Observed Serial Number List

[Culpeper]

This is my current thinking:

Column Notes for Suggested Improvements to Krag Serial Spreadsheet:

General: The overall goal is simplicity but with UNIFORMITY, accuracy and brevity. The same item must NOT be called by a variety of names - this prevents proper sorting. (use of“1896”, “M1896”, “M96R”, “1896R”, etc.) all in the SAME column to describe the SAME physical item has GOT to go!) All columns, except “Notes”, should be as narrow as possible while retaining readability.

Column order shown below is only a first suggestion and could certainly be tweaked if desired.

(1) Serial number: Basically self-explanatory, with the exception that 8xxxxx numbers will automatically be changed to 3xxxxx. This is a clear, even if entirely innocent, mistake on the part of the poster, but, such ignorance does not justify KCA “confirmation.”

(2) Model: There are just five possible entries: “1892”, “1892/96”, “1896”. “1898”, and “1899”. Anything else is a modification to be handled elsewhere. “Best guess” is not professional, and “Don’t know” is probably resolvable by the admin in 99.9% of cases, except for potential ‘border/boundary’ guns. The numerous differences between early and late 1892s, which is a quagmire, would be best addressed, if at all, in “Notes”. I reject the term “Magazine Rifle” out of hand in THIS context, no matter the source of the name. Every Krag made was a “magazine rifle”, and to mess up the table with an item that won’t sort in chronological order is just silly.

(3) Type: Basically two entries: Rifle (R) or Carbine (C). I suppose Cadet (Ct) could be used for the 2 or 3 entries involved, just so long as the SAME designation is applied to ALL items of a particular type. “School guns”, PCRs, and BoOFs, would be considered rifles in this context as they are full-stocked, and the clarifying info could go in “Notes”. Or, we could use (SG) (PCR) and (BOF) in the column?

(4) Receiver stamping: There are just six possible entries, “1894”, “1895”, “1896”, “Model 1896”, “Model 1898”, and “Model 1899.” To save space, the latter three could be abbreviated as “M1896”, “M1898”, and “M1899”. The added “.22 CAL” at the GPRs should be covered in Notes.

(5) Stock stamp/date: Probably 95% are [JSA/date] so, only the date needs to be noted for a ‘normal’ specimen. Undated rework stamps, such as that of Benicia Arsenal, shall be shown as BAxx, etc. SA-made school guns may have “JFC”. Some GPRs will have “CV”. Use “illegible” for ALL missing or unreadable stamps on otherwise full-military arms. Suggest simply using ’n/a” for ALL sporterized guns, even for cut-down military stocks with date visible. The overriding maxim: use common sense and ABOVE ALL, be TOTALLY consistent!

(6) Stock Length: These are all known, for both fully-stocked (48.75”, 44.75”, or 40.75”) and half-stocked arms (30” or 32”). This is the place where carbine stock differences are defined. We are not looking for minute fractional inch differences, and EVERY cut-down, or sporterized, stock is to be noted “n/a”, since they are no longer of collector interest. Or, column could be deleted, since original rifle stocks “are what they are”, and the 30” and 32” carbine difference could be handled as a note.

(7) Full Military Configuration: This is a VERY SIMPLE question. It either is, or it is not - kinda like virginity and pregnancy. This category is basically intended to weed out the hack jobs. It is assumed that a “Yes” means that the proper hand guard for the rear sight mounted is present. Why the piece is not FMC does NOT require a detailed explanation, but if something MUST be said, such as a missing part, it should be handled in “Notes.”

(8) Rear Sight: Again , this is a very simple question. There are five basic rifle sights (1892, 1896, 1898, 1901, and 1902) plus four carbine models, 1896C, 1898C, 1901C, and 1902C. Details such as “high lug”, early and late 1896R graduations, 2100yd BoOF 1901s, “sergeant peeps”, etc. should be handled as a “Note.”

(9) SRS? I’m not sure this is necessary, but is a simple yes or no. A possible refinement might be to use the volume numbers (1, 2, 3, 4, 4A, CD) in lieu of “Yes” but I think that is definitely overkill, and would, again, have to be done with perfect consistency.

(10) Posted by: I see this as un-necessary, but it’s harmless I guess, if space permits.

(11) Date posted: Of questionable value, but again, harmless if there is room.

(12) Notes: Go wild!!! THIS and ONLY THIS column may be “free-form”! Use for details, locations, owners, usages, whatever - just do NOT waste the very limited space by repeating ANY material from another column. By using “text wrap within cell” plenty of room is available for those few truly “special” pieces.

To reiterate: ALL columns, except “Notes”, MUST follow a UNIFORM schedule of allowed entries, which are to be clearly listed so that users of all experience levels can understand them.

What do you think?

I disagree with some of your thinking, Mr. Hosmer. Remembering back to when I was a newbie and a rube I would not have known the difference between a 1892 or a 1892/96 when I would be staring at a rifle that read "1894". Without any other reading I would have thought I was missing two earlier models The spreadsheet should be newbie friendly within a standard naming convention.

The choices should be the following because of the KISS rule. Any other extra columns would for us guys down in the rabbit hole looking up at the blue sky above.

1894
1895
1896
Model 1896
Model 1898
Model 1899

If and when an unlearned person picks up a 1895 receiver we know they are not going to do a deep dive down the Krag rabbit hole and say "Golly! I have a 1895 rifle with such and such up grade, with a M1903 front sight and M1902 carbine rear sight". No. They will be looking to add their Krag to a database detailing the existence of a known living receiver with three provable bits of information, two that are important (model and serial number) and one that is not.

Any thing after that is pure conjecture. We have all seen all kinds of modifications to the Krags. Faked carbines, done well and not. Rifles with all manner of conditions that would make a grown man cry. And a host of other abominations not worthy of my words.

Of course I would be as pleased to keep the spreadsheet as simple as Mr. Mallory's list in his book.

Model (with the above choices) condition (Military/Modified) date seen (yyyy mm dd) (e.g. 2023 12 14) Place seen (private/web)

The ultimate goal is to see what still exists and what does not.


Merry Christmas

[Dick Hosmer]

Thank you, "Mr. Pepper" (Mr. Hosmer was my father, my name is Dick) for your insights,

It SHOULD be newbie-friendly!

Granted I did not say so, but I definitely envisioned a brief tutorial for what should go in what column.

Of course, an admin will be filling out the table, so clean-up can be done at that point, but I agree that 92 vs 92/96 (and both vs. "1894") IS tricky - but NOT impossible. An 1892 has the long rod, or at least the grooved stock - there's your split.

The present set-up was a GREAT start, but it definitely has some shortcomings. Perhaps I should just make my own, since there seems to be no great interest (4 years of silence) in upgrading it. If I do, it will include all of the SRS listings, the Alaska guns, my 100+ 1898 carbine list, etc.

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! A Happy New Year, too!

[butlersrangers]

Dick, like all your 'input', this is well thought out.

I appreciate your straightforward statement, that all U.S. Krags are "Magazine Rifles".
Using that term to specify a subset of 1894 dated rifles, with significant evolutionary changes from the original model 1892 design, is terribly vague and confusing.

Here are some of my random thoughts:
I believe Mr. Joe Farmer was trying to fit these evolutionary Krags into a proper Ordnance Department nomenclature of the period.
These rifles were too changed, in his thinking, to still be regarded as a U.S. model 1892.
They were not, what would be adopted as, U.S. model 1896 rifles.
They were not "model 1892 updated to model 1896 rifles", which is a specific type of official conversion, that came way later, and is maybe a term contrived by collectors.

(Personally, I would have coined a new term for Mr. Farmer's "Magazine Rifles", like 'transitional rifles' or 'model 1892 mutants'. I also would have clearly explained the rifle features that qualify an 1894 dated rifle as fitting into this category).

Also technically, "single-shot" .22 caliber GPR and altered Stevens-Pope rifles are not "magazine rifles", but I digress.

"Restrikes", meaning model 1898 receivers 'restamped' to read "model 1899", likely should be classified as model 1899 receivers, but identified in the note field column.

Some more personal thoughts:
I am no fan of listing the serial number of every Krag rifle, carbine, or 'altered hunting rifle', that a KCA member owns or has seen. This just seems useless, clumsy, and irrelevant.

IMO - There is no point in duplicating Frank Mallory's SRS information. It is available in book and CD form (and frankly some of it is just junk, like New Cumberland Guard destroyed rifles and war time donated rifles).

However, if some documentation is found which Frank Mallory would have included in his SRS data, (like the list of Krags issued to the Pribilof Islands), this should be included.

Auction listings of well vetted Krags, like the Frederick Grant presentation model 1899 carbine, should be included in the KCA serial number list.

Well vetted Board of Ordnance & Fortification rifles, model 1898 carbines, Parkhurst carbines, and Cadet specimens, and legitimate 'School Rifles' may provide good mileposts, and probably merit inclusion.

I don't pay much mind to the KCA serial number list and very rarely look at it.
I consider it more of a bother than it's worth.
I don't yet have a Krag, that I believe merits inclusion in the "list".
The KCA list is too large and makes it difficult to separate any wheat from the chaff.

I am trying to find a few trees without being bothered by the whole forest.

There! I blasphemy!
I hope this does not come across as arrogance. I am always trying to be helpful to the beginners and unravel mystery guns that we see here, from time to time.

[Culpeper]

Thank you, "Mr. Pepper" (Mr. Hosmer was my father, my name is Dick) for your insights,

It SHOULD be newbie-friendly!

Granted I did not say so, but I definitely envisioned a brief tutorial for what should go in what column.

Of course, an admin will be filling out the table, so clean-up can be done at that point, but I agree that 92 vs 92/96 (and both vs. "1894") IS tricky - but NOT impossible. An 1892 has the long rod, or at least the grooved stock - there's your split.

The present set-up was a GREAT start, but it definitely has some shortcomings. Perhaps I should just make my own, since there seems to be no great interest (4 years of silence) in upgrading it. If I do, it will include all of the SRS listings, the Alaska guns, my 100+ 1898 carbine list, etc.

A very Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! A Happy New Year, too!

First, I hold you in high regard and I have been taught, and reminded constantly because I fall short, a person can never be too polite so you will be Mr. Hosmer to me until they throw dirt in my face. Just like it will always be Mr. Mallory or Mr. Farmer.

Like I said, though not very well, the spreadsheet should build on Mr. Mallory's research and not recreate it or duplicate it.

My Winchester-Lee census allowed me to see a rifle that was once in full military dress that a few years later turned into a stripped down to nothing receiver. But I know the last time it known to exist.

And a Merry Christmas to you and your family, too.

[Dick Hosmer]

Blasphemy is not necessarily arrogance - in any event - you are forgiven (which, i suppose is arrogance on my part )

I agree wth some of your points and disagree (strongly) with others.

IMHO, the list should be as large as possible, and as comprehensive as a computer screen will allow. One obvious benefit would be to delineate/refine rifle and carbine production blocks. Many stampings (1895, 1896, M1896, and M1898) swing both ways. No, I've NOT ignored the two 1894 carbines, but they are known, and settled.

What is THE most asked question? By a MILE it is some variation on the theme of "what can you tell me about MY rifle?". Whatever is in second place doesn't even come close. If I could somehow list all 489xxx numbers I would!

That said I would NOT repeat all of the Cumberland Guard verbiage line after line, if for no other reason that when you start publishing info only obtainable by NARA search, you ARE edging towards copyright issues.

The "magazine rifle" business is one man's somewhat esoteric opinion of what the general public would, as you say, call a transition arm, so close to an "altered/improved 1892" as to be a distinction without much difference - certainly not any that could be integrerated into a sortable database.

Nice catch on the .22s - I realized that I'd left myself open to that, and wondered if it would skate . . .

IMHO, the restrikes are not common enough to demand anything more than mention in "notes."

Other variations you mentioned are also "Notes" candidates. Some of the vetting would be automatically handled by the "Full Military? Y/N?" column. In other words, I would note 388786 as a "Y", but note that it has a restored stock. If we are to insist that every "FMC=Y" entry is exactly and precisely as put into a crate om March 12, 1897 by Ebeneezer Jerkinoff, then we are in deep trouble. We can only do so much . . .

Glad you chimed in. Maybe others will too. If we are going to have a list, let it be the best and most complete one we can make. I posit that the current form could use some tweaking, and have offered to help do it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thank you, "Mr. Pepper" (Mr. Hosmer was my father, my name is Dick) for your insights,

First, I hold you in high regard and I have been taught, and reminded constantly because I fall short, a person can never be too polite so you will be Mr. Hosmer to me until they throw dirt in my face. Just like it will always be Mr. Mallory or Mr. Farmer.

Like I said, though not very well, the spreadsheet should build on Mr. Mallory's research and not recreate it or duplicate it.

My Winchester-Lee census allowed me to see a rifle that was once in full military dress that a few years later turned into a stripped down to nothing receiver. But I know the last time it known to exist.

And a Merry Christmas to you and your family, too.

Thanks, wasn't taunting you, and I DO appreciate the sentiment - just trying to be more "friendly" and informal . . .

A bit of clarification - I did NOT mean that the SRS citation should be repeated verbatim for every entry. I was more thinking of just the s/n and an "SRS-y/n", leaving the user to pursue further if they wished. What I DO feel is important is to have ALL the known numbers in ONE place! I'm tired of going through my books (Vol. 1 is nearly in tatters) and then coming up short. I cannot think of a better group to take the lead and have the "master list" (and have it on the internet) than KCA. Having said that, I want it to be the best list possible.

[Tom Butts]

Hey Dick, I sent you a Private message. Check your messages and get back to me when you can.

[jvanblargan]

I own Serial Number 93039 It has been cut down and sporterized missing original stock and sights. I would have to guess it came from the New Cumberland Guard as similar serial numbers have come from there.

[Culpeper]

New Cumberland GRD is not a "Guard" unit. It stands for New Cumberland "Government" (I am speculating) Repair Depot.

https://kragcollectorsassociation.org/k ... php?t=1334

I looked in Mallory and Olson's book. Your number is not there because the existing records they searched through came up with nothing. The only sure thing you can say about its military history is the rifle was built by the Springfield Arsenal.