This old Krag Rifle is new to me

[FredC]

Whoops!
Me no expert, sometimes me have hard time with English. Both 98 sights I have had in my hands had windage.
Maybe the long screw was accidentally swapped during one of the rebuilds (Arsenal or kitchen table)? Or less likely windage was planned and the screws were made long on purpose in anticipation?

[FredC]

Boomer,
I looked at your photos again and scrolled sideways to get the whole picture. The bottom photo is from the front sight area, so the longer screw is showing less threads (3 for the front and 4 for the back). So the shorter screw has more threads engaged, was it designed that way or were parts swapped during a rebuild? Another possibility is the counterbore the screw head fits into is shallow, tolerance on the depth or a slight defect? The original drawings with tolerances for these parts are all gone. I have been machining since the early 70s and am used to modern tolerancing on drawings, I have no idea how tolerances were specified on these first guns with interchangeable parts. It was not too many years before the Krag that all parts were hand fitted.

On another note the sights that did have windage had screws with a lot longer head, so your front screw is not one of those.

Photos of all these sights with screws have been included on different places on KCA, maybe someone else can provide a link before Butlers Rangers gets back.

[Parashooter]

The screws shown in Boomer's photo are completely normal for the 96 sight. Here's a couple cuts from the official manual -

[boomer]

The screws shown in Boomer's photo are completely normal for the 96 sight. Here's a couple cuts from the official manual -

Thanks for the info!!!! I've gone out and found/acquired a copy of that manual.

[boomer]

Boomer,
I looked at your photos again and scrolled sideways to get the whole picture. The bottom photo is from the front sight area, so the longer screw is showing less threads (3 for the front and 4 for the back). So the shorter screw has more threads engaged, was it designed that way or were parts swapped during a rebuild? Another possibility is the counterbore the screw head fits into is shallow, tolerance on the depth or a slight defect? The original drawings with tolerances for these parts are all gone. I have been machining since the early 70s and am used to modern tolerancing on drawings, I have no idea how tolerances were specified on these first guns with interchangeable parts. It was not too many years before the Krag that all parts were hand fitted.

On another note the sights that did have windage had screws with a lot longer head, so your front screw is not one of those.

Photos of all these sights with screws have been included on different places on KCA, maybe someone else can provide a link before Butlers Rangers gets back.

Thanks for keeping after this. The counterbore on the front screw hole is very shallow. For the rear screw it is relatively deep - just enough to bring the head of the screw flush with the mount.
Based on the manual info Parashooter provided, this is all correct for the 1896 sight. The question that still remains is, why. I'm sure there was a good reason.

[FredC]

I am with you, it does not look right. Parashooter has been most helpful with the drawings and reality checks.
The rebuilds done by the arsenal resulted in a lot of parts being mixed on these old Krags. There might have been slight changes in the details on the screws and sights over time and parts were taken out of bins on the rebuilds and assembled with next part picked up. There is a real possibility these were just made that way, the screw head sticking out is not in a place were it would hang on things or cut an operators hands on a mangled slot.
The drawings used in the manuals were not done on CAD but by hand, so the proportions of the manual drawing and you your actual screws being different may mean nothing as the drawing is done by hand. I make drawings in CAD for CNC programing, then wipe out the numerical tags and add tolerances for actual running production. I will take the same drawing and remove the numbers again and rescale to metric for a technical drawing for a customer, all proportion in the drawing will stay the same in all the incarnations. Not so in the old days.
Another possibility is someone ran a couple of days production on a machine with too thick a head. Human nature being what it is we hate throwing stuff away. One or 2 parts discrepant while setting up a machine and I will toss them instead of messing with them. A couple of days worth of production and you ask if it will hurt anything if we use them. I read an account where a operator at Ruger cut a 1000 barrels and inch short. They became the basis for a short run of specials that collectors look for now.

[Parashooter]

At the risk of being tedious, once again: those pictured screws and sight are completely normal. The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head. Further, as posited above, the front screw head is well protected by the folded leaf so there's no reason to set it flush anyway.

[butlersrangers]

I totally agree with Parashooter!

FWIW:
In my experience, most Krags with model 1892 and model 1896 rear-sights will have a 'thick-headed' screw anchoring the front hole of the sight base. I believe this dates back to the 1892 sight. It is OK.

There is a model 1896 front screw with a thinner head. (This may have been intended for carbine sight use).

The model 1901 sight had a totally different front screw (with no flange), this allowed it to anchor the lower-base, while allowing the upper-base to pivot.

The model 1898 and 1902 rear-sights had identical screws, front and rear.

The 'short' Krag sight-screws can often be interchanged and will work OK. This probably caused them to be mixed and interchanged over the years.
(This probably happened at Springfield, at arsenals, with 'field armorers', as well as, by hobbyists).

[boomer]

At the risk of being tedious, once again: those pictured screws and sight are completely normal. The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head. Further, as posited above, the front screw head is well protected by the folded leaf so there's no reason to set it flush anyway.

Not tedious. Nobody is challenging your info, or whether or not there is a problem with the way it was done, or whether it is correct or not. My last question in fact assumes your info is correct. The question had to do with understanding why Springfield saw fit to create a seemingly unique screw (the head of the front screw is almost twice as tall as the rear) for this application. While there may have been no reason to set the screw flush, it seems there was likely a reason to not set it flush ... it may be as simple as easier removal, maybe it was easier to machine. I don't know, but I was hoping somebody on the forum might know.

[butlersrangers]

It kind of goes back to the prototype. (I imagine the thicker screw heads might be a bit stronger and easier to make)?