Pair of 1896 Long Rifles

[mibecker03]

Hello gents, I'm new to KCA and am excited to indulge myself with the knowledge provided within the threads of this site.

Perusing GunBroker as one does, I stumbled across a pair of 1896 long rifles listed by Ohio Ordnance Works. Listed below are the links to the auctions.

With an initial inquiry, how would some of you more savvy enthusiasts perceive and evaluate these rifles? I'm doing as much research as I can on my own without the appropriate texts, however I'm curious if anything stands out to any of you regarding any great deficiencies or irregularities?

I appreciate any sort of advice or cautions in advance.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/890216426
https://www.gunbroker.com/item/890639072

[Baltimoreed]

Nice looking unmolested rifles but I’m not an expert and don’t know the fine nuances of the mysterious Krag. They look a lot like my 1896 rifle which has an 1896 cartouched stock. It’s sn is 83470, a little later than those two. Price might be a little high compared to the one Krag dealer’s rifle prices that I used to see at shows. But I haven’t seen him in a while and of course haven’t been to the big Md Arms show since 2019. Who knows what they’re worth in todays craziness?

[rickhill]

I concur. Both look like fine condition original Model 1896 rifles. Hard to find these days in this condition IMHO but priced accordingly.

[butlersrangers]

'Mibecker03' - Welcome to the KCA Forum. Those appear to be a pair of mighty nice looking model 1896 U.S. Krag rifles.
I am not sure, if we are suppose comment on active auctions, but, KCA policy allows helping members "vet" an item.

I have to preface every thing by saying, I hate auctions! .... Lord knows, what the bidding war will bring!
There are a couple of fine points, that can't be identified in the nice photos: (the exact bolt variant in the rifles and if the front barrel-bands are un-slotted).
Also, a pet peeve about something in the descriptions, the 'Cartouche' initials are actually J.S.A., for Joseph Sumner Adams.
(The "J.L.A" was a mistake that William Brophy made in his book, "The Krag Rifle", that will be repeated forever).

My opinion:
The first rifle, #63611, was first assembled, around May, 1897. The Stock has some distinct 'dings' and an 1898 'Cartouche'.
This suggests, that it is not the original stock on the rifle.
Most Krags did get 'refurbished' during service and stocks were switched during process.
The front-sight blade is the correct height to go with this rifle's 1896 rear-sight.
#63611 appears in Springfield Research Services data (SRS). The rifle was issued, on 09/10/1898, to Co.I, 4th U.S. Infantry.

The second rifle, #49077, was first assembled, around December 1896. The stock appears quite nice with an 1896 'Cartouche', (an 1897 acceptance 'Cartouche' would be equally credible).
The hand-guard color doesn't match the stock, so well. The front-sight blade is too tall, (a .413" blade), to go with the 1896 rear-sight.
(I suspect, someone 'switched back' the rear-sight and hand-guard, to make this rifle "more better").

If, I was paying this kind of money for a Krag - (I can't and don't), I'd buy #63611. More history and documented.

[mibecker03]

Thank you for your input. My apologies if the conversation on a live auction is not allowed. I'll keep that in mind for the future if that is the case.

These two have been sitting for quite some time, and I was interested in making an offer on #63611 via phone if they are open to it. The bore condition is described, "shines as new." If this were to be the case, what would you say a realistic offer would be on this piece?

Photos of 1st ND volunteers in the Philippines indicate our boys carried either these or 1898's with 1896 rear sights in the Philippines. This rifle fits my criteria nicely all else being equal.

[Whig]

I think you would be best, also, to stick with 63611. I would be proud to own that one especially. Both are nice. It is quite difficult to find a "correct" and "original" Krag of the M1896 vintage with an excellent bore. I don't think either of these was mis-represented in the item description by the seller. That's a good thing that points to an honest seller who may be more willing to negotiate.

I haven't followed selling prices on high end Krags for while and feel that this price is on the high side but if you can get it down some, it's an even better bargain. I would offer $1800 and see what they say. That's a low starting point but a consignment might go for that if the price was set higher than usual.

I initially questioned the cartouche on this rifle because it is so clean and deep but the grasping grooves are very sharp, so, this stock has seen little wear.

There is no problem using this site to help review an item for sale, as we frequently advise potential new buyers to do. Where the problem arises is when someone posts questions to bring attention to an item that THEY are selling and potentially profiting from. That's a mis-use of the forum.

Good luck and keep us informed!

(By the way, Baltimoreed. The picture you used of a nice clean cartouche in your post above appears to be a "fake" cartouche. I don't know if this has been discussed much on KCA but there are faked, newly added, cartouches just like everything else we see faked. The detail in the letters and numbers don't look authentic and, a very clear give away, to me, is that there is no dirt or grime at the low points of the impression that would definitely be present in any rifle cartouche 120+ years old, no matter how clean and unused the overall rifle is. We see that in metal stampings, also, as on faked 1911 roll stampings when the metal at the bottom of the letters are blued along with the surface. The low relief of the stamped, rolled or impressed numbers or letters have a definite appearance after aging. This can be faked but often isn't.

There are also secondary impressions around the box outline, which looks strange also.

Just my quick opinion on your cartouche close-up. A close inspection with a magnifying glass and examination of the entire rifle is imperative. My opinion is not fully valid without that!)

[mibecker03]

Whig,

Thank you for your thoughts on the rifle and clarification on the forum rules. I plan on giving them a ring tomorrow morning to see where I might stand on making an offer.

So long as the bore is good and as described, I'll take a jump after it. I was also thinking starting around $1800 as an initial offer. The rifles they have listed have been on for some time, so I feel like a reasonable offer would be acknowledged and accepted by them at this point.

I'm incredible grateful I found this site and the wealth of knowledge contained within it. You've all been a great help and I've found myself rummaging through quite a few old threads already!

[Ned Butts]

I agree that these are both nice examples in very fine condition. I have not been actively buying for a while and realize that prices go up. It is my personal opinion that both rifles are least $1000 over priced, which could be why they have been listed for awhile

[Lead Snowstorm]

There is no problem using this site to help review an item for sale, as we frequently advise potential new buyers to do. Where the problem arises is when someone posts questions to bring attention to an item that THEY are selling and potentially profiting from.

Or, less nefarious but also an adverse outcome, alerting others to your find and creating a bidding war, LOL!

Personally, I don’t think I’d bite at those prices. If I had money burning a hole in my pocket and they were in the $1300-1600 range, maybe. But alas, I’ve found another and deeper money pit recently, and I have an example of an 1896 (not of the quality of these, to be sure; but it was 1/3 the price).