Need Help With Krag School Carbine Questions

[Whig]

Hello, fellow Krag collectors. I need your help. I have a Model of 1899 Altered for Knife Bayonet and Sling Carbine that I would like to get opinions on with regard to a couple unusual features.

This carbine is 41 1/4 inch long and has a 22 inch barrel. Rear sight is a 1902 Carbine sight. Barrel is turned down appropriately and the sling attachments appear correct. It has the bayonet lug. I don't fully understand, because of poor pictures in Poyer's and Brophy's books, which I have studied carefully, of the cut stock and the added walnut filling piece for the lightening cut. This carbine does appear to have that added piece which is glued in as I can see when I take the front barrel band off.

I am confused by two things. The date is an error type date which sure looks like 1899 but the "9" is double stamped or it is a "9" over an "8". I remember seeing something about this kind of date error somewhere.

Also, the cartouche looks like JSA 1901, which is OK, but there appears to be an additional cartouche of some sort stamped to the right of the JSA box which is definitely a square boxed cartouche which has room for numerous letters but the only one I can make out appears to be a capital "D" as the last letter. This doesn't match any documented cartouche that I have found, yet.

So, I will try to attach numerous close up pictures of these details to illustrate what I am describing.

What do you guys think?

I feel fairly certain that this is a typical School rifle/carbine. But, I would like feedback on these unusual details.

Thanks a lot for the help!!

[Whig]

More pictures

[Whig]

more pictures

[Whig]

more pictures

[Whig]

I actually changed the bolt to the one you see currently which has the headless cocking piece. If it is more correct, I can replace it with the one it came with which is the common full head cocking piece. There was no problem with the original- I just thought it looked better with the headless one which was often found on 1899 Carbines.

[butlersrangers]

'Whig' - FWIW - That is a nice little Krag with a real model 1899 carbine action and barrel.

I believe the front barrel-band is not legit for an Armory made 'school rifle'. It is very poorly fitted to the stock tip, unlike Armory work, which is finely done. It also lacks the correct shape bayonet lug.

A correct "School Rifle" front band would have been stretched with a press and arbor to fit the larger diameter, at the 'muzzle area', of a carbine barrel.

You have a pretty nice Arm, but, I think this combination has been put together in the civilian market.

I would like to see a picture of your 1902 rear sight with the leaf 'up' so that the spring is visible.

[HeyJoe]

I asked about upper bands and on an earlier post about my school rifle in this section. The picture of a school rifle in Poyer's book, fig 2-23, p 45 shows no bevel. This one looks like mine and Poyer. Is there some clarification on the go and no/go criteria for a true school rifle?
Joe

[Dick Hosmer]

The tip and fill work are definitely not up to snuff. The lug bevel is not widely known, but remember, this arm was meant to use the long M1903 bayonet, NOT that of the Krag, which has a different latch hook actuation. The bevel makes attachment of the correct bayonet easier, and is one of the little points to check for - though not all legit specimens have it.

The most desirable cartouche for a school gun is the small-boxed JFC, not the normal Krag "JSA/date" style.

That all said, they were secondary pieces, not all done at SA, but all done at a time period when ANY stock date would have been available. The 98/99 date overstrike is interesting but I believe it is only on the SG by accident or coincidence.

That appears to be an 1898C base with a 1902 leaf, since the rails are so low.

I second Chuck's (BR's) opinion that this piece has some "issues" and is likely not a proper collector-grade piece. Sorry.

[Whig]

Here are a few more key pictures. Not sure about the rear sight concern. Leaf looks correct but I don't know the exact differences.

I wish the books I have would have better pictures. It's surprising that two of the most referenced books have crappy pictures for helping to determine important features on these collectible firearms.

Thanks.

[butlersrangers]

I have never owned a 'Philippine Constabulary rifle' or a 'School Rifle'. I am not sure I have ever seen or handled a REAL one. I have seen obvious fakes.

I learned as a young collector, a lot of Krag cut-downs were being passed off as PC Carbines. Nobody was even talking about 'School Rifles'. It is likely only two PC Rifles have survived. Over 1,400 'School Rifles' were sold to academies by the Government, so some are out there.

'Hey Joes' Short Krag is about as convincing a candidate as I have seen posted here. The most suspicious thing about it to me is that it has a model 1898 carbine rear-sight on it.

'Whigs' Short Krag has an obvious standard Krag front barrel-band on it and shows a very crude wood and metal fit at the stock tip. A correct band would fit the wood and metal contours with near perfection.

Interestingly, both Hey Joe and Whig appear to have similar 'cartouche' stamps on their Krags. (I don't really think the worn marking is 'MOD', for Manila Ordnance Depot, unless someone in the past engaged in fakery).

Whig's serial number, 225798, is an early model 1899 carbine number. Northwestern Military Academy purchased 120 School Rifles, including #225627 & 225901. Since Whig's number does not appear in Mallory's SRS Data, it is not likely Whig's Krag went to NWMA.

#225798 was assembled around September, 1899. It is in the range of carbines and rifles that were made with the 'headless cocking piece, (202,000 to 285,000 - per Mallory).

Attached photos: 1. Whig's barrel-band does not fit barrel contour, like a correct band should. 2. Krag Constabulary band.