Benicia Arsenal/DCM Krag Carbines ...

[Nick Adams]

Until I can get pics of mine posted, I thought I'd follow up with this link from a gunbroker ad containing 22 smaller pics of a claimed "NRA Krag carbine":

http://http://www.gunbroker.com/auct...=133844511#PIC

This one looks identical to mine, including the front '03 sight, stock hardware, pinned front handguard band, 1901 rear sight and the "flat," not humped, rifle handguard.

Date on my stock cartouche differs from his, and his 1898 serial # is higher. Same inspector "P" cartouche behind tigger guard, and on mine there's a "78" just above it.

Wood looks identical right down to the tint and grain. I have a stong suspicion that whoever built this one also built mine. In one pic of the barrel it shows pitting along the side. Mine also has that in virtually the same area.

Mine also has a steel butt plate - and, like mine, the Gunbroker one has the mag cutoff in place.

I'm also thinking that BA-built Krags used cut down rifle stocks bearing 1899 cartouche dates, and that date had me confused. I'd thought all "1899" dates on stocks meant they were 1899 carbine stocks. Since the stock work on mine is first-rate, this puts it a bit closer to an arsenal built gun, rather than a Bubba hack job.

[Parashooter]

Notice the auction represents that one as NRA or Bannerman. Lacking papers, it's futile to assert that a cut-down rifle in a cut-down rifle stock is an authentic "DCM carbine". The assertion would be more plausible if it were in an original carbine stock with no swivels, solid band, and a band spring - simply because that is how the DCM carbines are described in one of the standard references. "Closer to an arsenal built gun" seems a good example of wishful thinking. Enjoy it for what it is, a well-done example of the thousands of cut-downs produced by a wide variety of outfits and individuals back when Krag rifles were plentiful and cheap.

[Nick Adams]

Parashooter: thanks for your comments. The auction ad does indeed say "NRA OR Bannerman," so he's unclear as well about the origin of his. Seeing the pictures provided in his ad, what's your opinion of the quality of this "conversion?"

For now I'm withholding judgment until I can at least access other authoritative works mentioning the BA Krags, e.g., Mallory, Poyer, and maybe try to track down pics, if they exist, of what a genuine BA carbine looks/looked like. It was mentioned the Brophy book had a pic of one, maybe there are others too.

Guess I'll be spending more money ...

[wayne10]

We have published data on the carbine in The US Martial Arms Collector & SRS Newsletter.
Ordnance records show a letter that states --no carbine stocks available, Cut down rifles stocks were used. The barrel was cut to 22 inches. Machining included turning down the barrel to fit the slight taper of the inside of the 1905 front sight base. Shoulder is slight but is present on barrel. Key and pin added to hold front sight base in place.
We have found some other serial number data and are still working on this issue.

Also published is the 1905 Krag Model and both unique front and rear sights.


Wayne

[Nick Adams]

Thank you, Wayne10.

I'm convinced now that my stock is a cut down rifle stock, even though it was expertly done and despite its "1899" cartouche date - which, as I stated, caused my confusion. I'd thought it was clearly an original carbine stock solely because of that date. Parashooter's description of the military carbine stock, stock/handguard band, and the retaining band spring clarified that.

Again, the barrel on mine is 22" - and after checking it again, yes, the barrel has been turned down to accept the 03 sight. The front sight has the correct stud, a pin "dressed down" to the stud surface along with that screw that goes into the front face of the sight. It's identical to my 1903's, so if there something amiss with it, then the 1903's frt sight is amiss too.

Thanks again.

[Dave]

This reminds me of the ongoing debate on the "Carbines fitted for slings", mentioned in a ordenance memo. No one knows if any were ever done (I believe a 100 were athorized) but many were done by individuals and probably Kirks and and other firms. So everyone wants to believe they own one. NRA carbines were made but not identified in any way, except by sale papers. Some of these papers have surfaced, even after these many years. No reason they could not have used cut-down rifle stocks but can it be proven? And even if it can it proves nothing about an individual rifle. Even with sale paper--the stock could have been broken and replaced with cut-down. So the best anyone can say about their cut-down is "it is done in the style of an NRA carbine". I have one (carbine stock) and thats what I say. I think you are on a useless quest.

[Nick Adams]

*** NRA carbines were made but not identified in any way, except by sale papers. Some of these papers have surfaced, even after these many years. No reason they could not have used cut-down rifle stocks but can it be proven? And even if it can it proves nothing about an individual rifle. Even with sale paper--the stock could have been broken and replaced with cut-down. So the best anyone can say about their cut-down is "it is done in the style of an NRA carbine".

They should be methods to vet these carbines other than 80yr old sale papers. As I noted, perhaps squirrelled away somewhere are old Arsenal documents from that period w/ serial numbers of converted rifles. Has anyone ever made an inquiry for such records? Did Brophy? How about with the NRA?

If it ever panned out, at that point it wouldn't matter whether your Krag had a genuine carbine stock (as Brophy says) or a cut-down rifle stock. You'd have a vetted BA-made/NRA carbine linked by serial # to the Arsenal's work on it.

"I have one (carbine stock) and thats what I say."

I'd be happy to see a pic of it. Can you post one?

The gunbroker auction link to pics of an "NRA or Bannerman" Krag carbine in my earlier post above could be a twin of mine.

"I think you are on a useless quest."

Whether the pursuit of relevant information to answer my initial questions is "useless" is for me to decide. But thanks anyway.

[5MadFarmers]

This reminds me of the ongoing debate on the "Carbines fitted for slings", mentioned in a ordenance memo. No one knows if any were ever done (I believe a 100 were athorized) but many were done by individuals and probably Kirks and and other firms. So everyone wants to believe they own one. NRA carbines were made but not identified in any way, except by sale papers. Some of these papers have surfaced, even after these many years. No reason they could not have used cut-down rifle stocks but can it be proven? And even if it can it proves nothing about an individual rifle. Even with sale paper--the stock could have been broken and replaced with cut-down. So the best anyone can say about their cut-down is "it is done in the style of an NRA carbine". I have one (carbine stock) and thats what I say. I think you are on a useless quest.

Want to bet?

I now have records of them being done at Springfield and Rock Island.

Cheers.

[jon_norstog]

Hey! 5MF! You're alive!

We were all wondering ... hoping you would start posting again.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

Hey! 5MF! You're alive!

We were all wondering ... hoping you would start posting again.

jn

Been busy at work. Not so much any more but busy doing research.

NRA carbines. School guns. Which in fact can be carbines also; some of the schools had wee Cavalry students. The rules for issue of Krags to schools included rules about the issue of carbines to schools with Cavalry students.

What is a school gun? What work was done at Benicia? What work was done at Springfield? Guns for the NRA? Kirk? It's not a simple subject. The guns, including carbines, for the schools could be "modified" at the school's expense. They could have the work done privately or by the government. That makes it harder doesn't it? They ran out of carbines before rifles (thus the "overstamp" 1898/1899 receivers no doubt). This is all without even getting into the PI carbine/rifles.

Anyway, without getting deeply into who did what, consider the following:

From what I've been able to find out this included: cutting down the barrel to 22"; using the barrel-banded front sight from a model 1903; retaining the 1901 rear rifle sight, putting the barrelled action into existing 1899 carbine stocks; sling swivels, etc.

and

Only Model 1899 Carbine stocks, Model 1901 rear sights and handguards, and carbine stock fittings were used. Cut down rifle stocks were not used on DCM Krags

I am under the opinion that no government arsenal would retain rifle sights on a Krag with a barrel reduced to rifle length. The sights would not be graduated anywhere near accurately. The main reason that there are rifle and carbine sights, and not a "common" one, is the graduations need to be different for 22" and 30" barrels of course. A carbine sight on a 30" barrel and a rifle sight on a 22" barrel would be inaccurate. The government had the spare parts. They also still had the ability to make spare parts. For them, coming up with carbine sights wouldn't be a major issue. For anybody else? Not so easy. Caveat the ability to order from the government at that time of course.

Given the exaggerated emphasis on marksmanship prevalent at that time, I just don't see the US arsenal/armory people turning out guns that would be known to be inaccurate.

Cheers.