New with 1896 Krag etc
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
Fired off an email with questions this last Saturday to the Springfield Museum. She missed seeing my document in the email so resent it. Will post if anything comes of it. Also found the original card my Uncle sent from Viet Nam. It has a Huey on the one side a post mark and short note. Will post if I hear anything. Got the bore cleaned up reasonably well. Saw some vids on utube a mid west guy had a couple vids where he was testing his Krag with self loads was fun to watch. Was surprising the differences in the loads and the effect on accuracy. His old Krag was doing well though. I think my gun is solid the bolt looks good the barrel ok mechanism seems tight I think I will look for a box of commercial loads and give it a try. Cmp has some but large quantity too much money. Will post if I hear back from the CMP or Springfield Museum. Robt
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
First I have here a couple of snaps of the card my Uncle Major John Hansen sent while serving as an Army Advisor in Viet Nam. It does illustrate how the war divided families who missed each other some of which never would see each other again. See attachments.
I received an email and spoke to Alex Mackenzie of the Armory Musem and the thought There is that the stock was replaced by the Armory. He believes it is a 1896 stock and he has no issue with the time difference between the build date of the receiver and the stocks Cartouche. He said you could see even two cartouches at times. He believes the gun was out in circulation then returned for a stock replacement with a 1996 stock probably from stock and it then had a cartouche applied. He says it is an 1896 stock. He felt that a later sight would have been installed and I think this is the 1896 site isnt it? so not sure what to think of that. It the gun was out shortly after original build date and came back for repair there is a story and maybe it did find its way to Cuba or the Philippines'? See Alexes first response below I am waiting for a second response from him as well as something from the CMP.
I also contacted the lead Armorer at Anniston John Kent. He told me that with Krags when they came back in they would have had hand guards color matched to stocks this went out the window in about 1904 with the 03's. My stock and forearm do match perfectly in color and patina. He suggested I sent pics of the cartouche and the gun and could forward this in the CMP to people who would be able to tell me more. He seemed to think that the gun was not from the Philippines as well but was unable to tell me exactly where. He thought it most likely came from a VWF hall or the like. When I get more from the CMP will post. Bob Harrison
Springfield Armory Response 10-31-2024
MacKenzie, Alexander D
From:alex_mackenzie@nps.gov
To:robtth@yahoo.com
Cc:Ashman, Susan
Thu, Oct 31 at 6:26 AM
Hello,
Thanks for writing.
I think the simplest explanation is more likely.
First, not all parts, including the stocks, were interchangeable between 1892's and 1896's and the 1898. For instance, you can use a M1898 bolt in an 1892 or 1896, but you cant fit the older bolts into an 1898. And you can't put an 1898 stock on the older models. Basically, the 1898 fixed a lot of interchangeability issues with the older models.
Second, if it was still in service in 1901, the rifle would have been upgraded with new rear sights. There were four or five different official sights for the Krags over the short life of the model.
Third, stocks were replaced all the time, and as a replacement would not have included a final cartouche on the stock. The final inspection stamp signified that the complete rifle was proofed, function fired, and fully inspected, and therefore ready for issue.
Therefore, it's entirely possible that the rifle had a stock replaced in its early life (with no cartouche), went back to Springfield Armory for an upgrade in 1901, and was stamped at that time since it was proofed again and would be going back into the field as a complete rifle. Occasionally you see two stamps - the original and the overhaul. More often you see no stamp at all, which, again, just means the stock was a replacement.
I can't quite see the rear sight in the picture, but it looks like a fuzzy Model 1896 sight. In that case, I think the stock might be a replacement from another gun that was updated in 1901, but because of the interchangeability issues, would have to be an 1896 stock in order to fit. Another possibility is someone later on just replaced the sight and handguard to bring it back to "correct" M1896 configuration. If there is a 1901 sight on there, then that goes further to explain the cartouche.
So, the experimental angle is incredibly unlikely. The simplest explanation is the result of normal maintenance and overhaul of the rifle and parts during its service life.
Hope that helps,
Alex MacKenzie
Curator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
One Armory Square, Suite 2
Springfield, MA 01105-1299
(413) 271-3971
I received an email and spoke to Alex Mackenzie of the Armory Musem and the thought There is that the stock was replaced by the Armory. He believes it is a 1896 stock and he has no issue with the time difference between the build date of the receiver and the stocks Cartouche. He said you could see even two cartouches at times. He believes the gun was out in circulation then returned for a stock replacement with a 1996 stock probably from stock and it then had a cartouche applied. He says it is an 1896 stock. He felt that a later sight would have been installed and I think this is the 1896 site isnt it? so not sure what to think of that. It the gun was out shortly after original build date and came back for repair there is a story and maybe it did find its way to Cuba or the Philippines'? See Alexes first response below I am waiting for a second response from him as well as something from the CMP.
I also contacted the lead Armorer at Anniston John Kent. He told me that with Krags when they came back in they would have had hand guards color matched to stocks this went out the window in about 1904 with the 03's. My stock and forearm do match perfectly in color and patina. He suggested I sent pics of the cartouche and the gun and could forward this in the CMP to people who would be able to tell me more. He seemed to think that the gun was not from the Philippines as well but was unable to tell me exactly where. He thought it most likely came from a VWF hall or the like. When I get more from the CMP will post. Bob Harrison
Springfield Armory Response 10-31-2024
MacKenzie, Alexander D
From:alex_mackenzie@nps.gov
To:robtth@yahoo.com
Cc:Ashman, Susan
Thu, Oct 31 at 6:26 AM
Hello,
Thanks for writing.
I think the simplest explanation is more likely.
First, not all parts, including the stocks, were interchangeable between 1892's and 1896's and the 1898. For instance, you can use a M1898 bolt in an 1892 or 1896, but you cant fit the older bolts into an 1898. And you can't put an 1898 stock on the older models. Basically, the 1898 fixed a lot of interchangeability issues with the older models.
Second, if it was still in service in 1901, the rifle would have been upgraded with new rear sights. There were four or five different official sights for the Krags over the short life of the model.
Third, stocks were replaced all the time, and as a replacement would not have included a final cartouche on the stock. The final inspection stamp signified that the complete rifle was proofed, function fired, and fully inspected, and therefore ready for issue.
Therefore, it's entirely possible that the rifle had a stock replaced in its early life (with no cartouche), went back to Springfield Armory for an upgrade in 1901, and was stamped at that time since it was proofed again and would be going back into the field as a complete rifle. Occasionally you see two stamps - the original and the overhaul. More often you see no stamp at all, which, again, just means the stock was a replacement.
I can't quite see the rear sight in the picture, but it looks like a fuzzy Model 1896 sight. In that case, I think the stock might be a replacement from another gun that was updated in 1901, but because of the interchangeability issues, would have to be an 1896 stock in order to fit. Another possibility is someone later on just replaced the sight and handguard to bring it back to "correct" M1896 configuration. If there is a 1901 sight on there, then that goes further to explain the cartouche.
So, the experimental angle is incredibly unlikely. The simplest explanation is the result of normal maintenance and overhaul of the rifle and parts during its service life.
Hope that helps,
Alex MacKenzie
Curator
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Springfield Armory National Historic Site
One Armory Square, Suite 2
Springfield, MA 01105-1299
(413) 271-3971
- Attachments
-
- IMG_9156.jpg (117.71 KiB) Viewed 1697 times
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
I think that most knowledgable Krag collectors will agree that, because of royalty agreements, only the original stock would have received a cartouche stamping by Springfield Armory. A replacement stock would not receive another cartouche because the receiver, in its original stock, had already been officially accepted into service at the time of the first cartouche. If I am reading the above information correctly, it suggests this guy is misinformed historically.
He actually seems to contradict himself by saying replacement stocks don't get another cartouche and then says sometimes, if they were replaced at Springfield Armory, they would be reproofed and restamped. Is he referring to the cartouche or "P" proof stamping only? Yes, sometimes proof stampings are doubled but really not the cartouche. Very confusing. He's not clear on this. Maybe it's me. But, op is reading this as a new cartouche stamping on a replacement stock which would not have happened.
As I said in an earlier post, in agreement with Butlersrangers, I think this stock has been altered with the earlier Model 1896 bolt cutout adaptation from a later Model 1898 stock because the cut out scalloping is so clean and perfect with sharp edges, it does not match the wear on the rest of the stock. That explains the 1901 cartouche. That scallop cutout should be worn much more. It appears to have been cutout yesterday. Using this rifle would put direct wear on that bolt cutout area. Something's not kosher here. I think it is a VFW or National Guard turn-in. Again, go with the "Krag Mystery" category and enjoy the rifle. I doubt you'll solve this mystery but, keep trying if you like. Maybe we'll all learn something fun!
Also, it appears that most people's hangup with op's Krag is the cutout "proving" it is an authentic Model 1896 stock. I would suggest that there are certainly many skilled craftsmen out there who could cut this out to look this good. It doesn't make it authentic from Springfield Armory. It's too clean compared to the rest of the stock to be authentic. Go with the preponderance of clear evidence. The cartouche is 1901! I would go with the cartouche being authentic over the cutout. If it walks like a duck...
It's a nice rifle, again. Range report needed!
He actually seems to contradict himself by saying replacement stocks don't get another cartouche and then says sometimes, if they were replaced at Springfield Armory, they would be reproofed and restamped. Is he referring to the cartouche or "P" proof stamping only? Yes, sometimes proof stampings are doubled but really not the cartouche. Very confusing. He's not clear on this. Maybe it's me. But, op is reading this as a new cartouche stamping on a replacement stock which would not have happened.
As I said in an earlier post, in agreement with Butlersrangers, I think this stock has been altered with the earlier Model 1896 bolt cutout adaptation from a later Model 1898 stock because the cut out scalloping is so clean and perfect with sharp edges, it does not match the wear on the rest of the stock. That explains the 1901 cartouche. That scallop cutout should be worn much more. It appears to have been cutout yesterday. Using this rifle would put direct wear on that bolt cutout area. Something's not kosher here. I think it is a VFW or National Guard turn-in. Again, go with the "Krag Mystery" category and enjoy the rifle. I doubt you'll solve this mystery but, keep trying if you like. Maybe we'll all learn something fun!
Also, it appears that most people's hangup with op's Krag is the cutout "proving" it is an authentic Model 1896 stock. I would suggest that there are certainly many skilled craftsmen out there who could cut this out to look this good. It doesn't make it authentic from Springfield Armory. It's too clean compared to the rest of the stock to be authentic. Go with the preponderance of clear evidence. The cartouche is 1901! I would go with the cartouche being authentic over the cutout. If it walks like a duck...
It's a nice rifle, again. Range report needed!
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
Ya I thought his response was confusing too. I really cornered him by phone in the idea that there was a great time line between the cartouche and the receiver dates and he did not think that was an issue at all. He defiantly felt the gun was issued and then came back for a stock change though. He said the gun could have been issued without a cartouche, been issued a replacement non issued cartouche stock and then come back been reissued with a cartouche. Ya I dont know. He also defiantly felt the receiver would not fit a 1898 stock although I don't know why he would have thought that. He gave me the impression that although things were not loose the factory was not as tight as we may think they were at that time.
He did not think the notion that they pulled a few guns at 60000 for things like testing was likely. I asked about records that would list pulls and reworks and he said they no longer have any. I know there are records for Garands as such out there somewhere. Was hoping there were some kind of records.
I'm waiting on a possible connection with CMP I think I may have a line on some people who may be able to contribute something? We will see.
I'm not convinced the crispness of the relief cut for the bolt is all that meaningful. fitment on that side is cleaner than the left side and the pictures have some shadowing along the edges although the rear of the receiver to stock is a very nice fit you can hardly catch your fingernail on the edge.
Will post if I get anything back from the CMP but mostly the mystery remains.
He did not think the notion that they pulled a few guns at 60000 for things like testing was likely. I asked about records that would list pulls and reworks and he said they no longer have any. I know there are records for Garands as such out there somewhere. Was hoping there were some kind of records.
I'm waiting on a possible connection with CMP I think I may have a line on some people who may be able to contribute something? We will see.
I'm not convinced the crispness of the relief cut for the bolt is all that meaningful. fitment on that side is cleaner than the left side and the pictures have some shadowing along the edges although the rear of the receiver to stock is a very nice fit you can hardly catch your fingernail on the edge.
Will post if I get anything back from the CMP but mostly the mystery remains.
-
butlersrangers
- Posts: 10245
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
- Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
It was very nice that Alex Mackenzie took the trouble to respond to your email and talked with you at great length, on the telephone.
I am sure Alex is very knowledgeable about many aspects of the historic Springfield Armory structures and operations, its vast collection of many types of U.S. arms, and the extensive archives. Dealing with collector inquiries, on such a perplexing but minor point, is likely not his main focus, expertise or duty.
IMO - He was kind, to take such an active interest in your questions.
It is a bit much to expect him to unravel on the spot such a twisted riddle.
KCA members/students have had multiple days and much time and resources, to puzzle about this anomaly which is very much in our 'wheelhouse'.
FWIW - Whether it was 'Ever Done' at Springfield Armory or 'Never Done', there is sufficient wood on a 'used' model 1898 stock to recut and reshape the bolt-handle recess area to fit a model 1896 action.
It is conceivable that a 'machine cutter' could have been made to convert a refurbished model 1898 stock into a model 1896 stock.
This would make perfect sense, if SA ran out of model 1896 replacement stocks in the early 1900s.
This was a time in which model 1896 rifles were being refurbished and model 1892 rifles were being updated to model 1896 features.
If such an expedience was ever used, to adapt serviceable model 1898 Krag stocks to fit earlier Krag model barreled-actions, we should see more model 1896 rifles, like Bob Harrison's, with oddly late cartouche dates.
BTW - The m-1901 rear-sight likely began showing up on new Krag rifles in August, 1901.
It is possible that rifles rebuilt earlier in 1901 were equipped with model 1896 sights.
I am sure Alex is very knowledgeable about many aspects of the historic Springfield Armory structures and operations, its vast collection of many types of U.S. arms, and the extensive archives. Dealing with collector inquiries, on such a perplexing but minor point, is likely not his main focus, expertise or duty.
IMO - He was kind, to take such an active interest in your questions.
It is a bit much to expect him to unravel on the spot such a twisted riddle.
KCA members/students have had multiple days and much time and resources, to puzzle about this anomaly which is very much in our 'wheelhouse'.
FWIW - Whether it was 'Ever Done' at Springfield Armory or 'Never Done', there is sufficient wood on a 'used' model 1898 stock to recut and reshape the bolt-handle recess area to fit a model 1896 action.
It is conceivable that a 'machine cutter' could have been made to convert a refurbished model 1898 stock into a model 1896 stock.
This would make perfect sense, if SA ran out of model 1896 replacement stocks in the early 1900s.
This was a time in which model 1896 rifles were being refurbished and model 1892 rifles were being updated to model 1896 features.
If such an expedience was ever used, to adapt serviceable model 1898 Krag stocks to fit earlier Krag model barreled-actions, we should see more model 1896 rifles, like Bob Harrison's, with oddly late cartouche dates.
BTW - The m-1901 rear-sight likely began showing up on new Krag rifles in August, 1901.
It is possible that rifles rebuilt earlier in 1901 were equipped with model 1896 sights.
-
Dick Hosmer
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:11 pm
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
I'll have to admit to being biased as regards Alex MacKenzie. IMHO, he is by FAR the best curator SA has had in a long time, maybe ever. I would give great credence to what he says. That is not to say that I do not also value Whig's (or BR's) opinions, as they are both very insightful and experienced long time Krag collectors.
Alex is 100% correct - though I've never found him to be "defiant" - that a M1896 action will NOT go into an M1898 stock! It won't, period, unless the latter is relieved for the projecting bolt shroud. The decorative external scallop is actually window-dressing which weakens the wood. A much smaller notch could have been cut to simply accomodate the projecting metal, beginning in 1894, and then simplified even further when the receiver was streamlined.
What this needs, is have all the gurus around a well-lit padded table, with maginifying and measuring devices, and, in addition to the pushmepullyou, mint, fresh off the tooling, examples of un-questioned 1896 and 1898 stocks, along with numerous examples of genuine 1901 cartouches. Sadly, this will never happen, and, even if it did, I suspect we still would not agree.
But it's still great fun, and it keeps us on our toes, and off the street.....
Alex is 100% correct - though I've never found him to be "defiant" - that a M1896 action will NOT go into an M1898 stock! It won't, period, unless the latter is relieved for the projecting bolt shroud. The decorative external scallop is actually window-dressing which weakens the wood. A much smaller notch could have been cut to simply accomodate the projecting metal, beginning in 1894, and then simplified even further when the receiver was streamlined.
What this needs, is have all the gurus around a well-lit padded table, with maginifying and measuring devices, and, in addition to the pushmepullyou, mint, fresh off the tooling, examples of un-questioned 1896 and 1898 stocks, along with numerous examples of genuine 1901 cartouches. Sadly, this will never happen, and, even if it did, I suspect we still would not agree.
But it's still great fun, and it keeps us on our toes, and off the street.....
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
Ya My first response for getting the note back from Alex was Wow. Very grateful. And the same I would say for all your responses.
Not being an advanced Metal Smith Machinist I keep going over in my head what it would take to make that relief in the stock and make it look so good. I mean to me the shape looks right etc. I think about how you would have to have the right cutters, a jig to hold the thing properly all the measurements to make sure you didnt over drill it etc. Sure there are guys who could do it but why? A lot of work for a stock that seems to have a cartouche that would give the whole concept away. Why would anybody do that?
If the information about the site change in August of 1901 then its entirely likely that the restock was done in 1901 early on and that is why we have the 1896 site and hand guard. The patina and color of the hand guard perfectly matches and the condition of the gun over all I think is really good. I think the changes all happened early on and things have been together this way since just a guess.
One thing Alex said was that the factory did match color carefully early on but that went out the window some time after the 03's came out. Another thing he said was that during this period they didn't give much credulous to the historic values. As an example, he said that the very first 03 was out in circulation for some time then finally someone suggested they bring it back in for conservation.
Will check back with anything from the CMP maybe they can tell me what lot or where it came in to them maybe there is something there? Bob Harrison
Not being an advanced Metal Smith Machinist I keep going over in my head what it would take to make that relief in the stock and make it look so good. I mean to me the shape looks right etc. I think about how you would have to have the right cutters, a jig to hold the thing properly all the measurements to make sure you didnt over drill it etc. Sure there are guys who could do it but why? A lot of work for a stock that seems to have a cartouche that would give the whole concept away. Why would anybody do that?
If the information about the site change in August of 1901 then its entirely likely that the restock was done in 1901 early on and that is why we have the 1896 site and hand guard. The patina and color of the hand guard perfectly matches and the condition of the gun over all I think is really good. I think the changes all happened early on and things have been together this way since just a guess.
One thing Alex said was that the factory did match color carefully early on but that went out the window some time after the 03's came out. Another thing he said was that during this period they didn't give much credulous to the historic values. As an example, he said that the very first 03 was out in circulation for some time then finally someone suggested they bring it back in for conservation.
Will check back with anything from the CMP maybe they can tell me what lot or where it came in to them maybe there is something there? Bob Harrison
-
Dick Hosmer
- Posts: 2364
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:11 pm
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
The number 1 '03 was, according to the story, actually serving in the field in WW1 France. Somehow it came to the attention of one of the brass, who immediately snatched it up for return to the States.
There are probably several different ways that stamp might have gotten on that wood - if the cut and cartouche are BOTH legit. If one of them IS wrong then the whole thing goes out the window . . .
There are probably several different ways that stamp might have gotten on that wood - if the cut and cartouche are BOTH legit. If one of them IS wrong then the whole thing goes out the window . . .
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
First of all. I just discovered a notch or relief ahead of the rear site. I did not see this before and want to know what you think of it? Also can the 01 site be installed without significant alteration to the forward portion of the hand guard? Are the 1896 sitess the same length as the 01 sites? I could see that if there was a windage knob on the front how a wear mark could be created on the stock or maybe it was milled that way? What do you think?
Alex seemed to think that if there was an 01 site installed his theory that the rifle met rebuild in 01 he felt would have more credence.
Also I did some reading on Cozier and am copying some of what I found with comments by me. Certainly. the period just after the Boxer rebellion or 01 things were changing at the Armory and it seems to me it may have been under more definitive and or serious leadership
Here is an insert of what I found. Also better pics of the front site area of the hand guard/site area.
William Crozier
1876 Graduate of West Point then served 3 years in the Indian wars against the Sioux and Bannock Indians.
1879 1874 Mathematics instructor at West Point
1884-1887 Super Intendant of Water Town Arsenal
1890 Chief of Ordinance on the Staff for General Chaffee during the China Relief Expedition (Boxer war in China)
1901 November Chief of Ordinance for the United States Army.
Certainly William Crozier was an accomplished gentleman. Certainly in times of military conflict the military and the progression of arms changes. Certainly the Spanish American experience led to the ultimate replacement of the Krag. After the Boxer rebellion which came on suddenly witness that at this point a Mathamatition is appointed to the Chief of Ordinaire.department. People coming, people going at the Ordinance department. I can see why Alex at the Museum may belive things changed in 1901. Entering Henry Gantt. Wiki quotes about Crozier’s adoption of Gantt's Data base approach of paper and asset organization. Reading this I can only imagine the weight of the paperwork in single pages that followed the work. Combined with an early general lack of interest in history I can understand why early records may no longer exist. Certainly by 1901 things had changed at the Armory.
Henry Gantt
By 1917 “Quantities had suddenly jumped from hundreds to millions, and it was impossible to convey by means of typewritten tables the significance of such unusual quantities or the time necessary to produce them. Charts of the usual type were unsatisfactory because they did not sufficiently emphasize the time and because of their bulk, since only one item could be put on a sheet.[7]”
“The Gantt Progress Chart, as developed from this early form, was found to help in the making of definite plans and to be highly effective in getting those plans executed
Crozier quickly grasped the possibilities of this chart in helping to fix responsibility for action or lack of action, and had it introduced in various branches of the Ordnance Department.”
Alex seemed to think that if there was an 01 site installed his theory that the rifle met rebuild in 01 he felt would have more credence.
Also I did some reading on Cozier and am copying some of what I found with comments by me. Certainly. the period just after the Boxer rebellion or 01 things were changing at the Armory and it seems to me it may have been under more definitive and or serious leadership
Here is an insert of what I found. Also better pics of the front site area of the hand guard/site area.
William Crozier
1876 Graduate of West Point then served 3 years in the Indian wars against the Sioux and Bannock Indians.
1879 1874 Mathematics instructor at West Point
1884-1887 Super Intendant of Water Town Arsenal
1890 Chief of Ordinance on the Staff for General Chaffee during the China Relief Expedition (Boxer war in China)
1901 November Chief of Ordinance for the United States Army.
Certainly William Crozier was an accomplished gentleman. Certainly in times of military conflict the military and the progression of arms changes. Certainly the Spanish American experience led to the ultimate replacement of the Krag. After the Boxer rebellion which came on suddenly witness that at this point a Mathamatition is appointed to the Chief of Ordinaire.department. People coming, people going at the Ordinance department. I can see why Alex at the Museum may belive things changed in 1901. Entering Henry Gantt. Wiki quotes about Crozier’s adoption of Gantt's Data base approach of paper and asset organization. Reading this I can only imagine the weight of the paperwork in single pages that followed the work. Combined with an early general lack of interest in history I can understand why early records may no longer exist. Certainly by 1901 things had changed at the Armory.
Henry Gantt
By 1917 “Quantities had suddenly jumped from hundreds to millions, and it was impossible to convey by means of typewritten tables the significance of such unusual quantities or the time necessary to produce them. Charts of the usual type were unsatisfactory because they did not sufficiently emphasize the time and because of their bulk, since only one item could be put on a sheet.[7]”
“The Gantt Progress Chart, as developed from this early form, was found to help in the making of definite plans and to be highly effective in getting those plans executed
Crozier quickly grasped the possibilities of this chart in helping to fix responsibility for action or lack of action, and had it introduced in various branches of the Ordnance Department.”
- Attachments
-
- IMG_9164.jpg (46.02 KiB) Viewed 1072 times
-
- IMG_9163.jpg (43.97 KiB) Viewed 1072 times
-
- IMG_9162.jpg (57.09 KiB) Viewed 1072 times
-
butlersrangers
- Posts: 10245
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
- Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan
Re: New with 1896 Krag etc
The U.S. Krag model 1901 sight is longer than the model 1896 sight.
The sight 'opening' on the m-1901 handguard is longer than the sight opening of the m-1896 handguard.
I believe, the bevel or notch, (that you are noting at the front of your handguard sight-opening), is to provide clearance for a fingertip to contact the front 'grooved' surface of the leaf & eye-piece.
I have a model 1896 handguard shaped very much like yours.
The sight 'opening' on the m-1901 handguard is longer than the sight opening of the m-1896 handguard.
I believe, the bevel or notch, (that you are noting at the front of your handguard sight-opening), is to provide clearance for a fingertip to contact the front 'grooved' surface of the leaf & eye-piece.
I have a model 1896 handguard shaped very much like yours.
- Attachments
-
- KCA photo-handguards (1).jpg (59.12 KiB) Viewed 1047 times