FWIW - Conflicting Data

[Dick Hosmer]

Here is a copy of an email I just sent to Alex McKenzie, current Curator at SA (and head & shoulders above anyone else I've dealt with over the years in that position):

"Hello Alex, hope you are well.
In responding to a Facebook post about Krag serial numbers in a group that I moderate, a gentleman came up with some really bad data on late Krag production, claiming that a large number of rifles were made in 1904, and that the highest serial was WAAY lower than it actually is. I immediately suspected a man named Bowers, who freely admitted (several years ago) that he knew very little about antiques and was just following what he was told - but never revealed his source.
Yesterday, I found it - on the NPS website - and it is definitely wrong. The very best info on this subject is in the extensive research and works by Farmer, Mallory, and Brophy, to say nothing of the good folks at KCA. Whoever made up the NPS data was in the wrong rabbit-hole . . .
Is there any way to get the errors corrected, or would the anticipated red tape and potential turf war render it impractical? Not a hot topic, it's been screwed up for years, but perhaps you might have some thoughts?
Thanks, and very best regards,
Dick"

We'll see what happens - he's on vacation until the 5th . . .

[butlersrangers]

Thanks Dick for taking the effort.

I believe this note in the 1904 'Annual Report', about the final production of Krags:

[Dick Hosmer]

Yeah, my take too - I'd guess, since we only have recorded one, that the number of rifles stamped 1904 is minuscule and due to some kind of anomaly - not any sort of "production". The questions is, does Alex have the will (and the clout) to fix the NPS data?

[butlersrangers]

Mallory's - appendix #20, (KRS, 2nd edition, page 332), lists ten interesting model 1898 rifles:

(475658, 475678, 475862, 475866, 475870, 475924 (*), 475925, 475987, 476034, 476045).

These 10 rifles are noted as being manufactured in January 1904 and "Stargauged 12/20/1903".

I wonder if these were 'match rifles' possibly intended for the Army Team, or possibly special target rifles made in advance for the 1904 Palma Match Team?
(Note - The Winning U.S. 1903 Palma Match Team was disqualified, later, because they had used non-standard commercial Pope barrels at Bisley).

Then again, maybe Springfield Armory just made some carefully crafted rifles, for anticipated future tests or needs?

I placed an asterisk by rifle number 475924, because it appears in the SRS data five times:
1. - 98 rifle 01/04 manufacture (Stargauged 12/22/03)
2. - 98 rifle 01/05/04 SA subcaliber Dev. Test
3. - 98 rifle 01/04/05 Sub-Caliber Test
4. - 98 rifle 04/21/05 SA 22 Cal Tube Test
5. - 98 Gallery 04/21/05 SA Subcaliber Test

I suspect this Krag rifle, number 475924, became the prototype Gallery Practice .22 caliber rifle, which was produced at the end of 1905 and submitted to the Chief of Ordnance in December of 1905. (This prototype is mentioned by Mallory on page 115, KRS, 2nd edition).

Twenty-six Krag rifles listed in SRS data, that came after the ten "Stargauged" rifles, were .22 cal. (model 1898) Gallery Practice rifles.
(13 of these were destroyed at New Cumberland, on 05/17/29).

Eleven late serial numbers, (after the ten '"Stargauged" rifles), were 1898 rifles used in accuracy tests or were rifles that went to ammunition manufacturers.

Five .30 cal. model 1898 rifles, (listed in SRS data after the "Starguage rifles), were destroyed by the New Cumberland Depot guards.

Also listed in SRS data, are some high serial numbers that were private sales, War-time donations and chance reportings.
[BTW - I am always suspicious of the quality of some of these late serial numbers].

Mallory's production summary table - Appendix 7 - (KRS/ page 207) estimates 80 model 1898 rifles were manufactured in 1904.

Mallory calculated 142 GP rifles were manufactured in 1906, and 323 were made in 1907, for a total of 465 GP .22 cal. rifles.
He placed the GP .22 cal. rifle serial numbers falling between 475650 to 478067.

[Knute1]

This is the info I compiled in 2018 based solely on Ordnance Reports. Note the 341 gallery Krags made in 1907. I could probably find and post that report if necessary.

KragCount.png (193.15 KiB) Viewed 1004 times

Here is a link to the post in 2018:

http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.co ... php?t=4107

[Dick Hosmer]

Well - there's at LEAST two sides to every question! More if the gummint is involved.

It equally true that arms production could have stopped dead in November 1903, yet still be counted in FISCAL 1904, though I think that when the question is asked, "were any Krags made in 1904?" 99.9% of the time we say "no" because our minds work on a calendar - not a fiscal - basis. So I guess the "conflict" while real, is simply one of labelling. The OSK stamp was applied on a calendar basis, since dating began in 1877, which is the same year that SA was closed for 6 months because the Army appropriation bill did not pass Congress.

I guess what we really need is a good clear chart that shows production both ways.

[butlersrangers]

In my brain, "manufactured" and "assembled" mean the same thing.

Maybe in government thinking, "cease manufacture" means they just stopped making the parts, and assembling guns from parts in inventory is not considered manufacture?

I function by the calendar year and have never been able to think in terms of the "Fiscal Year". It's all smoke and mirrors to me!

[Knute1]

My table reads built "BLT.", which was my terminology. Springfield Armory actually used the term "fabricated" in the documents I used to make the table. They listed some firearms as fabricated with 1901 sights or with Parkhurst attachments, for example. So I gather that when the word "fabricated" was used it meant fully assembled. Just my opinion.

[butlersrangers]

"Fabricated", now that's a nice word. "BLT" ... ummm, my favorite sandwich!

[Knute1]

Maybe you should have somebody fabricate a BLT for you.