1896 & 1898 Model actions

[waterman]

I've messed around with both types and have decided that I personally like the 1896 action with a purposely designed steel slot that accommodates the bolt handle. As a shooter, it just "feels" safer. Was the 1898 design better? Or was it just cheaper to produce?

[butlersrangers]

IMO - The model 1898 action was easier and faster to produce, by eliminating and simplifying multiple machining operations.

It also simplified shaping of stock in the bolt-handle recess area, eliminating the intricate wood fit around and under the receiver 'flange'.

The 1898 bolt handle could still engage with the receiver, so that it could serve as a third 'bolt-lug' in the event the primary locking-lug failed.
The guide-rib on the bolt-body also was a safety 'bolt-lug'.

I do not think the model 1898 & 1899 Krag actions sacrificed any strength, when compared to the earlier 1892 and 1896 Krag actions.
Normally, only the bottom of the bolt-handle 'root' is making actual contact with the receiver, on American Krag actions.

Sometimes, a lot of edges and angles in a complex metal part can make it more vulnerable to flaws, than a simpler and more straight forward part.

But then again, I'm no enginerd or machinist!