Antique SN Cutoff

[thorin6]

I'm looking for the SN of the last Krag built in 1898, and the reference for it. I have a SN 151384 which should have been built in December 1898, but I haven't found what I consider a definitive reference for the highest SN considered antique. I believe this may be complicated by the way in which Springfield kept track of completed Krags, so I realize there may not be a a "good" answer.

[irishsteve]

In my Dixie gun works catalog they show 1899 starting with number 162000.

[Dick Hosmer]

Flayderman shows 152670 as the cutoff - and that note has not been changed for many years, so I assume it IS correct, for BATF.

[thorin6]

Poyer has the last SN for December 1898 as 160061 but given how he may have determined that SN I've not been comfortable with that number. The number in Flayderman seems to be the one that I've seen as "definitive" for antique status, so I thank Dick for pointing me to that reference (152670 is noted on page 594 of the ninth edition).

[JimF]

Poyer has the last SN for December 1898 as 160061 but given how he may have determined that SN I've not been comfortable with that number. The number in Flayderman seems to be the one that I've seen as "definitive" for antique status, so I thank Dick for pointing me to that reference (152670 is noted on page 594 of the ninth edition).

Thorin6 . . . .

I haven't ever been "comfortable" with ANY determination made by Joe Poyer! --Jim

[Rick the Librarian]

LOL!! :D

(Especially in his M1903 book!)

[5MadFarmers]

While I'm not overly enthused by his books, especially the trapdoor one, in this case I don't think we can really make a lot of noise. Trying to determine what serial would be the end of calendar 1898 production is more of a dart throw than anything. Poyer's number is only 8K different from the one in Flaydermann. Given the "receivers were made before guns and could get out of order" is combined with them reporting production on a fiscal year - it's rally a dart throw.

BATFE uses a dart throw. Really no way to pick an "accurate" number.

[irishsteve]

In the end,BATFE has the final say.Once its in print thats it,right ,or wrong.

[Dick Hosmer]

What annoys me no end is the TOTAL ABSURDITY of a policy which states that 152669 is a harmless piece of antique junk, not fit to even be considered a firearm, yet 152671 is a deadly device which must be tightly controlled so as not to frighten women (especially bank tellers) and small children.

ALL Krags should be antiques, or, they should ALL be C&Rs.

Oh wait, I forgot, that is a GOVERNMENT policy. Why SHOULD it make any sense. Our tax dollars at work. Arrgghhhhhh!!!!

[Jim K.]

I agree, Dick, but that is not a BATFE ruling, it is in the law OUR GLORIOUS CONGRESS passed. It may be better than the first draft, which would have allowed the antique designation only for guns firing non-fixed ammunition. Some wanted to delete the category altogether, arguing that even a flintlock could be used by criminal gangs. (Like those headed by Washington, Harry Lee, and other criminals.) Others argued for a sliding date of 50 years (like the current C&R rule), but that view did not prevail.

At least one Senator wanted a total and complete ban on private possession of all firearms, air guns, BB guns, etc., with a punishment of summary execution for any violation. (And the anti-gun gang calls US nuts!)

Jim