Custom 1898 Krag Target Rifle

I bought this online several years ago and almost immediately sold it to a close friend.* Well, I just got it back today and I'm very happy I did.* Don't know the name of the gunsmith or when it was built.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...szi3yuzp-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wegsufzh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fx76ksn9-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ihwa5ydi-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...45jsbd4c-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4k9g1x1y-1.jpg

The quality of the build is first rate.* Even the butt plate is hand forged and checkered.* VERY accurate due to the Douglas XX barrel and glass bedded action.*
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...re6xaidm-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1f0svnvt-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...jwrae6tk-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...c27qpbkk-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...r9sky7fw-1.jpg

Keith

That sure looks nice, still 30-40 too. That would be nice.

That is a BEAUTY! Congrats!!

Just a question the mounts were they for a long tubed scope like an Unertl type just curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CINDERS

Just a question the mounts were they for a long tubed scope like an Unertl type just curious.

---

That appears to be the case. Due to the distance from the rear base to where the rear of scope needs to be for proper eye relief, a long tube appears to be the only type that will work. I'm trying to decide what scope I want to use. I've got my eye on a Redfield 3200. Should know today.
Keith

I'm not usually one to like modified milsurps, but that thing is f-ing gorgeous. Wow. Just wow. I bet it shoots like a dream too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mikesm44

I bet it shoots like a dream too.

---

And in 30-40 it wouldn't hurt you either.

I finally had a chance to remove the stock, and found the name W.L. Armitage stamped on the bottom of the barrel near the receiver. The gun was bedded, and the gunsmith added an extra action screw, in a fashion similar to Norwegian Krags. I Googled W.L. Armitage but came up with absolutely nothing. My next step is to write American Rifleman (with pics) to see if they can help me with identifying the name. Next to the name was an "H", but its significance is beyond me. Here are pictures of the bedding, barrel and trigger. The trigger was the most interesting. A Dayton Traister Mk II, it obviously was not made to fit a Krag and had to be heavily modified to fit. But it works to perfection with about a 2# pull with no creep and a crisp letoff. I contacted Dayton Traister and was told they were bought out in 1985, but my contact at DT stated that they made a few Mark II triggers for Krags, mostly in the 50's and 60's, but sold them as late as in the 70's. So this trigger (if not modified by Armitage) doesn't help me date the gun's build.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3qmkef25-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...obdgd9c9-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yqibm6ml-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ywgfotc5-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g5ftc46l-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mowgn6xk-1.jpg

Keith

My SWAG for the build would be 1970s. Old Brownell's catalogs might help date the barrel or maybe somebody at Douglas, as it seems it might very well have had the barrel installed by them, judging by the markings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

My SWAG for the build would be 1970s. Old Brownell's catalogs might help date the barrel or maybe somebody at Douglas, as it seems it might very well have had the barrel installed by them, judging by the markings.

---

I did call Douglas with that thought in mind. However, my contact there was very specific. If Douglas had installed the barrel, then they would have stamped the barrel below the stock line with the last 3 digits of the serial number followed by the month and year of installation (XXXMMYY). Besides the Douglas XX markings, caliber markings (30-40), the H and W.L. Armitage, the barrel is not marked. My gunsmith is personal friends with the Douglas family and gave them a shout as well. His findings confirmed what I was told on my phone call.
Keith

Lots of custom stuff there...completely. I take it you haven't printed it yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Lots of custom stuff there...completely. I take it you haven't printed it yet?

---

I worked up some initial test loads when I first got the rifle. One load in particular with a 190 grain Sierra Match King held 2" at 200 yards from a rest using iron sights. I've just had my gunsmith fit a Redfield 3200 to the gun. It not only looks period correct, but should allow me to extract a bit more accuracy from the gun and make load testing easier and more consistent. He's testing the rifle and the loads this week.

Keith

We'll be watching...expectantly. Bet it's sweet.

The rifle looks modern, certainly not a 1920-30's job, bluing appears hot dip and not rust blue. The trigger looks like a '03 trigger, cut off and welded in place. This was a very expensive gunsmithing project and well done at that. Nice find.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calif-Steve

The rifle looks modern, certainly not a 1920-30's job, bluing appears hot dip and not rust blue. The trigger looks like a '03 trigger, cut off and welded in place. This was a very expensive gunsmithing project and well done at that. Nice find.

---

Steve,
I have to agree with you. Greg Roberts at Dayton Traister was kind enough to look at the pictures of the trigger and identified it as one of theirs with the exception of the trigger shoe, which appears to be an original Krag (maybe 1903 Springfield) that was welded on to the DT trigger, most likely by Armitage, the gunsmith. Greg stated that DT made a few Mark II triggers for Krag rifles, mostly in the 50's and 60's, but sold some as late as 1985 when the company was sold, so that lead doesn't help me date the rifle's build. He recognized the one on my rifle as a DT Mk II Krag trigger saying "they were all a rather crude modification of a standard Mk II trigger." I've yet to come across any other pictures of a DT Mark II trigger for a Krag.

If it was built in the 50's or 60's, which I suspect, the main question is why? There were much better platforms available ('03 Springfield, Mauser 98, etc.), and the cost of this build must have been substantial. Still scratching my head on why.

Keith

Why? For the love of Krags, of course. I've got this action.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cprher

, the main question is why

---

I'd love to have a Krag done up like this. They aren't sloppy like 1903s...M'98s...

It is a Target Rifle in a hunting stock?? It is a little off-beat in my opinion. Not a cheap at all, but what did they end up with? Hunting from a stand, I'll guess. Hardly used, as well. Somebody had it custom built then likely had a heart attack or died. Looks hardly used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calif-Steve

It is a Target Rifle in a hunting stock??

---

That looks about right. I don't think it was for hunting at all though. This is typical of target rifles, the bedding and specifically the sights set up...trigger...sure, it would be fine for hunting. You'd be able to guarantee your shot placement.

Here are a few quick pics of my target rifle with the Redfield 3200 mounted. I only had time for three 4-shot groups with three different loads: 175, 180 and 190 Sierra Match King. The 190 shot nice 1.25" cluster at 200 yards. It was loaded over 40.5 grains of IMR4350 and ignited with a CCI200 primer. The 180 shot a little over 2" and the 175 vertically strung the group over 4". The chrono showed that the 190 load averaged 2052 fps out of the 26" barrel, with an SD of 23 and an ES of 57.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d5lstvru-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yqqorcbh-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...v0xd774a-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xfzntpi6-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...w69duuna-1.jpg

Keith

Looks great with that glass on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Calif-Steve

It is a Target Rifle in a hunting stock?? It is a little off-beat in my opinion. Not a cheap at all, but what did they end up with? Hunting from a stand, I'll guess. Hardly used, as well. Somebody had it custom built then likely had a heart attack or died. Looks hardly used.

---

The look of the stock is a bit deceptive. The gun is comfortable in the prone position when using the iron sights, and from the bench when using the scope. The slope of the cheek piece is what makes it work. In prone when your head is forward and closer to the iron sights, the head is also lower, lining up perfectly with the iron sights. But when shooting from the bench, the head is further back, and because the cheek piece is higher at the rear, the head now lines up nicely with the scope. Whoever came up with this design had to be a serious shooter. The grip is very comfortable, and the forearm, while slim, fills the hand nicely when in a prone position.
Keith

Shot the 190 SMK load at 300 yards this time with the following results:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...jdxkh5jb-1.jpg

One thing I noticed was the scope rings need to be kept snug to the bases. They'll loosen after a few shots and then everything goes wonky.

Keith

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cprher

One thing I noticed was the scope rings need to be kept snug to the bases.

---

That's right. Still, I'd love to squeeze a few with that one.

I hate guns that have been bubba'd but that is a thing of beauty