and re-post these pics for you, as I did here.

However, perhaps kragluver can either do that and you can move over there to carry on ....... or for the sake of brevity and simplicity of the process, maybe he can "privately" send this link to those "experts" and request they have a look at this thread, to see if they can answer you here.

Regardless, I hope this thread has helped you gain new insight into your Krag ... :cheers:

Thanks for sending the pics for us to look at ... :)

Regards,
Badger

Done.

This is an interesting Krag. I'd love to know the "rest of the story" behind this rifle. It might have been put together from parts for state use, but it sure looks like a genuine carbine to me - just the S/N is out of range for the "accepted" range of Model 1898 carbines. Sure is pretty.

I was just over looking at the KCA website pics for both 1898 carbines and 1899 carbines. The 1898 carbine stock still had the saddle ring. The 1899 did not. I wonder if yours was re-stocked into an 1899 carbine stock at some point in its life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kragluver

This is an interesting Krag. I'd love to know the "rest of the story" behind this rifle. It might have been put together from parts for state use, but it sure looks like a genuine carbine to me - just the S/N is out of range for the "accepted" range of Model 1898 carbines. Sure is pretty.

---

I agree ... :thup:

Thanks for helping out ... :cheers:

Regards,
Doug (Badger)

Two more things to check. I didn't point them out at first since your stock seems to be a carbine stock with the band spring and all.

First, with the bolt closed, slide a dowel or cleaning rod down from the muzzle. Mark the rod at the end of the barrel. Measure from the mark to the end of the rod - a carbine barrel should measure exactly 22" from the bolt face. Second, look at the end of the forearm on your rifle. Make sure that there is no evidence of a filler piece in the end. If there is, then the stock was cut down from a rifle stock and the filler piece inserted to fill in the lightening channel. Again, I don't expect you'll find that filler piece as I think your stock is a carbine stock.

Hey Badger and Kragluver,

I just stuck the flat end of a cleaning rod down the muzzle, opened the bolt a bit to make sure the rod was resting on the bolt face, closed the bolt, and then I used a fine tip felt pen to mark the cleaning rod at the point where it met the inside of the muzzle crown. I used a steel tape to measure the length, and it was less than 1/16 of an inch more than 22 inches. Considering my fine tip pen width, I would say that barrel is as close to 22 inches as one can measure. I also closely examined the end of the forestock, and I can assure you that the stock is all one piece with no filled in section at all. I have made a few stocks in my time, so I think I can say this with certainty.

Kragluver, you mention the serial number is out of range for the 1898 carbine which should have a saddle ring. Let me point out again that the serial number of my "Model 1898" Krag was supposed to be issued toward the end of the Model 1899 fiscal year, and it does have an 1899 stock cartouche. With this in mind, could this Krag really be an 1899 carbine that was produced with a Model 1898 carbine barreled action and an 1899 carbine stock that would not have the saddle ring? If this rifle with this serial number was made near the end of the 1899 fiscal year, it seems that it would make sense that it would have the 1899 stock that it does. I am pretty sure you can read the serial number in my picture, and I don't think I made a mistake on it.

From what you said about the sling swivels, they may have been part of the original issue or they may have been added later. If they were added later, someone did a might fine job of inleting the swivels.

When I bought this Krag about 40 years ago, there were perhaps a dozen or so of them available to make my choice. They were all carbines that had been used by the Pennsylvania State Police mounted unit in Harrisburg, PA. After reading what I have on this forum about how a carbine may or may not be a true carbine, I cannot now say the State Police rifles were all true carbines. I assumed they were all true carbines at the time. They all looked alike to me. I would guess they were different year models, some with saddle rings, others without, but they all looked like similar carbines at the time. I checked each one for action function and condition of the bores, but in the end, they all seemed to be in very good condition. I picked the one that had the nicest looking stock and condition of the metal. I have no way of knowing, but I doubt they were all put together from parts. I would suspect the US Army was getting rid of a bunch of carbines and offered them as a package to the State Police for their mounted units. The State Police may have had them for 40 or 50 years before they got rid of them.

This has been and continues to be a fascinating learning experience. I have a 1949 Long Branch No 4 Mk 1* .303 Brit rifle that is in very good condition, but I have never learned much about it. I did post its serial number on the "Long Branch Serial Number" thread for the general information that was requested, but I think I might find it interesting to learn more about it as I have been doing with my Krag.

Thanks to you all.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

The 1898 and 1902 carbine rear sights have a lower ramp than the rifle models. Comes in handy for picking them out at a distance, or amongst a pile of other things. You can see the difference between the height of the ramp and the top of the elevation leaf.

A Model 1899 carbine would have been stamped "Model 1899". They are easy to pick out because of that.

The troublesome thing is that both Model 1898 rifles and Model 1898 carbines were simply stamped "Model 1898". The stock cartouche had nothing to do with the model number. Based on your serial number, an 1899 cartouche sounds correct. My rifle is 221225 (right behind yours) and it has an 1899 cartouche.

The sling swivels, if done by the US military, would have been added after manufacture - perhaps sometime around 1903 or after but who knows? They may have also been added by a gunsmith at a much later time (albeit, not bubba).

The barrel and front sight on my cut-down rifle also look VERY well done (as does yours) - so much so that I asked on a forum such as this one if they might have been done by an armory. Nope - just by a very skilled smith. My dad told me that my grandfather did the sporterizing work on my Krag, but I suspect he only did the stock. I never knew him to do metal work, but he was a very skilled woodworker and he made stocks.

I've referred your rifle to 5MF. It will be interesting to see what he says. He and Dick Hosmer (among others) know a lot more about Krag carbines than I do.

In a discussion about your rifle over on Gunboards, I learned that the Model 1898 carbine sights were graduated to 2000 yards and not 2300 as I had asserted in an earlier post. Therefore, your rear sight does appear to be a carbine sight. "Krag" over on gunboards thought your rifle looked like a correct 1898 carbine from what he could tell.

I believe Mallory stated in his book that approximately 375 or so, 1899 carbines were sent to Ft Riley, KS for sling swivel attachment.

Correction to my previous (and first) post...
Mallory's book (pg 92) states that 372 1899 carbines were modified at Ft Leavenworth, not Ft Riley. The modification was made on engineers carbines and included installation of a butt stock swivel as well as replacement of the carbine front band with a rifle lower band with sling swivel. This is depicted nicely in Fig D-6 in Poyers book (Appendix D). In addition, a special sling was developed for these carbines.

David

Hey folks,

In response to Andiarisaka, I have carefully looked at the photos on the Krag Collectors Asssociation site, and I am pretty certain the rear sight on my Krag matches the 1902 rear sight shown there. The 1898 and the 1902 are similar, and somehow the 1901 sight is completely different, but my rear sight matches the 1902 rear sight pictured there. The 1898 sight has the "C" marks on it, and the elevation knob has a flat side on it. The 1902 looks much like the 1898, but has no "C" marks, and the the elevation knob has a straight screwdriver type slot on its side. My sight matches the 1902 sight shown.

To Kragluver: again I point out my receiver is clearly marked Model 1898 with a serial number of 216299 while yours is 221225. According to the serial number information given for Springfield Armory, my Model 1898 was one of 103,778 rifles made during Fiscal Year 1899 year which was between 1 July 1898 and 30 June 1899. My serial number falls within the last 3,000 or so of the 103,778 made in Fiscal Year 1899, so it would seem likely that it was made sometime in May or June of 1899. Your Krag with serial number 221225 was made during Fiscal Year 1900 when 70,652 Krags were made, and it would fall in the first 2,000 rifles made in the 1900 Fiscal Year. Like you said, our numbers are only a few thousand rifles apart, but mine would have been made in Fiscal Year 1899, and yours in Fiscal Year 1900. Both rifles have stocks with the 1899 cartouche, but from what you have said, yours was an 1899 rifle stock, and mine is obviously an 1899 carbine stock. Since both rifles were probably made just months apart in the summer of 1899, it seems quite natural that stocks with 1899 cartouches would have been put on both rifles even though one was marked Model 1898 and the other was marked Model 1899.

In a later post you mentioned that someone named "Krag" over on gunboards thought my Krag looked like a correct 1898 carbine. Can you tell me what "gunboards" is? I have checked with the Culvers and the Krag Collectors forums, but I do not know what "gunboards" is. You are also correct about my rear sight being graduated to 2000 rather than 2300 yards. That is also what the 1898 and the 1902 rear sights show on the Krag Collectors pictures I mentioned above.

Thanks to Dave for the information on the installation of sling swivels. I am not sure where my rifle would fit in with this, however. Both of my swivels are inleted into the wood of the stock, about two inches in front of the butt plate and about one and a quarter inches behind the barrel band. That does not seem to be in keeping with Dave's information about a sling swivel on the rifle band.

Trying to figure this out is rather difficult. I know for sure my receiver is marked with Model 1898 US Springfield Armory and the serial number 216299, and that serial number indicates the receiver was likely made in May or June of 1899.

The barrel clearly looks like a carbine barrel with the correct front sight and length. The rear sight, however, appears to be a 1902 carbine sight.

The stock is obviously an 1899 carbine stock - it is not a shortened rifle stock. The barrel band is also correct for the carbine stock. It is held in place with the spring holder rather than being pinned. The upper handguard also is correct for the carbine and for a carbine rear sight.

I have no satisfactory explanation for the sling swivels except to note they were expertly inletted into the stock.

It was suggested this was a Model 1898 rifle that had the carbine parts added to it. If that is the case, then someone replaced the original rifle barrel with a carbine barrel, replaced the original stock with a carbine stock, but then put a 1902 carbine rear sight on it rather than an 1898 carbine rear sight. This seems rather strange especially when it along with a dozen or so others were in the care, custody, control, and use of the Pennsylvania State Police for many years. If anyone changed this Krag from an original rifle to a carbine, I would think it was done by US Armory personnel. This rifle is in very good condition as a carbine, and it has been in this same condition long before anyone had any financial reason to convert a rifle to a carbine for collector value. Also, if someone wanted to fake this Krag from a rifle to a carbine, why not also put an 1898 sight instead of a 1902 rear sight on it?

To me, if this Krag was converted from a rifle, it surely was most likely done by an armory. I would still appreciate any further information anyone can add to shed light on this rifle.

Best wishes,
Dave Wile

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Wile

Can you tell me what "gunboards" is? I have checked with the Culvers and the Krag Collectors forums, but I do not know what "gunboards" is.

---

Hello Dave... :)

Gunboards is a U.S. based web site that's been around a long time. They have many forums covering a vast range of subjects. It's well run by Vic Thomas who oens it and I enjoy many of the forums myself. They have a Krag forum as well ....

Krag rifles of Norway, Denmark U.S.A. - Gunboard's Forums

Hope that helps ...

Regards,
Badger