1899 Carbine 348xxx

New acquisition and my first Krag. Bore looks really good, only mark on the stock is a 45 stamped behind the trigger guard. I've done some reading and think it looks good but what do I know? Rear sight has all the Cs but I don't see a C marking anywhere on the blade and it looks short, but then the pin looks like it's been there for a while. Let me know if there's anything I need to take a photo of that I missed. Thanks in advance for any comments!

Attachment 122057Attachment 122056Attachment 122055Attachment 122054Attachment 122053Attachment 122052

Well, I guess I timed this post pretty poorly, put it up right before the site went down. I imagine the original photos will likely reappear at some point but I'm anxious to hear some opinions so I'll throw them up here again.

Attachment 122170Attachment 122169Attachment 122168Attachment 122166Attachment 122165Attachment 122167

After several days of staring at this front sight blade I'm beginning to imagine I can see the outline of where a "C" stamp once was, not doubt worn away during numerous mounted pursuits of Moro rebels.

I'm no expert but I believe I might be able to see a "C" as well on the blade. Located to the rear of the pin and almost to the top of the blade.

Good to hear! Maybe I'm not hallucinating. I took about a dozen pictures in different lighting but none are conclusive.

I also now see the remains of a Circle P on the bottom of the stock wrist. Amazing the things I don't notice. Still nothing that looks like it may have been a cartouche tho.

'METT-T' - Your Krag, #348676, was manufactured as a U.S. model 1899 carbine around September 1901.
You have a correct model 1901 carbine rear-sight and the handguard with sight-protecting 'hump'. Initially, your carbine likely had the same handguard as used on the model 1898 infantry rifles, with the 1901 'Buffington' designed sight.
The carbine handguard with the 'lump' was approved around April 1902.

Lots of model 1899 carbines were updated with the 'sight-protecting handguard' when they were returned to the Armory for 'refurbishing'.
During Armory/Arsenal repair or rebuilding of a Krag, new replacement stocks were often put on. New replacement stocks would not have an 'acceptance cartouche' stamped on them.

The stock would receive the 'circled P' stamp at the Armory or Arsenal, indicating the rebuilt arm was 'proofed' and function tested.

Your Krag front-sight base appears to have been put on the barrel by a gunsmith or hobbyist, after it entered private hands.
The brazing is very crude and the muzzle-crown does not look correct.

It is possible that your carbine had a poor bore when it got into civilian hands. A good rifle barrel may have been cut to 22" length and the front-sight was salvage and brazed on.
Another possibility is the original carbine barrel could have had its issue sight removed and a commercial 'banded' sight was put on. At a later time, someone may have brazed on a salvaged Krag base in a restoration effort.

There were about 32 major operations in the manufacture of a Krag barrel. Springfield Armory machined a dovetail across the barrel-blank and bronze-brazed a small block of steel in the dovetail, about 1/2 way into the production of the barrel.

This 'lug' was used to locate many of the following machine operations on the barrel. Eventually the lug was shaped and slotted to become the finished front-sight base. The dovetail and brazing seam become nearly invisible.

Your front-sight attachment is not Springfield Armory work.

Your front sight-blade may have a faint small "C". When taken out of its base, the 1899 carbine blade is .355" tall. A 'loose' 1898 rifle blade is .413" tall.

Attached is a copy of your front-sight photo. I have marked what I see as a possible "C" stamp and also the crude brazing.

Also attached are photos showing a correct front sight attachment and a closeup of the carbine blade.

Attachment 122311Attachment 122310Attachment 122309Attachment 122308

Very interesting! Thank you, I greatly appreciate your taking the time to explain so clearly.

I guess now the question is whether it's the original barrel. I would've never suspected the barrel had been replaced, the finish and bore look consistent with the wear on the rest of the gun, but the crown now looks a bit "sharp" compared to the reference pics. I'll take some pictures of the crown when I get home.

Here's the muzzle. As you can see there are nicks and scratches and coloration that looks like the rest of the barrel and the rest of the gun, so it never occurred to me it might be cut off and recrowned. The barrel is exactly 22". If there was a barrel band it didn't leave any mark or difference in the wear that I can make out.

Attachment 122323Attachment 122324Attachment 122340

And here's the chamber end if that's at all helpful.

Attachment 122333

It is not a bad looking job, but your muzzle-crown and front-sight attachment look "non-Armory" to me.

All of the finish has been removed from your front-sight blade and the cross-pin is flattened, so things have obviously been taken apart after it became civilian property.

Cleaning the 'brazing' will show clearly the quality of the front base attachment. Springfield Armory work made the front-base appear to be 'part of the barrel'.

The 22" barrel-length is arrived at by measuring with a cleaning-rod, inserted at the muzzle and coming to rest against the 'closed' bolt-face.

FWIW - I have a model 1899 carbine action that has a barrel with a 'banded' commercial front-sight. If measured on the outside the barrel appears to be 22 inches long, but when measured with a rod, it is 22 and 1/8 inches long.
This reveals the barrel to actually be a shortened Krag rifle barrel.

I came up with 22" via the described method yesterday. I'll remeasure, but I think regardless you're spot on. The shoulder between the crown and the barrel is more abrupt than anything I've been able to find in photos and there's a sharp edge you can feel. The Armory cut appears to be slightly radiused in all the pictures I can find.

http://kragcollectorsassociation.org...carbines05.jpg

Seems a little unique in that whomever did this, either removing the barrel band and installing the front sight or starting from scratch with a rifle barrel, took pains to make it look "originalish" many decades ago. Either way would've meant cutting a new dovetail, right?

A Krag rifle barrel can be cut to the correct 22" carbine barrel length.

It is virtually impossible to replicate the original Armory front-sight base install.

Sure, makes sense. Well, all that's left is to see how it shoots. I'm only into the rifle for about $750 anyway, snagged a very nice 1917 at the same auction so I'm still happy.

Thank you again for the tutorial, Charles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

your muzzle-crown and front-sight attachment look "non-Armory" to me.

---

Agreed, I'll bet the front sight was filed shorter to accommodate non factory ammo.

The stock, handguard, and carbine rear-sight, alone, are worth about what you paid for a working Krag "carbine".

Yep, not quite what I was hoping but I didn't lose any skin. When I run up some ammo I'll see what happens on the range and make a decision then about whether to keep it. I'd like to eventually acquire a rifle and a carbine, see what happens.

Knowledge Library

Model 1899 Krag Carbine (Mfg by Springfield in 1901)
33 picture photo montage

Front (Type 1) Carbine Sight
Visible small 'C' marking on blade part of sight.

Attachment 122379
(Click pic to Enlarge)

Regards,
Doug

I believe you posted another picture of your front-sight, after cleaning things up a bit.

The front base 're-install' looks like a more skillful job than in the first photo. (Still, I believe this to be private restoration work and not original).

BTW - I would be happy with this restored carbine as a 'shooter' and collection piece.

The worst part of the brazing is what you saw in the first pic. The rest looks better, but still nothing like the exemplar. It's definitely it's a cut barrel and reinstalled sight, just as you said at first.

I'd like to keep them all, and might. I think there's room for another safe...plus now Virginia has made it a hassle to sell anything, so it's much easier not to.

If you need to make room, I'd love to make room for it on my rack!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

It is virtually impossible to replicate the original Armory front-sight base install.

---

The CMP did a good job on mine replacing this abomination. I will try to post the after photo next week.

Good job aside from the fact ( I just realized) it is too far back from the muzzle!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearrowland

If you need to make room, I'd love to make room for it on my rack!!

---

Nah, I figure I'll hold on to it until/unless I find a better one.

---------- Post added at 11:27 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:27 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY

Good job aside from the fact ( I just realized) it is too far back from the muzzle!

---

Does look a lot cleaner than mine tho.

Finally got to shoot. I knew I remembered some kind of round-nose in the multi-generational family ammo heap, but the rounds I was thinking of turned out to be 6.5x55. It's a big heap, tho, and in the back of a drawer I found exactly two rounds of .30 Army.

Attachment 123314

Looked from google like that headstamp was between 90-110 years old so I kept looking. Fortunately a buddy came up with half a box of Corelokts. I fired five rounds, one at 15 to make sure I was on the paper, and four more at 50. i made a windage adjustment, guess I should've just shot to group, but I think it's likely going to end up being a pretty accurate little carbine. More accurate than my eyes and that skinny little bare metal front sight blade can do, anyway. Last two were side by side above the bull.

Attachment 123315

This was my first time shooting any Krag, and the action really does feel great. Fed very smoothly from the magazine. Only issue was that ejection wasn't very convincing, brass just dribbled out of the side unless I really pulled the bolt back sharply and even then didn't go far. One of these days I'll look at the ejector and spring and see what's up. I'm happy with it tho.

Attachment 123316

Glad you got to put some rounds through your Krag. Keep the two old cartridges for your collection.

Krag ejection is very dependent on the speed and momentum of the Bolt being pulled to the rear! There is no ejector spring on a Krag.

The ejector just lies 'folded down' below the Bolt. There is a square-cornered groove machined into the Bolt-body that straddles a lobe on the tail of the ejector.

Near the end of Bolt travel to the rear, the groove ends in an incline which contacts the lobe. This flips the 'hinged' ejector out of its recess, so that the tip of ejector catches the cartridge rim. The cartridge case pivots upward,
causing the case rim to disengage from the extractor-claw and the bolt-face flange, as it flips out of the action.

It's all in the speed and timing!

Attachment 123317

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

Its all in the speed and timing!

---

They're so smooth, just run the bolt like you mean it.

The fall of shot can have to do with your type of aiming mark too...a round bullseye can sometimes leave room for error. I know. I'm one of those old guys too...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by METT-T

Does look a lot cleaner than mine tho.

---

Still trying to summon the courage to trim back the for end to the proper length.
Not sure why CMP would have placed the sight in the incorrect position. I wish I had not noticed it. Now it bothers me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

Glad you got to put some rounds through your Krag. Keep the two old cartridges for your collection.

Krag ejection is very dependent on the speed and momentum of the Bolt being pulled to the rear! There is no ejector spring on a Krag.

The ejector just lies 'folded down' below the Bolt. There is a square-cornered groove machined into the Bolt-body that straddles a lobe on the tail of the ejector.

Near the end of Bolt travel to the rear, the groove ends in an incline which contacts the lobe. This flips the 'hinged' ejector out of its recess, so that the tip of ejector catches the cartridge rim. The cartridge case pivots upward,
causing the case rim to disengage from the extractor-claw and the bolt-face flange, as it flips out of the action.

It's all in the speed and timing!

Attachment 123317

---

OK, good to know, I figured there might be a spring in there somewhere but I see how it works. Neat. I'll hit it with my purse next time.

---------- Post added at 03:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:51 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

They're so smooth, just run the bolt like you mean it.

The fall of shot can have to do with your type of aiming mark too...a round bullseye can sometimes leave room for error. I know. I'm one of those old guys too...

---

I'm a junior old guy, my eyes just started deteriorating a couple of years ago and I'm still trying to figure out aiming. But I was trying for a function check more than anything, that target was the one that happened to be up in the woods. One of these days I'll run up some more ammo and settle down with it. It's a cool gun!

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY

Still trying to summon the courage to trim back the for end to the proper length.
Not sure why CMP would have placed the sight in the incorrect position. I wish I had not noticed it. Now it bothers me.

---

How far off is it? I remember looking for that measurement without success. I wonder if there's any consistency in the way CMP or others did theres...

Good question I will sample some examples and measure mine.

Springfield Armory did them all the same.

I grabbed a model 1898 U.S. Krag rifle that was handy.
I set a machinist-square across the muzzle-crown and slid-out the rule, until it stopped against the front-sight base, (where the 'flare' comes off the barrel contour).

It measured approximately .425 inches, from crown to front-edge of the base. (I ignored the hidden-dovetailed part of the base that blends into the barrel).
I will confirm measurement with a carbine, tomorrow.

BTW 'Hooked', exactly how long is your barrel?

Today, I measured the distance from the barrel crown to the front-sight base on two original U.S. Krag carbines.
On one the distance measured .416", on the second it measured .445".
The difference (.029") is about the thickness of three 'index' cards.

The average of both measurements would be .430".

I also measured the (muzzle-crown to front-sight base) distance on five U.S. Krag rifles. Distances ranged from .429" to .439", or the thickness of one index card, (.010").

The average measurement for all rifles was .432".

This measurement is more critical on Krag rifles (than carbines) because of the need to accept and latch a bayonet.

Probably a good dimension to aim for would be .430" to .432", (muzzle to front edge of base), if attempting an original looking front sight on a U.S. Krag barrel, rifle or carbine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

if attempting an original looking front sight on a U.S. Krag barrel, rifle or carbine.

---

In this case a new crown might need to be turned and that needs to be the correct radius. That would need to be done by a competent gunsmith that knows how to grind a crown tool...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

Today, I measured the distance from the barrel crown to the front-sight base on two original U.S. Krag carbines.
On one the distance measured .416", on the second it measured .445".
The difference (.029") is about the thickness of three 'index' cards.

The average of both measurements would be .430".

I also measured the (muzzle-crown to front-sight base) distance on five U.S. Krag rifles. Distances ranged from .429" to .439", or the thickness of one index card, (.010").

The average measurement for all rifles was .432".

This measurement is more critical on Krag rifles (than carbines) because of the need to accept and latch a bayonet.

Probably a good dimension to aim for would be .430" to .432", (muzzle to front edge of base), if attempting an original looking front sight on a U.S. Krag barrel, rifle or carbine.

---

I don't have a very precise tool handy but it looks like mine (known not original) comes out a hair under .4, about 25.5/64ths.

Hey did we just...add a new data point?!? Thus the sausage is made! Well done sir.