Value of 1896 carbine

[5MadFarmers]

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.

Not terribly long ago the CMP received requests to "correct" some M1 rifles. With an eye to customer service they did. WW2 parts on "otherwise correct" 1950s production. Obviously wrong! At least so the books would indicate. Except those parts were put on there at SA. Why waste good parts? So a "clearly wrong" part may not be wrong. Let's assume that it's so bogus it declares its' bogosity. Now we're left with the question of what's right? That is where the devil enters the game. The reason for that is why half of the university programs are bogus. One basic assumption which is wrong. So we should tread lightly on correcting the sample rate of one item.

Guns are best left as found if originality is what you seek. Too much happened in their lives which is lost in the mists of time. How long were people told that slings on Krag carbines were the work of bubba?

Then again it's your gun. Knock yourself out.

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.

A sample size of one is no sample at all. We know generally what's true but that is entirely unhinged when it's distilled down to a sample rate of one.

Sadly, I find your IQ comment to be rather condescending - I'd wager yours is near-genius.

With respect to IQ, like Japanese Yen, I have none. Close enough to none for it to be within the margin of error for none. Zilch. On an IQ test I might even manage to turn in the only negative score they've ever encountered. I'm used to it. I've learned to adapt. I do mean that about IQ - I'm not guessing. The brain has two sides. Mine is completely dark on that side. "Dark matter." Except it's dark but that doesn't matter.

The other side makes up for it. I get textbook examples daily at work. I work in a sea of High IQ people. Brains put together differently. IQ people see one side of the coin. I see the other. Is one better than the other? Who knows? It's just the way it is. In any event the Brophy and Mallory books are from the IQ side. Mine will by definition be from the other. Hard not to be right? If all you have is grapes you don't make orange juice. Conversely if all you have is oranges you don't make grape juice. Different sides of the brain. I could create a easy test that would be even more accurate than IQ tests to determine who has which side. Easy for me as I'm dark on that other side.

And, I suspect PH is probably predjudiced - which is a good thing! Ruminate on the consequences if it were not so. [GRIN]

PH has a hobby. I'm it. I'm ok with that. She gets what she needs out of it.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorta blending two threads here, but how do you rationalize s/n overlap as apparently being OK, yet, as you yourself have said, on many an occasion, NO ONE has followed ANY rifle from then to now, so, how can that be. Who says an overlap gun is correct?

I think it could be stated with equal accuracy that they were not intended to be so - particularly at the 96-98 break. What we see now, on any gun, is the result of Lord knows what. I'd have to have any alleged overlap gun in my hands. I know what I was able to do with a low-grade program (way below Photoshop) when combining images for my book. Given a person with your skill-set and a high-end program, there is no way in hell I'd ever accept a photo as "proof" again.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THAT THAT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO APPLY TO YOUR GIVEN WORD!!!

IF I can find a proper HC sight, I'll probably install it, and keep the other with the gun so that the next custodian can make their own choice.

[5MadFarmers]

Sorta blending two threads here,

Unlikely anybody cares. They're here for entertainment and there is that. If they do care they can just skip the thread. I'll post a picture of a Hollywood starlet photoshopped to carry a Krag in a new thread to distract them.

but how do you rationalize s/n overlap as apparently being OK,

Some things are black and white and others are gray. Overlap is black and white and then enters gray. Not the other way around. Patterns and puzzles - my noggin does those ok.

1898s and 1899s overlap. No doubt. Have examined said guns. So we have a fixed: 1898s and 1899s overlap.

Patterns repeat. If the 1898s and 1899s overlap the others do also. That's a given as it was non-linear production. The book covers that.

So overlaps don't bug me. Black and white (1898s and 1899s do in a fashion that cannot be disputed as physical specimens display it) shifting frequencies to gray (somebody who voted for Obama likely voted for Clinton, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, etc.). Springfield's production was non-linear and that is established with the 1898s/1899s and thus is likely true at other nearby destinations. Time based frequency distribution would tells us it dissipates the further from the nexis point one travels. Thus the M1s made at SA may not suffer as the distance (time) is great. 1896s aren't a great distance away. Ergo those are likely affected and overlap.

No problem.

That's generic. Nothing to do with sample rates of one. Overlap exists in the 1898s and 1899s and it exists with sample sizes greater than one. I've seen numbers of them that prove it out. Simple science on that one. I'll walk sideways. I saw a couple of RIA produced bayonets. With serials of course. Along came a 1919 RIA marked sample that was, get this, lower in serial than the top 1917 dated ones. That 1919 bayonet is thus a sample rate of one and something funky. Another shortly appeared and repeated the pattern. Two 1919 bayonets lower in serial than a group of 1917s. So what's up with that? It's not a sample rate of one and thus qualifies as a pattern.

A sample size of one is no sample size at all. Once it's two it's a pattern. Three is a stronger pattern. Four is stronger yet. 1898s/1899s don't just overlap at a sample size of one, they overlap at a higher sample rate. Thus it's a pattern. Patterns repeat and thus the 1896s are likely affected. Same workers and same work flow. Time nexis is close.

Not a problem for me. It's a pattern and not a sample size of one. Two different things.

You see 10 guys standing in a row. The first and last three have Russian hockey jerseys on. You ask all six if they're on the Russian hockey team. "Yes." Are the middle four? They have Russian hockey jerseys. You ask the next three. "Yes, yes, and yes." One remaining. "No, I'm just a fan." Sample size of one. You're speaking to members of the Russian hockey team. Except the fan dude. He's not. He's a sample size of one. You turn around and there are ten dudes with Canadian hockey jerseys on. Are they all hockey players? You ask. Eight players and two fans. Now your sample rate of one is no longer a sample rate of one. It's a pattern. "Around me tend to be ten dudes with the same jersey, of which most are players but some are fans." Patterns repeat. You look to the left. Ten dudes in Swedish hockey jerseys. What are the odds some are players and some fans? A sample size of one is no sample at all. A sample size greater is a pattern and patterns repeat. With dissipation as you travel further from the nexis. Five days later you're at your local bar and almost everybody is wearing American hockey jerseys. No players - all fans. Nexis distance too great for the pattern to hold true.

yet, as you yourself have said, on many an occasion, NO ONE has followed ANY rifle from then to now, so, how can that be.

Sample size of one. Thus true.

Who says an overlap gun is correct?

Me. Sample rate is higher than one and thus it's a pattern.

I think it could be stated with equal accuracy that they were not intended to be so - particularly at the 96-98 break.

Sample rate holds true with the 1898s and 1899s. This gives us a pattern. Closer to nexis the more likely it's true. Are you ready for it? Are you sure? 1898 rifles and 1898 carbines overlap. Duh huh? We know they do. Non-linear production again. Pattern held true. Thus the 1896 carbines and rifles likely have overlap. We've seen the pattern twice. Cadets and early 1896 carbines? Look for overlap.

Doesn't mean the 1896s and 1898s do though. That'd be a different pattern. This would require overlap when the receivers themselves are physically different. Doesn't mean it doesn't occur and doesn't mean it didn't. It means I've not seen a sample of overlap. So a sample size of zero. Not enough input to process. What we do know is it's more likely than not. There is a pattern which forces the overlap and, if you reason out that pattern, you'll see why it indicates that overlap in the 1896/1898 transition is more likely than not. I'll let people hang in suspense on that for a minute and cover it below. Figured you'd want to see if you can figure it out for yourselves first. My noggin just does patterns and puzzles. Answers just appear in flashing lights in that part of the brain.

What we see now, on any gun, is the result of Lord knows what. I'd have to have any alleged overlap gun in my hands. I know what I was able to do with a low-grade program (way below Photoshop) when combining images for my book. Given a person with your skill-set and a high-end program, there is no way in hell I'd ever accept a photo as "proof" again.

Trust but verify. Have at it. I've seen in in multiple occurances already. Just bought one. I held a rifle which overlaps it.

NOTE VERY CAREFULLY THAT THAT STATEMENT IS NOT MEANT TO APPLY TO YOUR GIVEN WORD!!!

I never lie. Really, I don't. I tell tall tales and engineer realities but never lie. Personal quirk.

When they made 1898 rifles and carbines the receiver was the same as was the model marking. Let's skip that as uninteresting.

When they made 1898 rifles and 1899 carbines the marking was different. Overlap occurs. Thus one of two situations is true:

1) They marked the serial before the model.
2) They marked the serial after the model but the receivers hit the serial machine out of order.

In either case one of the two above being true would indicate overlap is likely for the 1896/1898 rifle transition. Same pattern.

IF I can find a proper HC sight, I'll probably install it, and keep the other with the gun so that the next custodian can make their own choice.

It would be best. Truth helps.

Dick, distances are an IQ thing. Shapes aren't. Neither are hues. I can spot an arsenal rebuild Krag on sight. The book will detail how. It's hues.

[Dick Hosmer]

Ahh, semantics! Perhaps we are not in agreement as to what is an overlap?

(1) 1898 rifles mixed with 1898 carbines is not an "overlap", it is simply utilization of the part
(2) high numbered rifles with 1899 receivers are not "overlaps", but, again, utilization of the part.
(3) high-numbered 1898 carbines are either arsenal mistakes (grabbed wrong part) or rebuilds, or fakes made for dummies, but are not "overlaps".
(4) rifles in apparent carbine blocks, and vice-versa, are arsenal mistakes, rebuilds, legitimate or otherwise, or fakes, but not "overlaps".
(5) an 1896-shaped receiver found with a number higher than an 1898-shaped receiver would be an overlap.
(6) a "Model 1896" receiver numbered lower than an "1896" receiver would be an overlap.
(7) an "1895" marked receiver with a higher number than an "1896" receiver would be an overlap.
(8) of course, an "1894" receiver numbered higher than an "1895" receiver would also be an overlap.

We know that (1) thru (4) exist.

I very much doubt that (5) does.

So far, AFAIK, we have not found a (6)

(7) and (8) are alleged to exist, but, AFAIK, only in the written (and transcribed at that) word. I want to see physical proof, in my hands, not in a book, not in a photo, before I will believe that they do. Color me very skeptical.

[5MadFarmers]

Ahh, semantics! Perhaps we are not in agreement as to what is an overlap?

(4) rifles in apparent carbine blocks, and vice-versa, are arsenal mistakes, rebuilds, legitimate or otherwise, or fakes, but not "overlaps".

overlap
verb

to lie over the edge of (something) : to cover part of the edge of (something)

to happen at the same time as something else

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/overlap

Overlaps. Argue it out with Merriam-Webster. I'd recommend against it though. You'll end up in librarian prison getting shushed all day.

When they made 1898 rifles and 1899 carbines the marking was different. Overlap occurs. Thus one of two situations is true:

1) They marked the serial before the model.
2) They marked the serial after the model but the receivers hit the serial machine out of order.

In either case one of the two above being true would indicate overlap is likely for the 1896/1898 rifle transition. Same pattern.

I'm not going to bother with the point by point. I mentioned "trees" before. This isn't to say I agree with those points themselves as I don't necessarily. What it means is I'll wait until people have had time to digest the book. Then at least people will understand the language I'm speaking.

I have boxes to process. Living room is a disaster.

[Dick Hosmer]

I think we are probably done with this topic - just two hardheads - clearly neither is going to give an inch.

[Jay Johnson]

I think we are probably done with this topic - just two hardheads - clearly neither is going to give an inch.

It appears so, still, interesting read, no matter the whimsical wanderings of the farmer...OMG, how many time does one need to explain what a pattern is, maybe twice, no more! Oh, and when is he going to post those humped pictures of Hollywood starlets with Krags in their hands, I'm looking for a diversion...

[5MadFarmers]

Oh, and when is he going to post those humped pictures of Hollywood starlets with Krags in their hands, I'm looking for a diversion...

*Sigh*

Why does everyone get it backwards? Dick mentioned pictures of a humped gun when it was humped pictures of a gun and now you want humped pictures of a starlet when it'd be better if it was pictures of a humped starlet.

*Sigh*

[Jay Johnson]

I'll post a picture of a Hollywood starlet photoshopped to carry a Krag in a new thread to distract them.

I'm just here for the entertainment and you're the one offering a picture of a photoshopped Hollywood starlet carrying a Krag, which does sound entertaining to me...

[Dick Hosmer]

How about some pictures of a couple of Hollywood starlets humping next to a stack of Krags?

This is going to get totally out of hand - I can just see it coming.