Krag Collectors Association Forum

Hello, I have my first Krag, an 1896 carbine sn 30791 on its way. It looks pretty good from the auction pictures, but we'll see when it arrives, any SRS info would be appreciated. I will try to post a few pics.

Blueheeler,

Welcome to KCA! Looks like you have a great "1896" Krag carbine on the way! Yours has the nice shorter Model 1896 hand guard and the saddle ring on it. These are the best. What will make it even better is if it has the correct Model 1896 rear carbine sight on it. Do you know if it does? I can't see from the pictures. The Model 1896 Krag carbine sight is stamped with a small "c" in a couple spots. Pictures are important because there are some faked carbine sights floating around out there. If you're comfortable with sharing it, I would like to know what you got it for. Was this an auction sight or store?

When you have it, post more pictures. Your carbine was made in March 1896. It is an antique and does not need an FFL registration. Very nice looking carbine. These are the best. Springfield Armory made a short run of them at this time with the receiver stamping of only "1896" instead of "Model 1896" which came a little later.

You should get one of the few great Krag reference books soon to learn about their history. We will certainly help with any questions also. I hope that the bore is in good shape. You can probably shoot it even if the bore isn't great. Having some rifling left still will allow your Krag to be a good shooting firearm. Congrats!

Whig, I got it through an online auction on proxybid, about 1200 with fees and shipping. The bore is supposedly excellent, I will post a picture of the sight.

'Blueheeler' - Welcome to the KCA Forum.

Neat looking 1896 carbine. It is an 'early' one, with no "model" stamped on the left-side of the receiver.

It appears the present bolt-sleeve has a pinned safety-lever. This is incorrect on a model 1896 Krag. (It was made for the model 1892 Krag rifle).
The present extractor may be retained by a screw, rather than a rivet, which is also a model 1892 feature.

(Correct 1896 bolt parts are not hard to find).

Hopefully, the front-sight blade is correct.

It appears your sight-leaf has a 'high hump' at the pivot. That is an early model 1896 sight feature, which is consistent with the early 1896 production carbines.

$1200 for a model 1896 carbine is a very good buy.

Your rear sight sure looks nice. It does appear to be correct and authentic for an 1896 Krag carbine. The bore being nice is an added bonus. I don't have my SRS records here to check but I would venture a guess that, with the condition of the carbine, stock, bore, etc., that it never saw action in the Spanish American War. Most of those rifles and carbines are terribly worn and well used because of the harsh conditions those soldiers lived through with their firearms. Having a documented war-torn Krag is quite the treasure but having a great 1896 carbine like yours is a real find and at a wonderful price. Those Mod896 carbine rear sights sell for $1,000 by themselves! You got a great deal. Thanks for sharing.

I looked up the serial in Mallories" appendix. Unfortunately no hit there, but 30792 was sold by Raritan Arsenal in 1922.
Regardless its a gorgeus carbine with the jackpot rear sight !

Check the butt-trap, when the carbine arrives. I hope it holds some 'goodies'.
Some of the early carbine stocks were daintier in the wrist and had just two cleaning-rod holes. Such stocks are very rare.

Thanks everyone, she should arrive early next week so I will update upon her arrival.

Krag carbine and accoutrements:

Hate to say this, but am I the only one who does not see the expected sculptured wood around the bolt handle? Did the auction company get their pictures mixed up? Is the overall gun the same one as in the detail shots? Good news is that would make it a very rare M1898 stock, but would also mean that the receiver would have had to have been modified to fit - something SA would almost certainly not have done. Perhaps better eyes than mine can see the cut? SOMETHING seems amiss here. Time will tell. Otherwise, it looks just great - and the sight is definitely correct.