Krag Collectors Association Forum

Here’s my 1896 rifle. .012BA983-ACDD-492E-A213-52557476B1AC.jpeg I fear I harbor some doubts about the legitimacy of this cartouche. The top of the 8 and the curves of the tails of the 6 and 9 appear off to me, and the border seems overly thick. I would welcome any correction if I am wrong; I'm alw...

Do I spy an original 1898 rear sight on an early 1898? Awesome rifle!

Agreed on all counts. I really liked the looks of it, especially the proper JFC cartouche, but I didn't like it $2600 worth.

I reckon the obvious alternative is installing a Biden Bidet.

Was following this auction with some interest, but not as a bidder: https://www.gunbroker.com/item/911348238 Looks like a pretty honest specimen at first blush, but the plot thickens - 78732 is an SRS hit in the first volume…as a 96 rifle…! Albeit, the VAST majority of nearby hits are 96 carbines. P...

Wouldn't an 1895 dated carbine have been originally issued with the early carbine stock with two cleaning-rod holes? That was what I was trying to figure out. I’m away from my books and the gun yet again, but one of them (I think Mallory…?) mentioned the stocks being updated for the rods+oiler cut ...

VERY nice find! FWIW, I read cartouche as 1896. I'm not sure the stock has been replaced - just had the oiler cut added. I was also thinking 1896…but I also have an interest in it *being* 1896, of course!!! But the faint circle of the last digit does look a little bigger than the lower portion of t...

butlersrangers wrote: ↑Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:21 pm Oh bother ..... another thing to loose sleep over ....

True enough

Although, during a rebuild, it is real possible that your model 1896 carbine was given a model 1898 bolt. That’s kind of what I’m wondering given the updated stock. I may just keep it as is and imagine it is the way it came out of its period of service. Seems a shame in a way to break up what might...