New Lowest Model 1898 Rifle Serial Number?

[Navy87Guy]

When I first joined, I was told that the lowest observed serial number for a Model 1898 rifle was 109342. However, tonight I was going through the archive of SRS newsletters and found this issue from June 1981:

https://archivalresearchgroup.com/wp-co ... e-1981.pdf

What caught my eye was the report of Model 1898 Rifle 107904 (see attached screenshot). Frank seems to conclude that this is the lowest known serial - and perhaps the start of production.

I apologize if this has been discussed before, but it does seem fairly authoritative, given the source.

Thanks!

[Dick Hosmer]

I surely would like to see those rifles in person.

Without taking anything away from Frank, or his opinions, I have a very hard time believing there really was overlap between M1896 and M1898 receivers. They were not the same part and would not interchange.

Why would they not keep the numbering in step with the physical change? It would be hard to misread 107904, but maybe 108915 was really 103915? I wonder if 107904 was re-machined? Of course, re-machining would require annealing and re-hardening (another strike against it being a possibility). And, why would they bother - much simpler to just run the number machine properly.

Then there is the record-keeping for royalty purposes - it may have been just for the totals, but I'll bet they had it broken down further.

So, until someone can produce physical evidence, color me very skeptical on 1896/1898 overlap...

And, keep looking for an "1896" above 37045!

[Navy87Guy]

I surely would like to see those rifles in person.

Without taking anything away from Frank, or his opinions, I have a very hard time believing there really was overlap between M1896 and M1898 receivers. They were not the same part and would not interchange.

Why would they not keep the numbering in step with the physical change? It would be hard to misread 107904, but maybe 108915 was really 103915? I wonder if 107904 was re-machined? Of course, re-machining would require annealing and re-hardening (another strike against it being a possibility). And, why would they bother - much simpler to just run the number machine properly.

Then there is the record-keeping for royalty purposes - it may have been just for the totals, but I'll bet they had it broken down further.

So, until someone can produce physical evidence, color me very skeptical on 1896/1898 overlap...

And, keep looking for an "1896" above 37045!

I’ll have to go back through the newsletters, but there were at least a couple of references to overlap between 1896 and 1898’s. Then again, I would expect all of those to be reflected in the SRS listing.

I just thought it was interesting since Frank took the time to comment on it.

Thanks!

[butlersrangers]

As others have indicated, it is very easy for Krag serial numbers to be misread.

Wear, debris, changes in fonts, damaged dies, have all contributed to making, on some occasions, a serial number reading an educated guess!

Especially troublesome, are 3s and 8s, as well as, 6s, 8s, and 9s.

Some cases defy photography and really require a direct 'studied' view of the actual receiver markings!

An experienced student of the U.S. Krag knows that misread numbers have certainly contaminated some SRS Data.

(Attached photos show some of the variations in Krag serial number fonts).

[butlersrangers]

A very common mistake for newcomers is seeing a U.S. Model 1896 Krag as marked "U.S. Model 1898".
The "1896" is often struck so deep on the receiver, that the last digit appears to be an 8, instead of a 6.

A basic knowledge of U.S. Krag models, makes it is very easy to 'ID' a model 1896 rifle or carbine, if the right-side of the receiver is visible.
Knowledge makes it easy to look past 'marking' appearances.

However, a Krag 'rookie' will realistically have to believe what he appears to be seeing and will easily misidentify a model 1896 Krag.

It is very probable that errors in Krag model identification have caused some errors and puzzles in SRS data.

(A problematic Krag, in SRS, is serial number 109,128. It is listed in SRS data as a model 1898 rifle, destroyed in 1929, by the guards at New Cumberland Depot. It could be the highest recorded 1896 or lowest 1898. It is gone, destroyed, and possibly was misidentified)!

An interesting example of an initial 'ID' error was a post on the KCA Forum, by member 'ColoradoJohn', in March 2019.
John had an heirloom 'sportered' Krag, that had been in his family since 1935. He thought it to be a model 1898.
In reality it proved to be a model 1896. Its serial number, 109,027, is one of the highest 1896 numbers known.

[butlersrangers]

'Navy87Guy' - That is interesting and curious material that you located in your SRS newsletters.
I am not familiar with these newsletters.

I would think that Krag, serial number 107904, is well surrounded by model 1896 rifles.
I agree with Dick Hosmer, that it would have to be seen to be believed.

One possibility is that the person, who supplied this information to Frank Mallory, simply misread model 1896, as model 1898.
(The information was not entered into the SRS data. #107904 is mentioned in a 1981 'newsletter' - Franklin Mallory died in 2004).

A more intriguing possibility is, that this was a one of a kind tool room prototype, that maybe served as a pattern for the U.S. Model 1898 rifle.
It is interesting that it was recorded as being sent to the Office of the Chief of Ordnance, but, not until 1907? (That's all very strange).

[Navy87Guy]

'Navy87Guy' - That is interesting and curious material that you located in your SRS newsletters.
I am not familiar with these newsletters.

I just found the archive when I was doing some research. Here’s the link to the full archive:

https://archivalresearchgroup.com/sprin ... -archives/

As best I can tell, all the updates on serial numbers that Frank’s posted in the newsletters ended up in subsequent SRS volumes - but there is other commentary that goes with the numbers (like postulating on the lowest Model 1898 number).

[butlersrangers]

'Navy87Guy' - Thank you for posting the link to the SRS Newsletters - lots of interesting reading!

[Dick Hosmer]

Yes, THANK YOU, indeed. In my opinion, that link to the SRS archives is one of the most important posts ever made here at KCA!