Which Krag do I choose?

[Lead Snowstorm]

Both rifles are at 1250.
I will need to revisit the rifles for pictures of pedigree.

At that price, I’d expect a top-flight 1898. Might accept a little more wood/metal finish wear for a like-new bore, or a little frosted corrosive ammo bore for a museum quality eye-appeal exterior. But you shouldn’t have to make many, or any excuses for a $1250 1898. IMHO.

A little harder to peg the 1896. I’ll let the experts chime in, but while I think some of the earliest 1898s may have had 1896 sights, I’m not sure about the reverse. That, and certainly the lack of cartouche suggest at least a re-arsenal. As I mentioned, if it is a true 1898 sight, depending on condition, you could come out ahead just on the value of that unaltered part. Otherwise I’d be leery.

Disclaimer - I’m no expert. Some of the folks here have literally written the books on these rifles. Listen to them.

[Dick Hosmer]

I agree with Lead's assessment. $1250 is no "bargain" for an 1898 rifle with 1901 sight - probably THE most common configuration extant. That money won't buy pristine, but the gun had better be pretty darn nice, with no rash or worts. I'd expect the 1896 to show more wear of course. The sight (and hand guard) situation needs to be clarified. Pictures would be good.

Speaking of pictures, thanks for the excellent illustrative items posted. RAS - FWIW - those rifles are way above average, very nice specimens. I've been collecting 'trapdoors' and Krags for 50 years (this month!) and do have a nearly new 1898, but my best 1896 falls quite a bit short of that one.

[Lead Snowstorm]

Ah, that’s probably too kind on the 96. It has two major detractions - the bore, while not particularly pitted, is very much worn, and the inspection cartouche is gone without a trace.





So yours probably measures up better than you think.

I almost passed on it, but started putting up bids when I noticed the faint earlier proof that let me at least imagine it is the original stock that stayed with the rifle through an arsenal refurbishment:



As a reference point, my winning bid was about $400 less than the OP’s potential purchases.

[Kragrifle]

Actually the 1898 sight had the sharp edges rounded off due the problems with the sharp edges, not to make it resemble the 1902 (which had several design changes).

[jon_norstog]

Both rifles are at 1250.
I will need to revisit the rifles for pictures of pedigree.

Wow, that's right up there. I would negotiate, but also go for the '96.

jn

[Kragrifle]

If you plan to attend the upcoming Tulsa show I may still have a little nicer 1896 rifle (with cartouche) on my table.

[free1954]

did you decide, or take them both?

[Mark Daiute]

Some simple rules I live by

I generally find 1896 sights on 1896 rifles, but not always. If an 1896 does not have an 1896 rear sight I look a little harder at the rifle.

Regarding 1898 rifles: The only "wrong" rear sight on an 1898 rifle is an 1898 rear sight. Nada, zip, never. The 1898 rear sights were withdrawn from service, never, ever to be used again by our military establishments.... as an 1898 rear sight. Many of them were re-configured to 1902 format, that's fine, but the 1898 rear sight did not stay on any Krag rifles. Another wrong rear sight for any rifle aside from and unaltered 1892 rifle, is the 1892 rear sight.

Aside from that there is no right or wrong, rear sight for an 1898 rifle, while in service your rifle could have had the 1902 rear sight or the 1901 rear sight. In my view it is unlikely that an 1896 rear sight would have remained on an 1898 rifle even tho some of the early 1898's sported them early in production, but that's another story altogether.

[Kragrifle]

Actually the 1898 rear sight would have been installed on 1899 dated rifles and very early 1900 dated rifles. True you will find some of these sights that have been altered by rounding off the sharp edges but will remain on the rifle unless/until they are refitted with later (mostly 1901 sights and handguards). As for the 1892 rear sights they were installed on a number of 1898 dated rifles when the 1896 sights were found lacking. Interesting, the 1896 style sight was used on a few early 1901 dated rifles.
There is an excellent , though lengthy, video on the Krag rifle on U Tube that goes through the evolution of the Krag rifle sight that is well worth watching.

- - - Updated - - -

BTW, I own a number of as new Krag rifles to back up my claims and the video. Alas the only rifle I have yet to find in original condition is the 1898 rifle as everyone mistakenly thought the 1892 rear sight was incorrect and replaced it with the “right sight “.

[Dick Hosmer]

My 200722, as new, with 1899 cartouche, has a 1902 sight - I always assumed it was changed from the 1898, prior to release from stores.