Updated 1898 carbine?

[BradB]

I can see keeping some information tight to the vest; an existing specimen is already correct or not. Release a "foolproof" method to tell and soon bumpers will be working to add the characteristic. I would appreciate an assessment of this one.

[Dick Hosmer]

I will concede that - at first blush - your point has some merit, but, I feel that when all is said and done, the more knowledge that is openly available to all, the better. To have one or two people dispensing the gift of legitimacy is not, IMHO, a good thing.

Of course, at this point, not knowing what the point may be, makes it difficult to construct anything other than an abstract argument based on general principles. Perhaps the feature is not easily replicated, and of little worry? The 1898 Carbine is already well-poisoned, so I'm not sure that disclosing anything "new" would change that.

This (and I don't mean it to) may sound elitist, since I am fortunate to have a carbine in what appears to be original configuration, though I have never stated that it was untouched (in fact quite the opposite) but I personally do not see anything truly exciting in a specimen which - save for an unverifiable number - is, for all intents and purposes, an 1899 Carbine. I look at this issue from the standpoint of displaying a sequence of items on a wall, where physical differences are visible to the the (discerning) eye, and the design progress may be followed. This, IMHO, demands the presence of the special 1898C stock (once available, but no longer, and which would not be commercially viable to fake) and an 1896C sight, where fakes already abound, due to its' broader usage. Older readers may recall the articles from the 1960s (70s?) in "Gun Report" magazine - it is clear that there was a great mystery afoot until someone found (or finally noticed - "aha") an original stock.

You have a very nice looking carbine, which, following (I think) certain points of 5MF's logic, may well be more "original" than mine!

We'll probably never know, though I hope some of the mist is cleared by 5MF's hard work, and thank goodness we don't all lust after the same thing, or demand would be higher, and prices even worse.

[5MadFarmers]

It's perfect. Exactly as it would be expected to appear. The sight blade is bogus but that's a given.

It's an 1898 carbine rebuilt circa 1902 - no earlier. That's also a given due to the rear sight and hand guard.

Very nice gun. Fresh from arsenal rebuild.

Scrumptious in fact.

_______

[5MadFarmers]

I can see keeping some information tight to the vest; an existing specimen is already correct or not. Release a "foolproof" method to tell and soon bumpers will be working to add the characteristic. I would appreciate an assessment of this one.

What do you think? A nice "M-1941" field jacket tag. S.M. Wholesale. Real or repro? The contract number is right in a group of PQD-20A contracts so they got that right. Specification date is right on for that jacket. Date is right on for that contract. Ergo they copied the data from a real one. Stock 55-S-230? That's wrong thrice over. That part they couldn't copy as "46R" is not something easily found in a jacket designed for a 21 year old kid. Outside of the bogus "5" in the middle the stock number on that tag tells us something; the jacket they copied was a 38R. 55-J-230 is a 38R jacket. Would it be helpful to know that 55-J-270 is the stock number for 46R? They'd have enjoyed knowing that.

Who is "S.M. Wholesale?" ATF, WPG, and SEMS, and WW2 Impressions I was aware of. "S.M. Wholesale" was a new one on me. You'd not appreciate the number of bids that jacket, sold as original, received.

ATF uses originals as templates also.



Copied a jacket from Cohen-Fein. Notice they duplicated the P.O. # but changed the date to D-Day? Pattern date changed to match that....

48R would be a hard jacket to find. They just scaled the stock number up to what they expected "48R" to be. 55-J-192-90 is the correct stock number for 48R.

Yes, I have mixed feelings about writing "howto" books. Some things I think it's just better to not print. I'll print more than I like but not all of it as I really hav mixed emotions about it all.

[Kragrifle]

Probably forever!

[BradB]

Thank-you all. Much appreciated. Into the safe she goes. Any recommendations on a source for a C-marked model 99 front blade or a really top notch (and reasonably economical) wood guy to tidy up the stock repair?

[Pentz]

Brad, I've had occasion to have repairs done to duffle-cuts and cracked wrists on collectible firearms. Wound up going to a local professional sporting clays stock shop; they do stock mods all year long. Their repairs are nearly undetectable and were reasonable for the firearm concerned.

[Dick Hosmer]

Also see work by Rick Borecky, who posts here as "RickB".

[BradB]

Thanks again. Looks like S&S for a sight blade and a few emails/PMs to decide on stock.

[jon_norstog]

Brad,

If you have a new stock made, hang onto the original. Cracks and all, it is probably the wood that the arsenal put on that carbine. Long as you have all the pieces, it can be repaired, almost good as new.

Good luck!

jn