Original Rifle Cost 1898-1903

Historical threads originally posted to the 'Krag Forum' board
Post Reply
User avatar
Century2
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:30 pm

Original Rifle Cost 1898-1903

Post by Century2 »

Has anyone ever determined how many of our ancestor's tax dollars were required to purchase one Krag rifle for the Army back in those days? I'm sure the cost varied by month due to a number of factors including, but not limited to, war (high daily production), availability of materials, and the economy in general. At the time a stamp was 2 cents, a glass of pop was 5 cents, a bicycle was about $20, people earned an average of $700/year...
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt

User avatar
Century2
Posts: 130
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 1:30 pm

Re: Original Rifle Cost 1898-1903

Post by Century2 »

Finally got a copy of Mallory's book. Page 98 says the original cost of rifle manufacture was $19.75. Per some inflation/interest calulators I found on the web: What cost $19.75 in 1898 would cost $537.76 in 2012. Now if you had saved $19.75 in 1898 (and picked a bank that never failed), at an interest rate of 5%, over 112 years: Total Value = $4664.11. Ya right, I'll keep my money on stocks - Krag stocks that is!
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. Theodore Roosevelt

5MadFarmers

Re: Original Rifle Cost 1898-1903

Post by 5MadFarmers »

Finally got a copy of Mallory's book. Page 98 says the original cost of rifle manufacture was $19.75. Per some inflation/interest calulators I found on the web: What cost $19.75 in 1898 would cost $537.76 in 2012. Now if you had saved $19.75 in 1898 (and picked a bank that never failed), at an interest rate of 5%, over 112 years: Total Value = $4664.11. Ya right, I'll keep my money on stocks - Krag stocks that is!


That's a better book but still has some areas needing help and that's one of them. There is no way to get an exact figure but John Thompson left us with a hint: "take the listed cost and double it." He was a General in the Ordnance Department and that is what he told the Senate at the time in regards '03s (close enough in time). Why they didn't list the full cost? Because that would threaten their production facility. The first thing to consider, and this isn't the only one, is that they were able to sell the guns twice. They would charge the Regular Army the listed price and they'd use them. After returning the guns a quick overhaul would be done and they'd be sold, at full price, to the Militia. Different appropriations.

Then we get into the area of appropriations themselves. The main ones weren't the only ones. Supplemental appropriations were made to maintain the armory/arsenal system. So an appropriation to erect a storehouse would be made but that was never embedded in the price of the items fabricated. Need I mention that, let's use Phipps, the Regular Army officers and enlisted men working at the armory were paid out of the "pay for the army" appropriation and that also won't show up?

It was all tax free so there is lost revenue that isn't captured.

I could go on. Take the listed cost and about double it.


Post Reply