Strangely interesting

[Allen]

Welcome to retirement!

+1

I've been retired for 5 years now. I think about my last job that I spent 19 years at every day but I don't miss it. I take a nap every day, get up when I like and go to bed when I like, eat when I like and go to places when I like. What keeps me busy is all the years of neglected house and yard work.

Congrats !!!

[Fred]

I retired seven years ago when I was 54. There's all sorts of time on my hands now to do what I want. If I don't think of anything, my wife will involve me with something. Usually concerning the yard or constructing a stone patio or a dog obedience class or an event somewhere.
I'd be living in a trailer eating pork and beans every day if I hadn't met and fallen for my wife. She too has invested wisely in the Market. She's a smart gal whose abilities have made us financially independent. Neither one of us is high maintenance, so we live modestly and keep investing wisely. She says that if nothing were to improve for us financially over what it's been for the past 8 years, our money will last us if we lived to be 100 or more. If the economy really improves and once again thrives under a Trump presidency, as it certainly would and will, we've estimated we'll have more than we could ever spend in several lifetimes. It'd all be a waste of course unless we chose to pay off the mortgages of anyone we ever thought was worth sh!tting on. That wouldn't be very many people though. I'm leaning towards leaving it to animal shelters. No kidding.
In the mean time, I'm starting to get back into and interested in Krags. Im not looking to get one of every type in a collection. I'm just interested in picking up where I left off 30 years ago and learning from the guys who share their knowledge with me on the subject.

[5MadFarmers]

In the mean time, I'm starting to get back into and interested in Krags. Im not looking to get one of every type in a collection. I'm just interested in picking up where I left off 30 years ago and learning from the guys who share their knowledge with me on the subject.

Notice the indirection I used? Had people all interested in wanting to rip apart a carbine which shouldn't even be a carbine? Held out a squirrel so they'd not see the bear?

Go back and look at the M-1896 in the first photo. Look at the wear on that thing. Then go to the receivers photo and look at the serial. It's in the middle of the photo shoot. Right over the strange "1894" thing.

Twas an effective squirrel. Wonder if I should breed it.

[Kragrifle]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

[Dick Hosmer]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

How then do you account for what certainly appears to be an M1898C base? The M1902C base IS low, but it does still protrude slightly above the leaf, while the former does not, as in this sample. Granted, eyepieces, leaves, and binding screws could be and were modified, as well as swapped around, so the base is THE determining factor.

[5MadFarmers]

For what it is worth, I believe the 1902 carbine rear sight is legit. Supposedly only made 1000, but I have seen four variations in what I believe are real carbine sights.

You really want to open that can? Ok, let's do it.

That they made 1902 carbine sights is a given:



The numbers were greater than is commonly known:



Those are 1902s just based on the manufacture year.

Then the bus shows up:

Well, the receiver was obviously VERY much earlier than would have been expected, due the the presence of the trigger heel wall. The bolt shroud appears to still be present, however, the stock cut is non-standard. The rear sight is a mixmaster (1898C base, 1902 (and not an altered 1898) eyepiece, with latest 1903RB knob; obviously patina is WAY off as well.

There is no such thing as the "1903RB knob." That's a bus. They were making the same basic sight for the 1903 rifles and the 1899 carbines at that point. Why would they need different knobs?



Clearly 545 rear sights are made in that image while 30,503 M-1903s were being made. The following years have the same thing going on. They made 1896 sights that year too. Models, models, models.

All of that is pretty clear. Then we get into altered 1902 carbine sights. Something which presumably cannot exist.



We could debate all day what that means. It's well into the 1902 carbine sight era.

I'm not going to debate it though. I really don't need to. Only by jumping on the bus does one need to really get stuck on that. I don't.

[Fred]

There is no such thing as the "1903RB knob." That's a bus. They were making the same basic sight for the 1903 rifles and the 1899 carbines at that point. Why would they need different knobs?
.

I'll bet that you already know this, but don't forget that the knob on the 1903 Ramrod Bayonet rear sight leaf is dished out on either side of the slot to allow a rimless cartridge head to be used to tighten the knob.

A true Krag knob as you know has only the slot in it, without the dished out areas on either side of the slot.

Of course when the decision was made to abort the Rod Bayonet rear sights for the 1905 sights, Springfield Armory started using the already manufactured 1903 knobs on Krag 1902 sights. That's why one can find so many on 1902 Krag sights today.

[5MadFarmers]

I'll bet that you already know this, but don't forget that the knob on the 1903 Ramrod Bayonet rear sight leaf is dished out on either side of the slot to allow a rimless cartridge head to be used to tighten the knob.

A true Krag knob as you know has only the slot in it, without the dished out areas on either side of the slot.

Of course when the decision was made to abort the Rod Bayonet rear sights for the 1905 sights, Springfield Armory started using the already manufactured 1903 knobs on Krag 1902 sights. That's why one can find so many on 1902 Krag sights today.

Why would they continue to make two knobs at the same time? Why not make one? It's the same knob. That a Krag cartridge isn't the 1903 cartridge doesn't matter as it loses nothing. Whereas the reverse is less true.

[5MadFarmers]

By the way, that's a really nice RB. If I wasn't a shiftless unemployed layabout I'd be interested. Did you sell it? If not please let me know what you're after fundage wise. It's possible I can sell an organ or two. Maybe the liver - not really using it. Still have two kidneys and that's likely one more than I need.

I took a good look at the one at RIA. Serial #1 if I recall. Have some pictures buried around here somewhere. RIA #1.

I noted that early thong and brush system. Figured you'd know this but that cartridge belt is later than the gun. Not "wrong" but not specifically period. Which you obviously took the time to ensure on the cleaning system. The cartridge belt for that specific era is the one with the ends which angle in. That belt is a repro isn't it?

[Fred]

The belt is supposed to be original. It was made by Russell I think. I can't remember without looking up the information I had. Ive read that this type of early belt produced by the company hadn't any name stamped into the metal. The Five Round pockets were made without the puckering at their bottom which I've read was developed to protect the webbing from being worn though by the pointed Spitzer bullets of the 1906 design.
The suspenders are a reproduction. Originals are shorter to hold the belt up higher just under the rib cage.