Krag Carbine Serial Numbers

[5MadFarmers]

I like time to stew things. It helps.

Take that gun out of the stock. There are short and long stocks with that being the longer. The finish on the underside of the barrel wears based on stock length. If you pop that out and the wear continues on the underside of the barrel back to a clear stop point further back than expected it's a sign that the barrel was in a short stock. That would eliminate the stock from belonging to the rest.

Doesn't help with the metal bits though.

[Kragrifle]

Leave it alone.

[1mark]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

[5MadFarmers]

Whether it's whittled or done for some other reason ignored, that's an M-1896 carbine type 2 stock. A bonus post to explain that.

"Types." One of the biggest issues I have with Poyer's book is he makes up types. Which tends to over-ride the actual usage of them in military service. The army had "types" and they are very specific. There are "Models" and there are "Types."

A model is changed when interchangeability is lost.

The designations are designed to maintain the stuff. The DRMs were eventually replaced by Standard Nomenclature Lists (SNLs). This has to do with levels of maintenance. There are basically only two levels at the point in time the Krags were in service but that number changed to three during War 1.

Field level.
Depot.

The Depot is the Armory or an Arsenal in the Krag era. Sew them together and remember that it's all designed around maintaining them.

"We have an M-1892 rifle and the little thingy broke. How do we fix that?"
"Look at the DRM and tell us the proper term for that part and we'll tell you if it's field replaceable or if it's a depot thing."

Typically if it was field replaceable it would be a part number on an SNL but it'd be a "piece mark" on the blueprint (called tracings at the time) if it was a depot repair. In the Krag era they had to publish a list of what could be changed in the field and what was done in the depot.

With that in mind, when the M-1892s were turned in for alteration they became M-1896s. "M-1892/96" is not a term that makes any sense. They're either M-1892s or their M-1896s as that defines the parts. "I have an M-1892 rifle and need a complete assembled bolt." "I have an M-1896 and need a complete assembled bolt." Two different bolts. Right down to the pieces. Why two? Because later you might order an Extractor and it matters. M-1879 trapdoors were considered M-1879s, and maintained that way, until altered and then became the later model. They worked at keeping the models right for maintenance purposes. Using "Models."

"We have an M-1896 carbine and the stock is broke. Send a replacement." Oy. We have a problem. There are two. The barrel band is different. "Is it the type 1 or type 2?"

The correct usage of the term type. When a standard Model has two non-interchangeable editions they're types. Type 1, type 2, etc.,

That is the M-1896 Type 2 stock. To us it's the "long" stock. To them it's the Type 2.

If the part didn't affect interchangeability they simply didn't care. Didn't need to. It's only when it affected interchangeability that they did. Again, when the M-1892s were updated to M-1896 format they became M-1896s. If they retained parts from the M-1892 it would be a part where interchangeability didn't matter. If the part is specific to the M-1892s and shows up on one altered to M-1896 format either they screwed up or somebody has been playing with the gun. Models and types. They didn't like types so they started moving to models on the parts themselves. "Model 1901 sight." Not "M-1898 rifle sight, Type 2."

With me so far? The rifle receivers marked "1894" were used on the M-1892 rifles. Later those were upgraded to M-1896 rifles. The marking on the receiver isn't what they homed in on. That created problems so the "M" was added during M-1896 production. Then it did matter. M-1899. Same receiver as M-1898. They finally had the ability to remark receivers and M-1898 receivers used in M-1899 use were overstamped. If you think about it that can only be done once.

"1894" marked receivers, used in M-1892 production, were later upgraded to M-1896. There really weren't any production carbines that early.

But why would they get hung up on using one? See it? It disturbs us but if you think it through it wouldn't have mattered to them. An M-1896 carbine assembled on an 1894 receiver would simply be an M-1896 carbine. That stock though, presenting interchangeability issues, would need something to set it apart for support. "Type 2."

So why don't we see more M-1896 carbines on 1894 receivers? Because by the time the M-1892s were turned in for rebuild in large numbers the M-1898s were out. They didn't need lots of M-1896 carbines. "5Mad, how can you possibly know that?"

Because the guns, at that time, were typically issued to the regular army when new. After they were turned in they were rebuilt and sent out to the Militia. The Militia, not being a full time thing, had more infantry percentage-wise than it had either Artillery or Cavalry. "Horses." Horses need to be fed full time. The army complained regularly about the Militia not being willing to do the same percentage of mounted to dismounted as the army. The Militia had a very specific reason. In any event the Militia had a demand for more rifles than carbines, as a mix, than the army. Not saying they didn't have any Cavalry - just not as much.

Models and Types. Used to keep the parts straight. "Send me an M-1892 bayonet band." That part is model specific. "Send me a barrel band." Not so much.

An M-1896 carbine on an "1894" receiver doesn't bug me. That receiver has the notch so it's now, to the army of the time, an M-1896 receiver. Uses the M-1896 bolt. The stock is the Type 2. Whether it was made that way or whittled by somebody after the fact it's a Type 2.

[5MadFarmers]

Well Farmer as always I do enjoy reading your posts. Always very informative. And you raised a very good subject. Not everything flowed in consecutive order and there were turn in's resulting in odd configurations other than those as the number go. The more I think about it, it will remain as is.

I did pop it out of the stock. The ware pattern matches the existing stock exactly. So it was not in a shorter stock and than placed in this one.

No problem. When this thread completes, assuming it stays on topic, print it and keep it with the gun. It'll save you much time and argument with "experts."

With that in mind, given the stock wear pattern on the metal matches, I'll cover the bolt cut.

"It's beyond our understanding and knowledge level." That is the correct answer. When was it cut like that and by whom? "We don't know." Wanting it to be a "standard cut" is pointless. It isn't a standard cut. Why it's not isn't something we know. That it's on a carbine with an early receiver means we toss our rules out the window and try to understand but the final answer is "we're guessing as it's beyond our knowledge." If that was a bog normal M-1896 we should be disturbed. It's not so we shouldn't be. We should be curious and cautious.

I'm going to make up an answer. "That receiver originally assembled as a carbine test mule for M-1896 carbine development. After that it was kept at SA as a test mule. The last test they did was with some funky bolt. Then the gun was sent out the door when M-1903s became the rage."

Is that the answer? Unlikely as I made it up but not impossible. The point is we don't know. No amount of guessing is going to be satisfying.

It's an interesting gun. Beyond our knowledge. I'll make up the three gun rule:

1) Bog standard.
2) Mucked up.
3) Oddity

When faced with #3 see if it's really #2. If you can't prove it's been mucked up by somebody in some obvious way apply the rule set from #3 instead. #2 is #1 after the butchers were turned loose on it.

If your gun had a recoil pad it'd immediately have moved to #2. If it had a rifle sight it would have immediately made that trip. That that metal has sat in the stock further moves it to #3 whereas the bolt cut doesn't move it to #2. It remains at #3 for now.

[Dick Hosmer]

Pretty much agree with most of the foregoing, except the bolt cut in the stock. Cannot believe that was done at SA. It would be interesting to see if the barrel shows any sign of having been in a short stock. The long stock (excuse me, that version of long stock) did not exist during the sight trials. Nor did the large binding knob on the sight for that matter (a detail not yet entered into evidence). When I said the "carbine" had probably been together a 'long time', I did not mean to run it all the way back to its' birth at SA. Oh Francis - is this something of yours?

I'd also agree with leaving it alone, as a bit of a riddle, if nothing else.

It has already served one good purpose - that of luring our friend Joe out of the shadows once again.

[5MadFarmers]

Pretty much agree with most of the foregoing, except the bolt cut in the stock. Cannot believe that was done at SA.

Not a question of that. I'll hit it from yet another direction in a moment.

It would be interesting to see if the barrel shows any sign of having been in a short stock.

Was checked. Been in that one for ages.

The long stock (excuse me, that version of long stock)

M-1896 Type 2 versus M-1899. Exact same profile but a different bolt cut. Two different models. If the M-1899s had not received a model that would be the M-1898c Type 2. Instead M-1898 carbines were rebuilt to M-1899 standard using M-1899 stocks. Model, models, models.

did not exist during the sight trials.

Didn't need to. Something they kept around would be used for whatever games they wanted to try next. Proof? The two 1892 carbines didn't retain all of their original bits. After that role was over they played further roles. During which parts were swapped. Neither of them kept their original sights.

Nor did the large binding knob on the sight for that matter (a detail not yet entered into evidence).

The 1892c at RIA never left RIA. It sports a sight which didn't exist until well into 1896. The sight didn't go back in time - the gun came forward. Isn't the only part that was swapped later - I checked it.

When I said the "carbine" had probably been together a 'long time', I did not mean to run it all the way back to its' birth at SA.

That's what I'm going on about. Trying to wind forward from SA is only one direction. There is the other. In one direction it's:

[.]

That dot is the point in time when the Ordnance Store Keeper accepted the gun the first time.

[.AAAAAAAAASSBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB]

In that line that dot remains. The "A" is army service. To include trips, sometimes multiple, through rebuild. "S" is the surplus dealer and "B" is Bubba. So you're trying to see if it is as it was for that dot. That's going to take you back to 1895. They didn't start peddling them until well after that. Krags were issued in 1917 but I'm not going to digress into that right now. So you can either judge everything based on that dot, in which case you might as well eliminate every gun as none of them stayed there given that "A" thing, or you can figure out something else. "Under government control" works. So the dot and the A. As the carbines were hauled up a certain hill in Cuba they're well past the dot. Does that mean we ignore time in Cuba? Might have already received a replacement Extractor to replace a broken one. "While your gun is documented as having been with the 1st Vol Cav in Cuba we note that the Extractor was changed in 1897, and not at SA I might add, and thus the gun is Bubba!" That doesn't work for me.

So looking for the dot and only the dot isn't really practical. In previous posts I listed the reasons that wasn't done in the "S" or "B" range. Which means back it up. Not to the dot. Perhaps John Thompson, at whatever Ordnance post he was at in 1903, whittled it so he could see if the O.D. was interested in some novel design idea he had which didn't work out in the end. Pick any theory you'd like, and an exercise in futility, but remember to account for the "B" and "S" as that's really the important bit. What theory you put into that "A" range is theory but it doesn't matter if you get it right. What's more significant is eliminate "S" and "B". Changing it now would put it squarely at the end of that "B" line. Right now it's likely in that dot/A range. Wanting it to be the dot doesn't really add much as none are there really. Every gun that was issued was beyond the dot. The crapload of spare parts they made were made to be used and they were.

It has already served one good purpose - that of luring our friend Joe out of the shadows once again.

Not for long though. A certain poster at KCA lowers the level of that board to the useless level. Having done that there they've moved here to do the same. In spite of saying they wouldn't. Four years ago there was intelligent discussion here. That's pretty much gone. I mentioned in a previous post in this thread people reading outdated books and not understanding them. Then insisting on ranges and "made in the year 2525." Nobody that has posted in this thread thus far. I deal with that personality type at work and when I get home if I look at this board now I see those posts. "Do I really want to deal with that in my hobby?" Not after dealing with it all day.

Dick, you're mentally nimble. Keep posting. Then the other poster can add much noise and completely destroy any possible signal that existed.

Bounce it off Madsen. He's logical. He's nimble also.

[11mm]

I am going to print and keep a copy of this with Farmer's Krag book. It makes a nice addendum.

[5MadFarmers]

I have to go to work shortly but I'm going to add a bit which is not directly related but then again what I'm attempting to do is paint an environment for you. Tunnel vision is a danger.

Dick, first a small poke. Mind you I like you so this is me chuckling. In looking at the period documents it was "advance frame, snap image, advance frame, snap image, ..." So not really reading it all. Tens of thousands of images. "When I'm retired I'll walk them one by one." Doesn't mean some don't pop out at me as some do. If fact the better half is scary aware of this stuff and she'd point out frames she noted as significant as she's snapping them on the other machine. The following is accurate: when the trapdoors were auctioned off by the army they didn't all contain 100% SA parts. I know as the document grabbed me and made my head explode. It shouldn't have as it was common during WW2. "We need 3,300 of this part to repair guns. Contract it out." I have the WW2 contracts so when I look at WW2 stuff that's a given but I never walked that sideways to 1898. They were short on guns and had many broken trapdoors on hand. SA was busy so they contracted out for a specific part. I don't remember to who or for what, cam latch if I trust my memory, but it was contracted to a commercial firm. Again that was common later but not so much in 1898.

That's the lead for the next bit. In 1903 they pounded out Krag parts. In massive volume. "For spare parts while they're in Militia service." Then the Dick Act pretty much negated that. Today that's a common practice and the two work in tandem: "We're nearing end of production. Pound out spares then retool. If they run out of spares they can contract for them." Less common at the time. I included an order from RIA to SA in the book for 100 or 200 sets of M-1892 and 100 or 200 M-1896 parts. I've forgotten the volume and am too lazy to dig it out. In any event I included that so people would realized that when the M-1898 was introduced the M-1892 and M-1896 editions still needed to be supported. More importantly SA could still make the parts. They also ordered trapdoor parts and SA still made them. Need a Krag stock in 1906? Order one. They had the template and could put it in their Blanchard at SA and grind one out. They had the tools and dies. When RIA ended M-1903 production they saved all the tools and dies and restarted production elsewhere during WW2. Until that point they still had the ability to make parts if they desired (no need as SA could and was making rifles and parts).

"Environment."

Why paint that?

Because one of the other things I noticed at RIA was a method and pattern to fabrication orders. Normal rebuild work never had fab orders. "Accounting." They couldn't charge it to the unit so no fab order. If a unit broke a gun and sent it in for repair that would result in one as they billed the repair. Again, don't look at this from an "SA manufacturing view" but from a "we're supporting products and bill for it" view. If you only look at the SA manufacturing angle you'll only see what existed at a point in time. Then, like Poyer, you'll want it all linear. "Type 1-19" spread over 10 years. No. In 1902 they needed to keep making M-1896 parts. The guns were in use. They weren't contracting it out so they made the parts.

I'll close this with a weird analogy.

Trying to determine if it "left SA that way" is akin to claiming a couple's children are only legitimate if conceived on their honeymoon night.
Using "under government control" is more akin to seeing the kids as legitimate if they were conceived while the marriage was in force.
Once the wife was kicked to the curb, it's more "surplus dealer and Bubba" time.

Ranges and dates are not rules. They're guides. Then we get into the "years" claimed being from books written by authors who:
1) Didn't find the complete records (I did).
2) Didn't take into account the spare parts receivers (Frasca is good but missed this too).
3) Never figured out how many were made in total. (That massive set of spare parts receivers in 1903 bums me but via tracking in the wild guns I have a real good idea).
4) Did bad math. (Mallory's numbers are based on simple math (total /12 = monthly) and completely ignores the production ramp up for the war).

Want a list of mistakes in my book? I have a list....

Knowledge improves over time. Using Mallory at this point is not much different from claiming the world is flat. He too took the SA view - not the "military service."

He wasn't alone. Those carbine sling swivels are easily found if one doesn't stop at 1903. Run that world to 1920. The USMC didn't give them up until 1910/1911. Thus the Navy Krag loop belts.

Environment. Don't approach it from manufacturing at SA. Think of it from what you'd see in a repair depot. Then it makes sense. Otherwise it doesn't.

[jon_norstog]

This is why I stick with this site.

jn