Ethics of restoring a '98 krag

Historical threads originally posted to the 'Krag Forum' board
Post Reply
dlemaster

Ethics of restoring a '98 krag

Post by dlemaster »

Hi everyone
I hope to get some feed back on a project that my son and I have under taken, restoring a '98 Krag rifle given to my son by his Grandfather. I mentioned this rifle in a post I made on8/30/02 on this site. His rifle has been cut down ect.. We located an original barrel witha excellent bore that we put on to replace the 24" cut down barrel. We were also fortunate to find an original stock with a 1899 cartouch ( the rifle was made in1899). All the parts we have used are 100% original. My question is should this rifle be clearly marked as "Restored". It was not our intention to decieve anyone but we both realize that someday it will move on to someone else and they would not know the rifles background. It has always been my policy in restoring Kentucky Rifles to mark restored parts (welded barrels and stretched stocks ect.) so that new owners are not decieved after spending several thousand dollars for a rifle. I would like to get a feeling for what experienced Krag collectors think we should do. It feels right to put this great old rifle back to its orignal configuration but I wouldn't want to do anything unethical from a collectors point of view. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks for your time, Dave :)

Martin Wagner

Re: Ethics of restoring a '98 krag

Post by Martin Wagner »

Dave.........Wow! What a can of worms you've opened.

The purists will tell you it's not right but personally I do not subscribe to that philosophy. The ethical part rests entirely in you mind-set and what you tell any potential buyers in the future.

I'll state 2 examples that should make a point. It is unlikely that one can restore a 1955 Corvette with original parts. That's why there are so many makers of repro part, and cars restored with these parts are accepted at shows.

From time to time I find it necessary to reribbon a WWI Victory Medal beacuse the ribbon is beyond use. I use original stock ribbon......the same as a soldier might have done if his ribbons became frayed or torn. When I sell a piece on occasion the buyer is informed that it is not the original ribbon that was on the medal when it left the depot, but was redonr from original stock.

Now, I can see there being some price differential between 'born in the womb' parts and replacements, but not that great a spread.

I believe that 99% of all WWII guns and later had parts changed either in the field or at ordnance. Does this make them not original guns. Hell NO. I also believe that people who try to restore a Winchester Garand with all Winchester parts are debasing part of that guns history. Parts were changed in combat and I feel that anything that came out of combat is original.

Now....I'm going to get jumped on really good......but I asked for it. Good luck. MW

Post Reply