Date for First Production of. Model 1898?

[Navy87Guy]

Navy- I added some more info to the post above. here's the link for the Rough Rider carbine:

viewtopic.php?t=3865&hilit=kerney+rough+rider

Gaps in records are important from the perspective that, if documentation exists to show some specific serial numbers WERE issued to certain soldiers, ones that were NOT in those specific, and potentially well-documented, records, would prove that non-documented serial numbers were not issued. I don't have the logic in front of me that a well-known Krag historian used to describe this with quite certain clarity but, it's pretty dependable. Unless, that is, you can find new, and well-supported, documentation that adds to the list!

I don't have the energy now to copy this write-up from his book on Krags about this topic. maybe I'll do it tomorrow, with clear credit given to the author.

I appreciate your effort! Although I will admit that the logic escapes me…”well documented” seems like an oxymoron when only 5% of the transactions are documented.

[butlersrangers]

"SRS" stands for Springfield Research Services.
It is a database, published in several volumes, listing serial numbers and some information on a variety of U.S. military arms.
The numbers and information were found mainly in government reports and documents.
Frank Mallory, and others cooperating with him, recorded this data from the documents that were found.
They didn't find everything. Lots of documents were destroyed or unavailable, even some they researched, are now gone.

In regard to U.S. Krags, less than 5% of the nearly 1/2 million Krags manufactured, have their serial numbers listed in the SRS data.

[Navy87Guy]

"SRS" stands for Springfield Research Services.
It is a database, published in several volumes, listing serial numbers and some information on a variety of U.S. military arms.
The numbers and information were found mainly in government reports and documents.
Frank Mallory, and others cooperating with him, recorded this data from the documents that were found.
They didn't find everything. Lots of documents were destroyed or unavailable, even some they researched, are now gone.

In regard to U.S. Krags, less than 5% of the nearly 1/2 million Krags manufactured, have their serial numbers listed in the SRS data.

I have tremendous respect for the work that Frank and other did to cull through thousands of records to generate the SRS. I’m just not smart enough (yet() to understand the difference between gaps in the data and definitive exclusions.

I appreciate the efforts to educate me!!

[Dick Hosmer]

From a slightly different angle, 95% of the records were alreasdy destroyed prior to SRS beginning their efforts in the 1960s. We are lucky to have what we have. Often we have records from one company of a regiment, but NO idea of what went to another company of the SAME regiment, who had the same history. It's a monster crapshoot and unlisted numbers must remain a mystery. As to some of the numbers quoted on both sides of the 96/98 split, I'd be VERY mindful of the fact the the dates are frequently confused - sometimes requiring high magnification and enhanced lighting to determine which is which. The receivers were greatly different, required different wood, etc. so I'd take any reported "overlaps" with a HUGE amount of salt.

[Navy87Guy]

FWIW - Joe Poyer's book, "The American Krag Rifle and Carbine", has tables that list the first Model 1898 rifle being completed on July 8, 1898, at circa serial number 109,000.
It is likely your rifle, #111,726, was assembled in July of 1898.

Sorry if I’m being dense, but…

According to NPS records, serial numbers for FY98 (01 July 1897 - 30 June 1898) ended with 116146. If that’s true, then how was the first Krag (in the 109000 range) produced in July 98? Wouldn’t it have been May or June to stay within the fiscal year range?

I understand there are some issues with the NPS data (my other Krag - serial 482496 - is beyond the range that NPS lists. Is there a better online reference source for Krag serial numbers?

Thanks!

[Dick Hosmer]

An earlier post in this thread says "assembled and numbered". BIG problem!! The receivers were numbered BEFORE assembly, so any theories dependant on that thought may be dismissed out of hand. The bolt body, receiver and stock all changed at the same time. Any of those left-over 1896 components would have been unusable for new production, except all together to use up loose ends, and the resultant product would have an 1896, not an 1898.

Errors occur in recording data, publishing lists, etc. I do not believe, and will not believe until I have them in my own hands, that there are complete (not possibly having had the excess flange ground/turned off) receivers higher than the lowest genuine virgin 1898 receiver. I have never heard of such work, nor do I believe it was done. Haven't tried to capture the s/n and the bolt cut in the same image - maybe you can, maybe you can't. In any event, "my uncle Charlie had one" isn't going to cut it. As to the other possibilities for overlap (1894/1895, 1895/1896, etc.) since only the dies are involved - no physical change - that such might have occurred, though I'd sure like to see it for myself. Totally different situation than the 1896/1898 break.

To my way of thinking, "108900" and "around 109000" are close enough to be considered the same for all practical purposes, given the opportunities for error, though I suspect (since royalties had to be paid for every Krag made) that pretty accurate records were kept, at least at the time.

We are lucky in trapdoors, where there is also a significant change involving physical features on the numbered part. The highest "early" receiver known is 96271 and the lowest "late" receiver known is 96309, both of which are well verified. NO overlaps have surfaced. Anyone here own a trapdoor? Check it, perhaps you will make history! On a similar note, and back to Krags, anyone have an "1896" (no "MODEL") higher than 37045?

As to who has the best list, I would absolutely give the nod to SRS, and Joe Farmer has made some scholarly comments thereon. The absolute worst (and which at one time may have been at least the basis for the current Park Service list) is anything with the "Bowers" name on it. ALL such lists are subject to clerical error, and misinterpretation of course. For years and years, SRS insisted that there were a couple of 800,000 numbers - which is, and always was, totally ridiculous, but Frank wouldn't budge.