Is it just me ... ?

U.S. Military Krags
User avatar
butlersrangers
Posts: 9880
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan

Is it just me ... ?

Post by butlersrangers »

I was going through 10 pages of Krag stuff on GunBroker today. There were quite a few guns that, IMHO, appeared to be bogus combinations of parts or grossly misrepresented.

The spacing of this pictured serial number even looked suspicious to me. Is it just me?

(I would hate to be starting as a collector in this day and age. You always had to be careful, but, I don't remember it being so bad).Image

User avatar
psteinmayer
Posts: 2687
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:31 am

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by psteinmayer »

Yeah... looks a little odd between the 31 and the 1016. Also, it looks to me like someone stripped the finish off the metal.

I saw one on GB yesterday that had a very dark blued side plate... and some other stuff that made it look somewhat cobbled.

User avatar
Fred G.
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by Fred G. »

there isn't any reason for faking something like that. Just a variation of striking. It's real.

User avatar
98src
Posts: 181
Joined: Sat Jul 03, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by 98src »

That second 1 might be a 4.

User avatar
Fred G.
Posts: 148
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by Fred G. »

I believe that you are Right.

User avatar
Dick Hosmer
Posts: 2286
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:11 pm

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by Dick Hosmer »

Looks like a 4 to me. Krag s/ns suffer from a lot of strike irregularities.

User avatar
butlersrangers
Posts: 9880
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by butlersrangers »

I don't know about the second "1" actually being a "4" theory, but, I got to looking at the serial numbers on some of my Krags. You Gentlemen are right about some Krag numbers being a bit irregular.

The second photo is of a model 1899 carbine receiver, that I own. The spacing and angle of some of the digits makes it look "hand-stamped", using individual number stamps.

(Maybe these were made in Afghanistan or the Khyber Pass - just kidding)!

ImageImage

madsenshooter
Posts: 1178
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 5:00 am
Location: Upper Appalachia aka SE Ohio

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by madsenshooter »

And it's likely sold as 311... for the last several sales.

User avatar
butlersrangers
Posts: 9880
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by butlersrangers »

I am struggling to understand the process Springfield Armory used to stamp model, armory, and serial numbers on Krag receivers.

The spacing and straightness seem a given with "model/year/Springfield Armory". However, the depth of stampings can vary quite oddly. (Model 1896 can easily appear to be Model 1898).

Serial numbers are weird. Some appear quite precise and 'machine-like'. Some appear irregular, like they are 'hand-stamped', one digit at a time. In some number-ranges, the size or 'font' appears to have changed. In some ranges, 3, 6, and 8, are easily confused and misread.

I am left wondering if the variances are caused by different workmen, varying skill levels, breakdowns in Dies or changes in equipment????

Lots of curiosities with Krags!

Image

User avatar
Parashooter
Posts: 707
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:14 am
Location: Kragmudgeon House, CT

Re: Is it just me ... ?

Post by Parashooter »

I am struggling to understand the process Springfield Armory used to stamp model, armory, and serial numbers on Krag receivers.

Well, here's how they were doing serials in 1917 - "hand stamp and hammer . . ."

img

Post Reply