1898 Krag Missing Serial # Question

[Marksc]

New Picture of receiver showing non touched finish

[Marksc]

Have someone coming over tonight. He is bringing over a 1898 receiver in excellent condition and compare all measurements with a micrometer and engineers straight edge tools. I am still hold true that it is a receiver that has never been touched and never had serial numbers stamped into it. There is absolutely no flat spots on it.

[FredC]

Wish I had a receiver in hand to compare with but something is really different there. My first impression is it is not an accident, could be wrong here. Another photo with some light in those dark areas would be helpful. I am thinking I see half of a counter bore that should not be there.
Multiple cutters were mounted on the milling machines that did that work. To mill that step would have taken a lulu of a mistake if not done on purpose.
Assuming this receiver got the proper heat treatment, it should be safe to fire if everything else is normal. The sharp flat bottomed cut will weaken things but it is in a NON critical part of the receiver.
Hope a better photo will help figure out the puzzle.
Figured out what that half counter bore is, that is the pocket the trigger assembly fits in. The darkness in that area makes it hard to figure out.

[Marksc]

Butlers Rangers,
He is a pic of the area you circled. You can see I have not touched any cleaning yet.

[butlersrangers]

Thanks for the latest photo 'Marksc'.

It looks to me like Springfield Armory workers missed some machine operations on your receiver, before it was heat-treated and Proofed. This could not be corrected after heat-treat.

I've never seen an unfinished receiver before. Cool!

That probably explains the absence of a serial number. It was probably 'scrapped', but, someone later made a "carbine" out of parts.

Attached - Contrasting photos of Mark's receiver and a model 1899 receiver, showing considerable difference in 'trigger pivot' area. The receivers should look identical.

[FredC]

Almost like we are looking at 2 different receivers. The last photo looks like they forgot an operation. Going back and looking at BR's photo the milling operation around the trigger recess was forgotten. That may make what appears to be a step. I am not familiar with all the changes to the receivers between 1892 and 1898. But that "lost operation" would have made fitting a rifle stock a custom operation. Maybe the arsenal did not want to mess with it but a surplus seller might do the work to salvage a receiver.

[Marksc]

Now see the difference you are talking about. Another Picture trying to get the angle you used on comparison.

[Marksc]

Looking at stock it is very clear that part of receiver leaves a very thin wall of wood (approx. 1/8") that possible could be the reason for changes. Does your original stock look like this?

[psteinmayer]

Don't know if I should broach this subject or not... but Mark stated that it was definitely a carbine.

Now here are the thought running around in my head:
The receiver is marked 1898. True 1898 carbines are rare, and command a mighty high dollar figure. There are many fakes running around, and the serial number is the only true way to discern a REAL 1898 carbine from a fake or simulated one. Being that this has no serial number makes me suspicious that it is not a true 1898 carbine. I'm leaning more towards a botch or unfinished receiver that was built into a Bannerman or Stokes Kirk "Parts" gun. Now it may or may not have a true carbine barrel (let's face it, anyone could buy a carbine barrel and install on a rifle receiver)... but that does not make it a true carbine.

It is... however, one heck of a mystery!!! Either way, Krags are meant to be enjoyed! Yours just has a little additional story to tell!

Just out of curiosity, have you ever fired it?

FWIW, a serial number-less Krag showed up here before, and it turned out that the number WAS machined off.

[butlersrangers]

Springfield missed a spot!

The area outlined in red should have been removed by machining prior to heat-treat.

I wonder how often such mistakes happened?