Printable View
I picked up a 1899 krag at an estate sale. my phone is broke so I can't post pictures. It has rifle sights on it and there is no sign of a date or cartouche. the stock has 3 holes in the butt trap for the cleaning rod. My question is are Krag carbine stocks supposed to have 2 or 3 holes for cleaning rod thanks
To quote a well known member hereabout that is also on another forum...
"butlersrangers 10-02-2015, 04:51
Many military weapons (Mausers, SKS & Mosins) have cleaning or clearing rods that are too short to clean their barrel. In the Field, 'mess mates' could combine pieces to make an adequate Rod. In Barracks, there were longer Barracks Rods available.
Not great logic, but, when the U.S. Krag went to the butt-trap and Sectional Rod, the Infantry Rifle was provided with three sections and the Cavalry Carbine got two sections (and most carbine stocks had three holes???)."
Most Krag carbine stocks will have three-rod holes in the butt-trap. (This was so the machining operations were the same for rifle and carbine stocks).
Some early thin 'long-wrist' model 1896 stocks only had two holes. These are very rare gun stocks.
Supposedly, the carbine rod consisted of two sections and the sections were slightly heavier, than the three rifle rod-sections.
The easiest way to identify a U.S. Krag carbine stock, versus a 'cut-down' rifle stock, is by looking at the forearm-tip area.
Attachment 128967
The carbine stock will have a solid tip and the barrel-band will be retained by a flat band-spring, on the right-side of the stock-tip.
A shortened rifle stock will have a filler-plug fitted into the stock tip. (This hides a stock lightning-channel, that was exposed by the cutting of the rifle forearm).
The rifle barrel-band is clamped with a sling-swivel screw and retained by a cross-pin, through the stock forearm.
BTW - Krag receivers marked 'model 1899' were built as carbines.
just another question I have had 3 krag carbines and all three of them had Rifle rear sights on them Is it common to fine Krag carbines with rifles sight? Also were 1902 rear rifle sights marked with an R or were just the carbine sights marked with a C
Carbine had a "C" and rifle was unmarked that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by rice 123
My opinion is that Krag carbines often have Rifle Rear-Sights because a previous civilian owner switched the more valuable carbine sight with a cheaper (and similar) rifle sight in order to make more money.
Only around 1,000 Krag model 1902 carbine sights were made.
The 1902 carbine and rifle sights have identical 'tops'.
The carbine base has a shorter 'ramp' than the rifle version and is marked with a "C", normally on the right-side, but a few real ones have the "C" on the left-side of the base.
1902 sights are found both with the 'swing-up-peep' and without it, (on the rear of the eyepiece).
The elevation 'locking-knobs' will often have been repaired with the later oddly slotted 1903 knob.
(Note - The 1898 rifle and carbine sight-bases are similar to the 1902 bases and have a low ramp profile. These bases have an entirely different style of leaf spring.
The 1898 sight bases were scrapped but got reused by surplus dealers in 'parts guns'. The 1898 bases are only correct with an 1898 'top' and its three-notch eyepiece).
Attachment 128980Attachment 128981Attachment 128982
Carbines did not have lower sling swivels. If the stock has one or are plugged it is a rifle stock. There were rifles made in 1899. Carbine's had 22 inch barrels.
Although model 1898 and model 1899 Krag receivers are identical in structure, it is not believed that Springfield Armory made rifles using "model 1899" marked receivers.
(A few rifles exist with model 1899 marked receivers, but it is a mystery as to who actually put them together).
There are some legitimate "model 1899" carbines, that were made using "1898" receivers and had the last digit (8) over-struck with a 9.
Some Krag 'cavalry' carbine stocks were ordered to be fitted with sling-swivels in the field, apparently for Engineers or Artillery Men.
(Even if legit, these altered carbines are viewed with suspicion, because there is no way to tell, who did the work).