Considering a couple carbines.....

Hi guys, perhaps you will lend me you're accumulated knowledge regarding a couple Krag carbines I am looking at and considering (just one or the other)?
The frst is a model 96 (dont say model) s/n 28XXX range. I have some photos coming but am told by the seller that it is pretty correct per his research. My concerns are condition. Thogh pretty decent condition, it at one time had a scope mounted on the reciever. It has the original stock, but the owner had to patch the wood that had been removed for the mount. He says the patch matches well but is about 5/8" X 3" lalong the top side on the left. The wood patch covers the holes in the reciever.
I know these are hard to find and expensive carbines. He is asking $1500. Does that patchwork effect this carbine to the point of ruining it as such??

The other is a model 99. My only concern is that the bolt has the headless cocking pc. The serial number is 358XXX range. My Poyer book tells me that by that s/n, the manufacturer had returned to the Knob headed cocking pc??
Is this indisputable?? Could that be the correct cocking pc?
Thanks everyone.

With a drilled and tapped receiver I wouldn't even consider the 1896. Parts gun and not worth $1500 in my opinion. The 1899 sounds ok. I would say the headless cocking piece is ok and even a plus. I wouldn't put much stock in Poyer or his serial breaks and "facts".

Brad,

I'd go for the '99. The '96 is boogered beyond collectability but the guy is asking a collector price. Five hundred, yes. Fifteen, no. The funny cocking piece is something that IMHO, just kind of shows up at random on later-manufactured Krags. There may be on person in the known universe who can explain them. We all know who he is.

jn

"1896" w/o "Model" is the scarcest receiver marking, but I have never seen a scope mount set so low that the holes could be covered by the wood. Gun is WAY overpriced. The 1899 would be the better choice.

Headless cocking piece was standard for a short period of time in 1900. Once thought to be exclusive to carbines, which was incorrect - apparently its' period of application was coincidental with a carbine block, so more of them got it than rifles. Later on, I'm sure it was used for rebuilds if available. No big deal - not "rare", but every serious Krag collection should have an example, I suppose. Lots of people say they have trouble gripping them - funny, I am a LONG way from being Superman, and I have never had a problem with one.

Not that I'm any kind of authority on the subject... but I can count on one hand the amount of times I have actually needed to cock either of my Krags.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteinmayer

Not that I'm any kind of authority on the subject... but I can count on one hand the amount of times I have actually needed to cock either of my Krags.

---

Then you need to do more dry firing, while saving wear and tear on the bolt, practice, practice, practice!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by psteinmayer

Not that I'm any kind of authority on the subject... but I can count on one hand the amount of times I have actually needed to cock either of my Krags.

---

I was referring to letting it down! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dick Hosmer

I was referring to letting it down! :-)

---

LOL now I do THAT all the time! I didn't think of it that way Dick... :)

Thanks to all, I had thought as much regarding the 96.
If any of you would like a few photos of either I can send.
I was really thinking about the 99 and although overall it's not bad shape, there are maybe just one too many condition issues with it.
Really the only thing I really see incorrect is that it has a Marbles front site blade, but the base is correct.
There are a couple cracks in the stock but they could be repaired easy enough. However, there is a fair sized gouge in the top if the high hump handgaured that I dont think anything could be done with.
Thanks again to all.

The dents and gouges are badges of service. My high hump handguard has a gouge in it. Doesn't bother me at all.