New Krag

[5MadFarmers]

I would imagine that if M1892 sights were used on M1898 rifles, it would have been during the short time that the M1898 sights had to be dumped because of the problems with the new ammo. At that time they could have used M1892 sights due top a shortage of M1896 sights because the hand guards could fit either one and the screws were the same. However, those SN numbers would have been in the early range for M1898s, and the rifles made with the M1892 sights could have been retained at the Armory, ready to issue if need be, but changed to the M1896 sight as soon as possible.

Problem with that theory is the early 1898s were made with 1896, not 1898, sights.

M-1898 rifles started leaving the line just before the Spanish threw in the towel. If they ran out of sights about that time why didn't the last of the 1896s get 1892 sights too? Next question: where did they get the 1892s? The 1892 rifle were still in service. Recall 1892 rifles to take the sights off them to field 1898s? The 1898 wasn't an "improved" Krag - it was a "less expensive" Krag. So why take the trouble to sideline one rifle for another?

By the time they stopped using the hotter cartridges the 1898s had been coming off the line for some time. The 1892s and 1896s still existed. So where was the demand? The PI? Count the troops sent and the Krags available and you'll find a surplus. Militia? Dick Act came well after the 1901 sight swap game.

After they dropped the 1898 sights they held the guns at SA until sights were ready. It's in their annual report.

So we're left with two problems:
1) Why would they do this when they had more rifles than they needed?
2) Where did they get 1892 sights? The 1892s were in service. Doubtful they made 1892 sights at that time in great numbers as it's just as easy to make the 1896.

Me thinks Frank was staring at his navel.

[5MadFarmers]

Now we're going to confuse OP.

There is ZERO chance your gun had the 1892 originally. Ok, so .0000000000000001% chance. Same thing.

They set up additionally machinery to pound out the 1901 sight like samples. The idea was to retrofit all the guns with those. They then ran into a wall but the point remains that the equipment to make sights was something they weren't short of in 1903. The other problem with the 1892 sight in 1903 is they were cranking out the 1902 sights at a volume that was incredible; the '03 had entered production.

So the academic debate on 1892 sights on later rifles would be resolved by 1901 regardless. For 1902+ the choices are two depending on who was sober enough to work that day: 1901 or 1902 sight.

[Kragrifle]

I have read somewhere the last few Krags produced, or refitted, utilized 1901 style sights. My 1904 rifle has the 1902 rear sight.

[5MadFarmers]

I have read somewhere the last few Krags produced, or refitted, utilized 1901 style sights. My 1904 rifle has the 1902 rear sight.

The 1902 sight was in vogue until 1905. At which point Blunt, then Commander at RIA, was the president of a board held at Fort Leavenworth to consider sights. Phipps, at SA, "didn't have enough time" to send a modified 1901 sight as requested by Blunt. Blunt had one made at Rock Island.

Thus the M-1905 sight - a return to the 1901 updated.

Phipps was apparently of the Mordecai school whereas Blunt was of the Buffington.

I'd expect a gun assembled in 1904 to have the 1902. They were current production for the '03.

What type of serrations does the leaf of your sight have (on the side - used for friction locking)?

[1563621]

This is my first Krag, Have had well over 200 garands.

[1563621]

few more.

[Dick Hosmer]

Dare I mention that the 1892 sight slide doesn't use friction/serrations in the sense that the 1898/02/03 sights do, but rather engages fixed slots?

[1563621]

This looks like the 1892, but no slots, Uses friction on slide.

[thorin6]

After they dropped the 1898 sights they held the guns at SA until sights were ready. It's in their annual report.

Thus my speculation; at the point that they ran out of M1896 sights, before they made more of them, and assuming that there were unused M1892 sights available at the Armory (I'm assuming that M1892 sights would be kept as spares to replace broken/damaged sights), would Springfield Armory put M1892 sights on completed M1898 rifles as place holders, and then replaced them as soon as M1896 sights were available? I believe you are right that none of the M1898 rifles left the Armory with M1892 sights, and again, just speculating (my last comment on this).

[5MadFarmers]

Dare I mention that the 1892 sight slide doesn't use friction/serrations in the sense that the 1898/02/03 sights do, but rather engages fixed slots?

Wasn't clear - the 1904 dated gun. Series production stopped in 1903. Examples with 1904 stamps exist. Not much different than 1896s with cartouches after those were no longer in production.

The serrations on the side of the sight ladder might be a clue.

====

This is my first Krag, Have had well over 200 garands.

In the end the numbers will be reversed. It's inevitable. Might as well start selling the M1s to start paying for the Krags. As an added bonus you'll free up the safe space.

Sold a couple of M1s last weekend. No Krags.

====

Thus my speculation; at the point that they ran out of M1896 sights, before they made more of them, and assuming that there were unused M1892 sights available at the Armory (I'm assuming that M1892 sights would be kept as spares to replace broken/damaged sights), would Springfield Armory put M1892 sights on completed M1898 rifles as place holders, and then replaced them as soon as M1896 sights were available?

Where is the value? Just two screws to take out before putting the new sights on. Besides, I think they held them for the 1901 sights so they'd have to make handguards which they'd know weren't right. I'd have to review those reports in order to confirm they were held for 1901, not 1896, sights but that's what's in the noggin.

just speculating (my last comment on this).

Speculate away. That's what keeps us all on our toes so we don't begin staring at our own navels.

If large numbers of 1892s had been altered they'd have free 1892s but most of that was later. There are some other basic reasons why installing 1892s would be bad but, regardless, we don't seem to see that theory hold true on guns in the wild. Very few 1898s are seen with 1892 sights and in the bulk of the cases where they are it's too scattered to indicate armory/arsenal work.

Then, again, we get to that "a sample of one isn't any sample at all." Maybe this particular gun was personally made for Mordecai - a fan of the 1892. A sample of one is no sample at all. "Most likely wrong. .0000001% chance of being right."