krag carbine

[butlersrangers]

I don't think the bogus carbine sight had the base 'ramp curvature' ground down. Someone has simply put a 1902 (rod bayonet 1903) sight leaf on a model 1898 rifle sight base (and put two fake 'c' stamps on it).

This was not done by Springfield Armory. The model 1898 sights were for a higher velocity .30-40 cartridge that proved too 'hot' for the Krag. The model 1898 sights were taken out of service. The leafs had the eye piece re-contoured and were used on model 1902 bases and are a variant of the model 1902 sight. The 1898 bases have the wrong curvature for the standard .30-40 cartridge. I imagine the bases were put aside as scrap.

(p.s. The early 'rod-bayonet' Springfield sights had a short career and were replaced with the 1905 sights. The 1903 leafs and locking knobs show up on Krag model 1902 rear sights that probably required arsenal repair. These minor parts were interchangeable).

1. Photo showing an 1898 rifle sight base with a 1902 leaf. (I put this together to salvage parts on a 'cut-down shooter').
2. It appears to match the bogus carbine sight 'kw64' inquired about.

[kw64]

so are you saying the sight on this 98 carbine could have been a result of armory work, but the "c" is definitely not armory work? Do I have that right? I have a hard time seeing much difference between the sight you posted and the photo from the (supposedly) 98 carbine. thanks

[butlersrangers]

I'm saying the sight you posted was made in someone's basement. (Not Springfield's). It is not right. - IMHO

1. Too many 'c's

2. Bare disrupted metal around stamped 'c'.

3. 'Curved ramp' of rear-sight base is too tall. (On a 1902 carbine sight, the top of the 'curved ramp' is almost level with the graduated face of the sight-leaf, when leaf is in lowest position).

[Dick Hosmer]

I concur with Butlersrangers in all regards. The gun is NOT right, and no amount of wishing so, or arguing, will make it true. When I said it was a "possible" (simply because it falls into the accepted range for 1898 Carbines) I had not yet seen the cut-down stock, wrong front sight, and "funny" rear sight. While the receiver MAY have once been on a carbine (and no one can say for sure about that) the rest of the gun is a hump job by an ignorant person who was looking to score some extra bucks.

This whole scenario perfectly illustrates my long-held conviction that novice Krag collectors should stay away from "1898 Carbines", period. That model is a minefield, way too easy to fake, even badly like the seller of this one, who did not even bother to use a carbine stock.

[butlersrangers]

'kw64' / Ken: The water has gotten a bit muddy because you introduced a second Krag in this thread. Details of the two Krags have gotten blurred together. I don't think we have ever seen the Muzzle Area of this 2nd Krag. I also get the sense that a 'Seller' is trying to persuade you a likely fake is real.

[kw64]

I have a feeling I should stick to an 1899 since there is alot less fakery going on there. Having said that I have seen a few odd looking 99's too. There is a learning curve here and I am definitely on the beginning of it! thank you all.