Krag Collectors Association Forum

Dick,

Why would there be a copyright infringement or copyright issues with SRS data? These SRS "checks" and information are done and referenced all the time on many websites. I don't think there's any concern there. It's just another interesting data point that wasn't on the list from the start. Something as simple as a Star or asterisk next to a listing could refer to an SRS documented Krag.

Well, at one time, SRS WAS buggy about that, and VERY concerned about "misuse" of "their" data - which I can well understand knowing full-well the countless hours Frank and Wayne and others spent on their knees in the cold, dark and damp. But, I've always thought that it was the special stuff that they dug out which was the most valuable. Simple things such as serial numbers (after all, everything between 1 and 48xxxx HAS to have existed at one time or another) and dates, are clearly not protected by copyright. I believe their thinking was that if you photocopy the book(s) and publish them as your work, we're coming after you - with which I'd heartily agree.

My second book contains some numbers (only) which came from SRS, but I was careful to give them explicit credit. One might think that the long list of 1873C numbers would be largely from SRS - actually the reverse is true, less than 40% came (solely) from that source.

Incorporating the SRS data into our file would be a LOT of work - with which I'm very willing to help in any way I can. I WOULD like to see some changes - along the lines of my 2019 post - to our file before such a large project was attempted. Space is taken up by things we don't need (or those columns could be hidden in the on-line file, but kept in the admin's master) while there is a definite lack of uniformity in the parameters for entering data. ONE, and one only, designation for a given model should be decided upon, and then NO others allowed in that column. Features would require more leeway. This post is too long and cannot address all the micro-details. Perhaps I could make up a dummy file with annotations, and present it as a PDF for group suggestions? Would that be helpful?

Well mine was close to 208449 that went to Pribilof, Alaska on the St Paul list. My Krag being 208082 close but no cigar

Added my 2

Just added my recently, yesterday, 1898 Krag.

Good evening ,
just to know if there is a time to wait before seeing his rifle listed in the table because you still do not mine?
But I think I filled it in French
Maybe that's why it doesn't work. ?
Have a nice evening .
Eric

eric38 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 6:10 pm Good evening ,
just to know if there is a time to wait before seeing his rifle listed in the table because you still do not mine?
But I think I filled it in French
Maybe that's why it doesn't work. ?
Have a nice evening .
Eric

Yours is at the very bottom of the list, mine as well. I think it takes some time for it to be added in the correct spot.

Le vôtre est tout en bas de la liste, le mien aussi. Je pense qu’il faut un certain temps pour qu’il soit ajouté au bon endroit.

Hello,
thank you for your indication, I've just seen it .
I think I should have marked it American , if an administrator
thinks it's time to translate, I'll let him , I'm not very good at translations.
Have a nice weekend

In 2019, when the list was much smaller, and more easily manageable, I made some suggestions about compacting and clarifying the headings. They seemed to have been well-received at the time, but nothing has been done, and the list is still pretty clumsy and does not sort/present well as the CARDINAL rule of spreadsheets (ONE UNIFORM choice of entries per column) has been abused. I do NOT mean this as a "cheap shot"; there would be real work involved to update it. I offer again to propose a modified alignment for review, and to at least help with populating it if the group feels it is an improvement. No rush, just food for thought . . .

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?