Barn find carbine. Repair, conserve, restore or replace?

[Five.five-six]

A quick question: Does the word 'model' appear in front of the '1896' on your receiver, or, is it just '1896'?

There is a reason for my asking.

I may not be home for a day or two but I’ll check when I get back. I can’t tell from this photo but it’s possible there’s something under the pitting. Boiling and carding is considered the most conservative conservation method. I’ve taken the best approach to saving as much viable metal and original finish as possible. That area is pretty pitted, I don’t remember seeing any wording there but I’ll take a better photo when I get home.

[Five.five-six]

I'm not an experienced judge of things Krag, but I would not believe whatever AI source told you that is not a real 1896 carbine. Were it mine, and if I had a functional leg, I'd be jumping up & down. I think it's the real deal. It has the proper barrel band, held in place properly. From what I can see, I'd think the rear sight is correct. Plus, it's an antique. You can tell all the regulators to stuff it.

That said, It sure needs a lot of TLC. It doesn't cost much to query one of the big-time restoration outfits. With today's inflation, their estimate will give you sticker shock, but that would be my starting place. My guess is $5 K. It needs a lot of work. If restored, could you sell it and get your investment back?

The stock: Looks to me as if all the hardware fits pretty good. Esp. the butt plate. If you sealed the stock in a 100 % humidity container and left it for a spell, might the cracks get smaller?

Then you need to go to work on the metal. Go easy and get a lot of advice. Some of the older advisors here will steer you in the right direction.

Re: the bore video. I've seen worse looking barrels shoot pretty good.

While I do consider my firearms collection a family asset, we are fairly well set and I do not anticipate selling it in my lifetime. That will be our children’s problem. I probably am going to hire a professional to fix the stock if I can get the right person to do it. Otherwise, I’ll leave it as-is and buy a crappy sporter stock to shoot it with.

[butlersrangers]

'Five.five-six' - Getting information and glimpses of your Krag piecemeal has been a bit confusing and frustrating.

Your first serial number picture looked like #84929.

The photo you posted tonight, makes me believe it may be #34929.
This would put its manufacture in June, 1896. This would be in the first-block of 1896 carbines,
which fall in the approximate range of serial #24709 to #35792.

Sometimes Krag serial numbers can be a bitch to read!

[Five.five-six]

'Five.five-six' - Getting information and glimpses of your Krag piecemeal has been a bit confusing and frustrating.

sorry about that, it’s not my intention. And presently, I am dealing with a family health situation which is why I am not at home right now. I don’t know if you are a parent or not but there is nothing in this world to make a man feel more helpless than a sick child. Reading and posting about this gun has been a pleasant distraction from all that.


I bought that gun for $200. Not to make money but because I really enjoy restoring neglected things, I enjoy the process and observing the old world ingenuity craftsmanship and partly because I’m on the rebound from the disappointment with my first Krag. I don’t even know how many ARs I have but they are all bla. All built from the same casting a milled with cookie cutter automation. Purely utilitarian. This carbine is a work of art. There were probably 50 machinists with 50 machines lined up, each performing a single operation to produce that receiver.


The only reason I have that block of 20 some photos, and I’ve never done that before, is because when I got that gun on my table I had a real sense that it might be significant. I wanted to document how it was before I started conserving it. I really didn’t think anyone would be all that interested in my gun but I took them just in case. I can take some better photos probably this weekend but for now, this is what I’ve got.

I don’t think I even have a “before” photo of my last restoration but this is the after:




Too your point, that still looks like an 8 to me in the photo but it looks nothing like the 8 in “1896” so it could be a 3





EDIT: Quick internet search found a Krag ser with both an 8 and a 3. This guy claims it’s a rough rider gun, real shame how mangled that screw is

[Five.five-six]

Well, I had my eldest child take closeup photos. He has a wiz bang Samsung with the top of the line cameras and I think looks pretty definitive on the serial number. Clearly an interesting font though.




As for the word “Model” the jury is out. I don’t see anything but that pitting is pretty bad. It is possible there was a word there, I’ll look over it with good lighting and magnification when I get home.



Do you have an example of a receiver with the word “model” on it so I can know what I’m looking for?

[butlersrangers]

'Five.five-six' - Your son's photo clearly shows your U.S. model 1896 carbine's serial number to be: 34929.
This would date your carbine to around June, 1896.

The serial number font & style, on U.S. Krag rifle and carbine receivers, was often changed.
The depth of the 'stamping' into the metal and gradual wear and damage to the 'Number-Dies', has made for frequent errors in the accurate reading and recording of: 3's, 6's, 8's, and 9's, when viewing U.S. Krags.

Accumulated rust & debris in the first digit, initially, fooled me into seeing your carbine serial number as 84929.
A subsequent photo revealed, that your Krag's serial number might actually begin with a '3'.

Experience has taught us, that numbers stamped on Krag receivers tend to cause confusion.

I have attached two partial photos of U.S. Krag ('model 1896') receivers.
Originally, the year stamped on the left-side of the receiver was the year the receiver was produced.

Some early model 1896 Krag rifles and carbines were produced with receivers that were dated 1895 and 1896.
Not too far into production, the word "Model" was inserted in front of the 1896.
On subsequent new Krag production, that space of the receiver would bear the arm's model designation, rather than a production year.

I have attached photos of two examples; one showing an 1895 'date' and the other showing the change to 'model'.
There are some Krags, that simply have an 1896 'date', without the word 'model'.

[Five.five-six]

'Five.five-six' - Your son's photo clearly shows your U.S. model 1896 carbine's serial number to be: 34929.
This would date your carbine to around June, 1896.

Could you only imagine trying to explain to the men building this rifle how on its 130th birthday, people on the “internet” would be vigorously discussing this rifle? With “cellphone” photos and everything!

[butlersrangers]

You can take pictures, with a telephone?

I use a compact digital camera!

FWIW - Toying with one of your posted photos, I think I see, the hint of an 'M' and an 'L', peeking through the rust-scale.

This is an ideal metal spot to soak with a mix of mineral spirits and linseed oil and 'plane' the rough scale, with the edge of a copper penny.
This could smooth and level the receiver surface a bit and help expose hidden letters.

[Five.five-six]

You can take pictures, with a telephone?

I use a compact digital camera!

FWIW - Toying with one of your posted photos, I think I see, the hint of an 'M' and an 'L', peeking through the rust-scale.

This is an ideal metal spot to soak with a mix of mineral spirits and linseed oil and 'plane' the rough scale, with the edge of a copper penny.
This could smooth and level the receiver surface a bit and help expose hidden letters.

Let me see if I can find an hour this weekend to get out my old D50. The camera ain’t much but I do have a Nikkor 105mm prime lens.

If I take the time to set up for macro, is there anything else on the rifle that you would like a photo of?

[butlersrangers]

I've seen enough current photos.
Good Luck in your stabilization and restoration work on this old veteran carbine.