Value of 1896 carbine

[TerryR]

I've got 24,173 it has a rear sight like the one on the right in your pic.
Any other differences to distinguish it?

Stocks don't exist. The butt plates are easy. The hard part is the other unique bits. Especially these:

[5MadFarmers]

"Any other difference?"

Many.

I've got 24,173

Mattoon last year in January per chance? If so I was debating taking that one away from you but decided to save my pennies for the incredible selection of field gear. Most of which I took but I'm kicking myself for the bits I didn't. Took a box of "leggings" for $2. Had a Krag action cover in there. Sad part is I did that three times.....



The three pictured initially were all rifle sights with the 1892 blank. Center above. Compare with the 1892 (left) and normal 1896 (right) and you'll see the lug is the same as the 1892. They burned up the 1892 blanks on the early 1896 sights.

[TerryR]

Yep, this ones from Mattoon! She's a beautiful rifle! I'm so very glad you passed on her!
The sight has the bevel on top of the leaf, and serrations on the very top to lift it.
So I'd say 1896 as it has the squared cut lugs .
Thanks for the info.

[5MadFarmers]

Wrong part to focus on. I've updated the picture so reload in your browser. Notice the two on the left have the same shape whereas the one on the right doesn't have that lug.

Left is 1892.
Middle is very early 1896.
Right is "normal" 1896.

It's that lug that identifies those sights. Early carbines have it also.

[Kragrifle]

Early, "lugged" rifle sights?

[TerryR]

I SEE now! Mine is the 1896 like the one on the right.
My 68,xxx 96 carbine taken from the same estate auction that was earlier in the month, has the early 96 sight.
thanks again for the help. Pics say a thousand words!
Terry

[5MadFarmers]

I SEE now! Mine is the 1896 like the one on the right.
My 68,xxx 96 carbine taken from the same estate auction that was earlier in the month, has the early 96 sight.
thanks again for the help. Pics say a thousand words!
Terry

While I collect bayonets I'm not a bayonet collector. While I collect guns I'm not really a gun collector either. I also have field gear, uniforms, tools, etc., Tents, sleeping bags, snow shoes, etc.,

When I saw the pictures for that auction what caught my eye first was the early M-1910 canteen. I'd never seen that edition. Then the cartridge belts. That was an impressive collection.

So I drove to Mattoon for the field gear. I looked at all the Krags and even bid on a few. I didn't bid enough to take any. I already have a lot of Krags. So that 1892/96 you took caught my eye. You did well with that rifle. That said I already have a pile of those so one more wasn't of as much value to me as the field gear - much of which I didn't have. So I didn't pass on that gun due to it not being a nice gun, it was a very nice example and you did well in taking it, I passed on it as I didn't know what the damage would be in the field gear. The field gear went after the guns. After all was said and done I probably should have taken that rifle too.

I knew what it was. The damage in the field gear worked out to be less than expected. The only gun I "won" was a .22 rifle, NIB, after the auction ended. They raffled off, free tickets one per person, 4 rifles. I won the Henry .22. Given my FFL is C&R I gave that, and the FOID thing, thought and gave it to a kid there who lived locally. He did help me load my car. Fair trade.

====

Early, "lugged" rifle sights?

They're all the rage. No fashionable collection is missing one.

Yes, when Chuck Wright first mentioned he had one I wondered if he was jerking my chain. According to the existing Krag lore they shouldn't exist. Yet they do. Three of them sitting here have convinced me it's so. Thus the Krag lore is wrong. As it is in many areas.

====

Last Summer, August in fact, I took two weeks and wrote the Krag book. That included pictures which apparently made Mr. Hosmer upset. We're not in agreement on that. I get his view. I don't even disagree with it. I also get mine. Just because somebody likes Corvettes doesn't mean it's right for me. Perhaps a Jeep is.

Between the stop energy that caused, my new job eating my brain, and a birdy telling me I really did need to include some pictures of the peripheral stuff I just stopped. Putt he book away and didn't do any more work. Left it right there. A year later the guns are still sitting where I left them on the floor.

I also have the field gear. A surprising amount of it. Somebody with three lugged rifle sights is going to have a lot of stuff right?

Gathering up the peripheral stuff is no mean feat. It's all scattered in boxes. A box full of "canteens" contains "canteens." Not "Krag era canteens." Ditto meat cans and the rest. The Krag stuff, to include tools, was easy as those are in the safes. It's the field gear which was a problem. That's boxed. Lots of boxes. Bedrooms full of boxes.

Kind of long. That's ok.

I'm not a collector; the research is of more interest to me. I'm also employed in a field having nothing to do with this. Thus it's not paying me. Krags are a sideshow.

The research isn't finished. The Krag collection mainly is. It's time to move on and I have. I've been hitting WW2 hard.

All of which tells me it's time to get this Krag book thing out the door. I have other areas I need to focus on. The garage is currently filled with boxes. Yesterday we started opening the existing boxes and transferring. Sorting as we go. The "bulk" of the stuff is WW1 and WW2. Those boxes will get sealed. The ones left open will be those having the stuff of the Krag era.

I'll pull random Krag era stuff and take more quick pictures. I'll add information from the research material I have and toss it together. Like a salad. The pictures will again be gimpy and the research not fully leveraged. That's ok. It's a Renoir - not a Rembrandt.

The books I intend to do, once the research and collection is complete, will be Rembrandts. Not the Krag book. It's out of band. A quick and dirty book to get it out of the way.

Call it the "Austere" edition.

In fact I'm thinking I'll go even more austere. Buy a big laser printer and a ring binding machine and churn it out in the basement.

It's not the book people are expecting. Be prepared for that. It's also not what you'd think from reading that. Brophy and Mallory are the Battleships of guns. This isn't going to be a Cruiser or Destroyer. Nor will it be a pocket battleship. Different book entirely. A Prairie Schooner.

The lugged rifle sights are covered. As is much else. It's a readable book. An entertaining book. A book written in two weeks.

As soon as the boxes are done it's time to finish the pictures and push it out the door.

[Dick Hosmer]

So, after pretty much bashing and denigrating the work of all previous authors on the subject, you have managed to produce (or at least coalesce from your research) a work in two weeks which, after all the blather, may not be the promised be all end all we have been waiting for? That seems too bad. I will, of course, reserve judgement until I see it, but the status report sounds rather depressing. The value of any book is in its' content and accuracy, so, hopefully, regardless of the wrapping, the work will add to our knowledge. I'm sure we were all looking forward to something truly grand - refer numerous laudatory comments.

The picture(s) that "upset" me were the humped Cadet, right?

Glad you have returned to the fray, so to speak.

[5MadFarmers]

So, after pretty much bashing and denigrating the work of all previous authors on the subject, you have managed to produce (or at least coalesce from your research) a work in two weeks which, after all the blather, may not be the promised be all end all we have been waiting for?

A man once set out on a journey. Departing on foot from St. Louis he wandered the trails towards California. Given the difficulty of the journey he made it 200 miles before he couldn't continue. Another man set out to further that trail. The first 200 miles were easier as he had the journal from the first man. He extended the trail another 100 miles and then collapsed. The third man was able, via backing, to extend the trail another 150 miles before collapsing.

I have zero intention of pushing that trail another 100 miles given that the first man headed West when what he was after was East. No amount of work down that trail is, as far as I can see, useful. As to denegrating the previous authors let's narrow that down shall we? Find, and the Internet lives a long time, a single case of me claiming Brophy and Mallory did not do good work. Want multiple links to the contrary? I think they both did very good work. Thus we're left with a third author aren't we? I'll retain my opinion of that work. Even more so after doing mine.

That seems too bad.

Either that or it seems good. I'm heading East.

I will, of course, reserve judgement

That's a mighty tall horse. Belgian draft?

until I see it, but the status report sounds rather depressing.

I don't find it depressing at all. I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want another Brophy/Mallory style book feel free to write it. Nobody is stopping you. I don't think it's the right book. You prefer the Vette, I'm more of a Jeep man. What you seem unable to grasp Dick is that the book I produce is the book I produce. It's going to suit and originate from my perspective.

The value of any book is in its' content and accuracy,

This, fundamentally, is where we disagree. In a fashion you don't see the other side of. The value of a book of this nature has entirely to do with whether or not it advances the state of knowlege in a manner that the reader finds useful. You're a fan of "tree" books. This isn't a "tree" book. This is a "forest" book. The intent, and it does it handily, is to get people to stop staring at those trees.

so, hopefully, regardless of the wrapping, the work will add to our knowledge. I'm sure we were all looking forward to something truly grand - refer numerous laudatory comments.

What too many people are looking forward to to Brophy(2) and Mallory(2). It isn't that.

The picture(s) that "upset" me were the humped Cadet, right?

There was no "humped Cadet." There were pictures of three guns digitally blended and photographed in such a manner that the end result is, visually, a perfect picture of a Cadet. As made. Let's repeat: there was never any such gun. So "humped pictures" of a non-existant Cadet; not pictures of a "humped Cadet" as it never existed. The distinction is quite clear - photo foo, not gun foo. Now, on your Belgian draft, let's talk about your seeking a sight for a Hotchkiss. Is that digital nonsense or are you intending to render that in metal? Which would be a "humped gun?:"
A) A gun which does not, and never has, existed. A digitally created photograph of a gun which does not exist.
B) A gun which had parts altered.

I think that part that upset people is I posted the photo without letting people know what it was. Everyone was sucked in. Which was my point. "Passes." As it did. As it should as it was nicely done.

Fix your Hotchkiss. But don't go telling others about "humped guns" when it's done.

I am going to "hump" a Cadet. The difference at that point is the "Cadet" will always be known as a fabrication of something which doesn't exist. Whereas "restored" guns do exist.

In fact I'm going to fabricate three of them.

====

Strangely the part of my job which was sucking my brain is an almost direct match for this situation. I detailed it for my project managers about two weeks ago. It's pretty simple really:

Vision
Model
==================<------ IQ line
Details

People with IQ focus below the line. Those without focus above. I have no IQ. I'm good with that.

Glad you have returned to the fray, so to speak.

I'll be honest. I needed to dig in those boxes for the Krag gunk. That said if it was only that I would not have. I also needed an inventory of WW2 uniform items so I can finish that collection. It took both together to get it done.

The Krag book isn't what people expect. Exactly two people have read it which is myself and PH. PH loved it. The only critic that matters if you think about it real hard. She paid for half of it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Truly, not your average Joe!

I had forgotten the fact that the Cadet was digital. My bad.

With regards to humping my Hotchkiss - non-invasive replacement of a clearly wrong part with an original is more like un-humping. The gun speaks for itself, it is otherwise correct.

Making up wannabe look alikes from 21st-century manufactured components is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm not planning to re-engrave a common sight and call it good. There is correspondence to the effect that SA was not happy with the sights originally put on the "old model" of 1878, which were supposedly corrected in the "new model" of 1879. So, while, I highly doubt it, the TD sight presently on there could have been an attempt to correct whatever they felt was wrong". In retrospect, I am beginning to wonder if the oddball sight on GB was a fake after all.

Sadly, I find your IQ comment to be rather condescending - I'd wager yours is near-genius. And, I suspect PH is probably predjudiced - which is a good thing! Ruminate on the consequences if it were not so. [GRIN]

Repeat line 1.