Attachment 35170
Printable View
Uhhh - so far as the "low-balling individual" comment is concerned - you need to realize that you have, in the eyes of 99% of the collecting world, 'damaged goods'. I do not mean to be hurtful, or rude, just realistic, but, the work done (innocently, as a proud owner) to the gun has deeply damaged its' value.
A great many Krags have a similar history, since they were available at extremely low cost, and made excellent hunting rifles.
Do your daughters have children? I'd think long and hard before passing off a family keepsake for the measly sum you will obtain - once gone, you can never get it back.
Just my $.02 - based on 45+ years of serious collecting.
I appreciate your honesty. What's your take on the front sight, original or replacement? Thank You
Blade definitely aftermarket - base inconclusive from angle presented. Need to see interface between base and barrel - so - that means an angle view down from the top. FWIW, it LOOKS OK from the side, but cannot be sure.
Any of these help?
Attachment 35175Attachment 35176Attachment 35177Attachment 35178
Not quite the angle, or the detail/close-up, that I was hoping for, but, that looks to most likely be correct. If it isn't, it is certainly quite well done.
Care to post a pic of your front sight?
'loco_engr' - Enlarged and brightened, your front-sight base appears correct for a Krag carbine barrel. The Blade, as others have said, is a commercial replacement. (I have brightened your photo and supplied a photo of my 1899 carbine front-sight for comparison).
Attachment 35179Attachment 35180
Question: Did the 1896 Springfield Armory Krag Carbine have any cartouches on the stock?
Appreciate your post, but mine is an Model 1896