I Think I Have a Plan

[Stuartr]

A couple of weeks ago, I submitted a newly acquired '98 carbine for comment, under the title "What Have I Got?" 5 Mad Farmers and Jon Norstrag took me to the woodshed for a much-deserved education. My precious carbine, it seems, is a parts gun, albeit a pretty good one. The builder selected his pars carefully. The most serious flaw in the piece if a receiver which dates to the last year of production, on a weapon which is mostly correct with 1898 parts. My plan: Hold onto my carbine and look for a cheap Bubba gun with a receiver in the right range. Il've seen such creatures on GunBroker for $100-200. Hellp: My guess is that a receiver actually manufactured in 1898 will be numbered somewhere between 67,000 and 110,000.
Opinions on the plan and thoughts on the SN, please.

[5MadFarmers]

The stock you have is for the 1899 carbine - not the 1898. 1898 carbines were later rebuilt but I think what you were looking for was the 1898? The rear sight you have might be carbine, might be rifle, a picture from the top would tell.

Model 1898 guns have serial numbers starting just before the ending serial you listed; before that were the model 1896.

Myself I'd leave it be. It is what it is. Your gun, your choice. If I was desiring to mash that into something what you'd really want is the 1899 carbine receiver as the parts you have are more "right" for that than the 1898 carbine.

That is one really nice stock. It's not correct for a rebuilt 1898 carbine for a specific reason. It is right for the 1899.

[jon_norstog]

Stuart,

What 5MF says. You've got a nice carbine. You didn't pay too much for it, and I'll bet it shoots just fine. Hang on to it, shoot it, they make a great hunting rifle as-is. The more you shoot it the more you will learn about Krags, what makes them tick and why people like them. When the time comes it will make great tradiing stock. You could spend a fortune on "correct" parts but it would still be a fake.

Good luck!

jn

[Stuartr]

Gentlemen:
Thank you for your advice and support. A couple of loose ends, if you will.
1. I'm attaching a thumbnail with the rear sights of a '96 rifle and '99 carbine side-by-side. I think you're looking for the small c above the 17 on the '99 sight. It didn't photograph well because of the glare.
2. Is the proper upperhand guard the one labled 1899 in Hicks?
3. Does anyone use Hicks any more?
4. A philosophy question: /the ;previous owner of my carbine obviously spent a lot of time and money accumulating parts and assembling them properly, But he finished it up with a receiver which could not conceivably be correct. In effect, he deliberately flagged the piece a facsimile. My plan would have created a fake. The last guy deserves a little respect.

[madsenshooter]

The bad news is the carbine sight is a fake. Stamped with a C, but lacking the proper range markings. 96 carbine sights were graduated to 2000yds. Poyer warns of 2 reproductions made, but apparently even they had the proper graduations.. Shoot it, live with it, keep an eye out for better parts to assemble into that stock while you're enjoying this one. Get some books. For a photo of a 96 carbine sight, go here and scroll down: http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/

[5MadFarmers]

Gentlemen:
Thank you for your advice and support. A couple of loose ends, if you will.
1. I'm attaching a thumbnail with the rear sights of a '96 rifle and '99 carbine side-by-side. I think you're looking for the small c above the 17 on the '99 sight. It didn't photograph well because of the glare.

auch

2. Is the proper upperhand guard the one labled 1899 in Hicks?

Don't know, which Hicks?

3. Does anyone use Hicks any more?

Depends on which Hicks. If you're speaking of Major James E. Hicks, yes I still use that. Not for this though. Are you speaking of Volume I, page 72? With respect to Jandot his drawing for the 1898c is wrong. I didn't spend much time on the other drawings. Not much point - I have my pictures.

Volume II has much value. His book on German stuff, frankly, sucks. I'm looking for his book on Nathan Starr. If I bump into his book on French stuff cheap I'll take it.

4. A philosophy question: /the ;previous owner of my carbine obviously spent a lot of time and money accumulating parts and assembling them properly, But he finished it up with a receiver which could not conceivably be correct. In effect, he deliberately flagged the piece a facsimile. My plan would have created a fake. The last guy deserves a little respect.

Then leave it be. Shoot it. Enjoy it. The rifle, as it sits, doesn't have much for collector value outside of some parts. No big deal. What it does have is it's carbine format and should be very handy for shooting. Which is the point of guns right?

Cheers.