New to me Model 1896

[butlersrangers]

As 'Kragrifle' states, the front sight-base of U.S. Krag carbine and rifle barrels exhibits a very shallow 'dovetail'.

There were something like 30 manufacturing steps at Springfield Armory in the manufacture of a Krag barrel.

At around step #18, a dovetail was milled across the unshaped and unrifled barrel blank and a small block of steel was bronze brazed into the dovetail.
This 'block' became a fixed-point, that the barrel shaping & taper, rear-sight holes, 'clocked' or timed barrel threads, barrel index-mark, and extractor-cut, were all based on.

Ultimately, this 'block' was shaped, slotted, and cross-drilled, to become the front sight-base.

The Krag barrel was actually a fully manufactured, proofed, and "browned" (Blued) item, when it finally 'met' and was screwed into its fully finished 'case hardened' receiver. (Wow, interchangeable parts)!

The machine work and "browning" (rust blue) make the attachment of the Krag sight-base very subtle. Close scrutiny will usually reveal the color and outline of the bronze seam.

(IMHO - The OP's model 1896 front-sight attachment looks oddly done. It does not appear to have the Springfield Armory manufacture characteristics, shown in the two attached photos).

krag 1899 carbine sight.jpgkrag front-sight barrel attachment.jpg

[Darrylg60]

Thanks for the insight butlersrangers. I hope I can get more info from brother-in-law concerning family history. He received it in the late '50's but can't remember if it was in the family longer.

[Kragrifle]

While on the subject, the early Model 1892 rifles had a wider slot cut in the front sight post than the 1896 and later rifles and carbines. The Model 1892 sight blade had a step cut to make the sighting portion of the blade narrower than that portion in the front sight post. When these early rifles were “upgraded’ the front sight post slot was made narrower or was replaced with the later sight post with more narrow blade cut out.
Question is whether the posts were replaced or was the slot somehow made narrower? Asked this question to Tom Pearce years ago and he stated it was not known exactly how it was done.

[butlersrangers]

That is an interesting question, 'Kragrifle'.

According to William Brophy, "The Krag Rifle", (page 114), the difference in the front sight blade thickness was only five thousandths of an inch - (.055" for model 1892 vs. .050" for model 1896 and later Krag models).

This is only a difference in thickness about equal to the thickness of a sheet of printer paper.

It would not surprise me if maybe Springfield Armory simply squeezed the model 1892 front sight-bases in a vise to tighten the early wide slots.

[Darrylg60]

Some better pics of my front sight.
IMG_7577.jpgIMG_7584.jpgIMG_7585.jpgIMG_7586.jpg

[Darrylg60]

Not sure if I have type 2 handguard or cutdown type 1. If it's type 2, I'm missing the "legs". It has a crimped clip.
IMG_7572.jpgIMG_7573.jpg

[butlersrangers]

Your latest photos show your front sight base is mechanically fitted into a new dovetail and not brazed to the barrel.
It has been neatly done, but, not correct for original U.S. carbines.

A real model 1896 carbine hand-guard, for the 30 inch stock, has only one 'spring-clip' riveted to the wood to the rear of the back sight.

The front of the hand-guard is retained by a novel barrel-band, with sight-protecting 'ears'. The front-edge of the hand-guard fits into a cavity in the rear of the band.

ng-carb1.jpg

[Darrylg60]

I was looking forward to your response butlersrangers, thanks. I can see what someone has done regarding the front sight with your explanations. From what I've read, my handguard is from a Model 1892 since it has a crimped clip, not an 1896. I appreciate the knowledge this forum has to offer for newcomers like me.

[Dick Hosmer]

I have a HUGE amount of respect for the depth to which Chuck goes in his responses, but to my eyes that sight base still COULD be good. On a scale of bubba=50 and SA=100, that sight attachment is at least a 99, well into the gray area, or head-scratching range, and - FWIW - much, MUCH better done than the one currently under discussion at KCA (which has been adjudged "real" by some members).

[Darrylg60]

I've surfed a couple of other forum sites and I gotta say that you, (Dick), and butlersrangers are well respected for your comments and knowledge concerning Krags. I'm trying to see what, if anything other than a shortened/sporterized Krag I inherited. Its staying in the family with some history as I can find it. Thanks for your comments Dick. Did see an 1896 carbine rear sight on ebay...went for high dollar.