$1780.00

[Big Al]

Surprised no one has mentioned the OALW carbine that just went for 1780.00.

Kinda looking for the new owner to post here.

I e-mailed the seller off and on the whole week that cut-down was for sale. It was a beautiful looking piece but when he responded that it was missing the C on the rear sight, I knew, thanks in part to you gents, that it was a cut-down which happened to have a correct front sight. Still, it spent a good part of the week under $400, and I was prepared to buy it at that price, just based on looks and condition. Imagine my surprise when, after the seller disclosed that he had been contacted by several individuals and collectors, and that it was not a true carbine, two guys got into a bidding war the day the auction ended and drove it up to $1,780. I told my wife that I almost e-mailed the seller and told him to get the money fast. .

Here's a link to the gun...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=456792830

[madsenshooter]

There's that star with a circle under the barrel's "P" proofmark. I still think that was used to denote star-gauged barrels. Makes no sense to not have some sort of permanent mark. Otherwise guys would be taking the cards with the measurements and selling them with regular barrels.

[butlersrangers]

That's a lot of money for a 'parts gun'. The rear sight is 1902 top on an 1898 base. The front sight base mounting and the "C" blade look suspect - IMHO.

[Griff Murphey]

I think the official gunbroker listing is misleading because it calls it a genuine US military arm but fails to point out it's a replica. Other message traffic may be out there but we don't know if the bidders saw it. The guy who bought it probably thinks OALW is an official arsenal mark. When the "gotta have it" bug kicks in and the buyer has the bit between his teeth sometimes there's no stopping him.

[Fred]

OALW (which stands for "Ostberg Armory and *Locomotive Works") was/is the private mark (which appears in several forms/sizes over the years) of a tinkerer - now deceased - from the midwest who was (in)famous for assembling Krag "carbines". They are also called "Red Ryders" from the pronounced reddish tone of the stain he favored. He did good work - some of them are very nice looking, but they aren't real. To his credit, he did, unlike other fakers, mark his work - but - you had to be in the know or it did no good.

*same guy was also involved in toy train (Lionel) "refinishing", etc.

This info all from the late (and greatly missed) Col. Bill Mook, one of the deans of Krag collecting. He told me Ostberg's first name, but I have misplaced the note - it MAY have been Sidney (help needed here)

Did that guy also shave the butts off of Krag rifles so that they would appear to the unsuspecting to be unaltered 1892 stocks? Whenever he and Sandy (General Hoyt S. Vandenberg) used to come out to the MO Valley shows in K.C. to sit with George Hensel and me at our tables, Bill would walk by the guy's table or hear mention of that guy's work and he'd really be pissed.

[Dick Hosmer]

I doubt it; there is really nothing you can do (with total invisibility) to "un-96" a stock. If it were only the butt, yes, maybe - but you cannot recreate the rounded end of the rod groove which is visible in front of the band - unless you made a fake forend, which woud leave a joint showing, unless done perfectly. Even the "narrow" form of groove filler would be impossible to remove without leaving traces. If I were worried about someone shaving something, I'd think first of squaring off the muzzle. Also recall that there are legitimate original 1892 stocks with curved butts, though they do not have traps. FWIW, I never heard Bill mention rifles in connection with Ostberg. Interesting topic - we could go on and on with this.

In a similar vein, I have (as an intellectual exercise ONLY) fantasized about a way to make a new tip for a trapdoor "carbine" stock where ALL joints are either buried or occur at a break in the profile, and the barrel bed is undisturbed. The work would be tedious to the max, but only an x-ray would reveal the patch. Bad Dick! No, I will NOT explain how to do it, nor have I actually tried it.

[Fred]

The guy was canting the angle of the butt plate in a bit from the heel down after altering the shape at the heel of the butt to a more acute angle. The mystery was, how he came up with an altered front band that looked so good. I think that his stuff was stained pretty well to hide any wood around the old rod channel that remained after he would drill down the length of the old rod channel plug. Hell, he might've been slimming the wrists of the 1896 stocks for all that I know to look like 92's.

[Kragrifle]

Actually the filler in the 1892 rod channel was held in place by a pair of small wooden pins that could be driven out . I have never seen it done but have seen three rifles reconverted in this way and externally they all looked pretty good. At one time I briefly owned one of these rifles until I bought my first good 1892. I never took it apart to see how the front band work was done, but externally it looked good.

[Dick Hosmer]

Actually the filler in the 1892 rod channel was held in place by a pair of small wooden pins that could be driven out . I have never seen it done but have seen three rifles reconverted in this way and externally they all looked pretty good. At one time I briefly owned one of these rifles until I bought my first good 1892. I never took it apart to see how the front band work was done, but externally it looked good.

The pins were only used with the narrow filler, but still left four holes to be plugged. The bottom of the groove was squared out for the full length, and the eliptical end of the cut, visible at the band, was removed. That is the first place to look - NEVER buy an 1892 on which the rod cut disappears under the band. If one's goal is only to install a rod and view the rifle from the side from ten feet away, then it can be done - but if the piece is to look right in one's hands, then I stand by my original comment that restoration is impossible, short of a new forend, which would itself ultimately be discoverable. I do not believe that anyone but a novice could be fooled by a faked 1892 stock.

[Fred]

Nobody was buying the stuff from him that I noticed. Bill didn't get pissed off because that particular fellow did good work and was fooling anyone, he was pissed off at him because of what the guy and his wife was trying to pull. He wasn't finding any buyers that were knowledgeable collectors. He was just out hustling people and buggering up good Krags.