View Full Version : KRAG Questions???
Is there anywhere on line I can look at the differences between 96 & 98 Krag rifles???
I have one of each and am considering making one good one of the two, but dont want to ruin anything. They are both full length and uncut. Pretty nice but far from pristine.
Also bayonet Ktag question.
I have a scabbard with just a hook type attachment to fit over a belt.
I think it is pribably an early type.
Wondering if its correct for 96 or 98 model Krag.
Any good info on the net I can look up?
Sure appreciate the help.
Click on "Photos" at top of page. Pics of rifles and bayonets/scabbards.
I would thing two,three,four or more times before I messed with these rifles. You will probably turn 6-900 dollar rifles into 200 dollar parts rifles. from your question I have to assume you do notknow much about these and/or their collector value. Original is most important in MHO! The bayonet could be a 100 plus item by itself.
Thanks all for the promp replies.
Your correct. I dont know allot about them. But I want to learn.
Brad, I too am new to Krags (~6 years) but want to point out a few important things...
Bubba- The guy who takes an original military firearm and converts it to make it user friendly.
Example: Right now Russian Mosin Nagants are being sold for peanuts, so everyone is modifying them. In the distant future there will be very few Mosin Nagants in original configuration, making them much more desirable than the "Bubbas". Don't be a Bubba, especially with an already collectible firearm, such as a Krag.
Look at my earlier posts about a "cut down rifle" being auctioned off. I went to the auction, and it was a true Krag carbine, which had the foreend extended. That small modification turned it from a $2000 Krag Carbine in to a Bubba that had a couple of very valuable parts. The whole gun sold to someone for $400. At the same auction, I bought a Bubba'ed stock "Krag Parts Gun" (no bolt) for $75. I only needed the handguard (worth $100-150), so I bought the whole thing. Everything else is destined to be parted out on eBay and Gunbroker because I have no imminent use for them.
I implore you to not tinker with an "as built" Krag, as you will eventually kick yourself for doing so.
The Model 96 and Model 98 receivers are different. The Model 96 has a tang into which the bolt handle root fits; the Model 98 has no tang, the bolt handle just goes into the wood. So a 96 receiver in a 98 stock will require cutting the stock; the reverse will leave a big gap where the tang is missing. There may be other changes, but those I know about.
Like the others, I strongly recommend against trying to switch stocks and actions around; you will have wrecked two potentially good guns for one "frankengun."
Thanks for the responses gentlemen.
And you seem to have answered my concern.
You see, I recently aquired a model 96, as marked on the receiver.
But it has been sanded to some extent, and the date on the cartouche is hard to read.
The more O try to read it the more it looks like "1900". That is what prompted me to think it might be a 98 stock.
But now after reading your last response, it appears that is not possible, due to thewood where the bolt closes?
One other question. There is a small stell pin thru the stock to hold the upper sling swivel in place. Is this correrct???????????
If you have a model 1896 that has been put in a model 98 stock, somebody has done some woodworking to make it fit. If you put a model 98 receiver in a model 96 stock, you can look under the bolt handle and see the trigger mechanism. Yes, there is a steel pin in front of the rear band.
Thanks to you all for your knowledge. You have eased my mind allot.
I know am confident that I have both a 96 and a 98 Krag here, without much messed up.
They seem to be pretty complete and correct. Just wish the 96 was a little nicer condition. But it's far from being ruined.
Regards to all,
IIRC, there are only 3 rifles of general military issue in our history (until the Garand) that did not have band springs to hold barrel bands in place. The Model 1863 (Type One) but the band was later used on the Type Two. The Krag (foreign design). The Model 1917 (foreign design). As a bit of trivia, the band spring was first designed and used by the French in 1723. Last firearm we had use it was the M1 carbine.
An IFNWK (Interesting Fact Not Worth Knowing): When the inter-state hosstilities broke out in '61, Sam Colt landed two contract with the Govt. One was for 50,000 rifle-muskets to conform exactily with the US Model of 1861, at $20.00 each.. The second was for all the pistols Colt could make, to be paid for at $25.00 ea. Needless to say, ,Colt put his emphasis on the pistols. In the fall of '62,, the Holt/Owen board notified Colt that the Govt was on the verge of cancelling the musket contract for non-delivery. Colt ordered his brother-in-law, at the time Golt's representative in England, to have muskets assembled there. Jarvis used the Enfield Pattern 1853 Mark 4 as his model, making only a few cosmetic finishing changes to make it look like a Springfield 61. The musket , which did not have band springs, was accepted by the Govt as the "Special Model of 1861" , and subsequent contracts were let to LG&Y, Amoskeag,and EG Lamson. But note bene: the rifle furniished by Colt beginning in October, 1862 and throughout the remainder of the War by ColtgPat.d. FA and the other contractors, was pure Enfield. The Colt/nee Enfield barrel bands were adopted without change for the US 1863 Type 1' The case could be made that, since the 63 copied a design of foreign origin, the next candidate for springless by originating US design would be the Garand..
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?.
In my youth, I collected CW muzzle loading shoulder weapons. I had to sell them off over the years, and, after passing through M1903's and Garands, I''m down to Krags. The CW pieces will always be my first love.
AS for the stock being sanded---it could have, probably was, done during a re-build by an arsenal and while not "original as manufactured" would still be "original as used". To me, on a 100+ year old military rifle thats about as good as it gets. If they look 'too' good then they are questioned too. All this stuff you read about "unissed", "unfired" is BS, in my book
Powered by vBulletin™ Version 4.0.2 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.