Krag Collectors Association Forum

Nice rifle!

The 1902 cartouche looks very deep and sharp.

P0H0 - which rifle are you speaking of? Have you seen pics of 388788 that I have not? He replied on FB, and it seems that "pristine" was intended to apply to condition ONLY. The gun lacks the special rear sight, has had a peep sight installed, and while it is hard to tell from his pic, it appears the stock does not go almost to the muzzle as it should. I jumped the gun an put it in the database as "full military" that needs to be changed (Ned, are you reading this?) to "sporterized". SAD, very sad.

I was looking at the rifle linked in the auction of the first post — specifically this picture:
The stamp appears to be sharp and deep (would crisp be a proper description?) — that cartouche pops out and is extremely easy to read. I don’t know much about the experimental loading designs, but the rifle looks very nice. Very dangerous — I can imagine myself happily drinking away while surfing gun porn and mashing an extra zero during my bid.

Well, for the two or three of you who have been eagerly following my BoOF dilemma/saga, I have reached a decision.

I am going to shorten the 1902 stock from my rifle 482440 (which is wrong for it anyway) to restore 26" number 389182.

All joinery will be concealed beneath the upper band, so there will be no grain/color mismatch, as is possible with the all-too-common stretching splice at the lower band. The original tip wood will be preserved as well - no filler will be inserted there.

I chose 389182 over 388786 (which has slightly nicer metal) because it is the one which still has the special sights as originally fitted, and though it may seem liking picking nits, I want the finished product to be as 'undisturbed' as possible. Yes, I will provide pictures.

I do have one question; for those fortunate enough to own, or have access to, a virgin. Is the wood tapered down to meet the upper band, or does it have a slightly more projecting shoulder than that of a normal rifle? Thanks.

388786 will be offered for sale at a later date, probably with the carbine stock and 1902C it came with. Details will be made available later. Cost will NOT be exorbitant, as my current plan is to charge just enough to give me 389182 for "free". The only thing that would change that is finding out from Alex McKenzie at the SA museum that such a combo is legit. In that case, it will be priced higher.

Yes, I know that all listings here have to go through Ned.

Dick,

Sounds like a good plan and fun project. I'm sure you'll be careful enough and do a great job.

I read your question and don't understand it. Where do you need measurements? And is this from an unaltered rifle or what? I'd be glad to help get whatever you need, if I have what you're asking for. I just am dense and don't understand.

Larry

Larry,

The fore end will be slightly larger 4" back - what I want/need to know is whether they slimmed it down or just left the new shoulder a little fat/proud of the upper band? If it was slimmed, the tapering should probably be done starting almost at the lower band, as opposed to doing it over the last couple of inches and creating a curved fish-belly effect, which would be rather ugly.

Tom Pearce, P0H0, Joe Farmer (389185), anyone else?

Thanks.

Dick - I cannot help with the dimensions of the front-band and forearm 'taper' of a BoOF rifle. But, here are some relevant photographs to ponder.

I would be real careful of Springfield Armory for providing exact details on BoOF rifles.
I think they have incorrectly cataloged a photo (SPAR-6373) of a model 1896 carbine as a BoOF rifle, #387869.
(I have attached a copy of their SPAR photo, which actually shows an obvious cavalry carbine).

Also, when I photographed the BoOF rifle specimen that's on public display at SA, (2nd from top & lacking a rear-sight), the identifying card mistakenly called it a "model 1896".

Dick - It appears to me the front-barrel-band on the BoOF rifle had to be specially 'stretched', with a press and arbor, in order to match the larger barrel diameter,
at its rearward placement on the 26 inch long barrel.

A photo from Brophy compares the regular Krag rifle stock forearm with a BoOF forearm.

BoOF photos posted on the KCA Forum by 'Wagon Mike', show nice 'stock forearm-tip' details of his beautiful rifle.

Thanks, Chuck! I'm in correspondence now with Alex at SA, and having those photos at my fingertips (I'd seen them before, but didn't have them at hand) will help greatly. It LOOKS like there is a slight shoulder - think I'll wait to worry about that until I see how mine comes out. As to the band, yes, that will need to be dealt with, and, since I do not have a mandrel, it will have be accomplished by removing a little metal from the inside of the straps. Haven't miked it yet, but the difference is only a few thousandths; won't be obvious. Keeping my fingers crossed!