My Krag

[ramon]

...........

[sdkrag]

I would love to see more pics. Is it updated to 1896 specs? Any serial that low is really neat.

[Dick Hosmer]

From what is visible, it appears to be unaltered - I see no extractor pin, and it has the early (and scarce - $175 per) square-bottom cocking piece, which would surely have been replaced at overhaul. Upper band, from the side, and a bottom shot at front of lower band would tell.

[madsenshooter]

SWP cartouche?

[Mark Daiute]

Good morning Ramon,

I don't know you and I do not know how deep your studies of the Krag run so forgive me in advance if I am way off the mark here.

Something for you to consider: There are some extremely learned people here. Perhaps your rifle is "correct in every way" as you say. That being said, if I were in your shoes I'd submit photos and let some of the folks on this site evaluate the rifle. If you are lucky they WILL evaluate your firearm and we all learn from the "online" evaluation.

Best regards,

Mark

[sdkrag]

Outstanding rifle. The only thing I noticed in just wuickly looking was the 1896 rear sight. The solid front band and averything else is just great. You are very fortunate. That is a RARE Krag.

[Fishnerd]

Ramon, That is a very nice rifle. However, the rear sight is an 1896 rear sight, and your Krag should have an 1892 sight.
Mark and others, myself included, are here for the wealth of knowledge that can be gained from the forum's users, nothing else. There are things to be learned from this website that books can't teach- they can't reply to our inquiries.
The above being said, I have an 1892 rear sight for your rifle if you want it. I have no use for it. Paypal me $5 for the shipping and its yours.

[Jack]

Nice photos, thanks for sharing them. Your rifle is a real prize in addition to the family history. Was it aquired for hunting by your folks? Where did they get it from?
From your library material, it does not look like you are newbie in this matter.

[madsenshooter]

The stock could be a replacement, breakage was quite common and that would explain the lack of a cartouche. In fact, it appears to be a "low wood" stock. If the bolt handle doesn't leave a little crescent in the wood below the bolt handle seat, then that's what it is. All the rest of the little tidbits seem to be proper, with the previously noted exception of the rear sight. What about the magazine cutoff, if in original form it would be off when up (won't feed), on when down (will feed). It's a treasure for sure. It appears there's a rectangular piece on the buttplate, haven't seen that before.

[madsenshooter]

I was thinking that as I looked at the pic. Well, Ramon, you know you've got something worth a lot in case you or any of your heirs ever need it. In case you don't have any heirs, you can put me on the list!