Questions on my Model 1898

[Navy87Guy]

I finally took delivery of my Model 1898. It’s an early serial number (111725), so probably from July 1898.

Here are some pictures:

https://imgur.com/a/5y4YIQW

I also received my copy of Joe Poyer’s book today, so I was able to go over it and identify some components. It has the proper stock markings (JSA 1898, Circle P, “D” inspector mark). It has a Model 1896 Type 4 rear sight (identified by Joe as correct through around 146,000) - but it appears to have a Type 3 front sight, not a Type 4. The curvature is slight, and the rear of the sight measures .285”, not .410.

So first question: Is that normal or unusual?

Second question is on the handguard type. Hopefully you can see from the photo, but it has a slight “hump” from the rear up to the rear sight. The sight definitely sits farther forward than the illustration of the Type 5 shows. (It’s more than halfway forward from the rear of the handguard, more like the Type 3). Unfortunately, the screw on the lower band won’t budge at all, so I can’t get it off to examine or photograph more closely.

So second question: What style of handguard is it? If it is the Type 3 for the Model 1896, is that unusual? An artifact of being early production?

Thanks in advance for any insights. I can provide more pictures or descriptions if that will help!

[butlersrangers]

Navy87Guy - Nice looking U.S. Model 1898 Krag rifle. Do no harm!
(Use proper cleaning techniques. Don't screw with the finish, bugger screws, or break the handguard).

Poyer's Krag book is a useful education, but you have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff.
He does a nice job of indicating how Krag parts changed over the years and models, with his photos and illustrations.
(Forget Poyer's "Types". No one else uses his nomenclature to identify Krag part variations. Experienced Krag enthusiasts find his "Types" annoying).

Your rifle looks correct to me. This combination of parts has been together for a long time. I don't see anything out of order in your photos.

FWIW - It is not unusual to see a Krag with a front-sight blade that has been filed-down to correct elevation.
Also, the model 1896 Krag rear-sight required a shorter front-blade (.285"), than the model 1901 and 1902 rear-sights, (which used a .413" blade).

I took the liberty of editing some of your Imgur photos and posted them here, so they become a permanent part of this thread.

[butlersrangers]

I've corrected Mallory's sight-blade chart, found in "The Krag Rifle Story".

It was missing the label for the model 1896 rifle sight.

[Navy87Guy]

I've corrected Mallory's sight-blade chart, found in "The Krag Rifle Story".

It was missing the label for the model 1896 rifle sight.

Poyer lists the 1896 Rifle sight as being 0.285” high sight…the same as the 1896 Type 2.

[butlersrangers]

I don't understand your response to my last post.

I was trying to communicate that your blade, (intended for the model 1896 rear-sight),
should measure approximately .285" tall, when removed from the Krag fixed front-sight base.

The later Krag rear-sights were partnered with .410" to .413" blades, inserted into the fixed base.

[Navy87Guy]

I don't understand your response to my last post.

I was trying to communicate that your blade, (intended for the model 1896 rear-sight),
should measure approximately .285" tall, when removed from the Krag fixed front-sight base.

The later Krag rear-sights were partnered with .410" to .413" blades, inserted into the fixed base.

Sorry for the confusion…I was trying to highlight that Poyer has it right in his book.(Table 2-14, page 131).