Tweet
Hi Folks! This carbine probably needs to belong to someone else, but can't do that until I know what it is and what a fair price is. So, if you have suggestions on how to zero in on an unusual carbine (a few features don't seem to line up with research I've done so far) or especially someone I can discuss with in detail, I'd really appreciate hearing!
Mine appears to be an "1895 variant" of the 1896 carbine.
http://www.oldguns.net/ says that this was made in 1895. SN 28717
The front sight base is brazed into a small dovetail in the top of the barrel (which I understand from reading that this is a real Krag, not a cut down one).
No visible cartouche - may not be consistent with what some expect...mebbe it's there and I just don't recognize it.
Rear sight has a "C" may be inconsistent with the rest of the carbine, depending on who you read. Looks original to me, or at least "old".
Running a cleaning rod down the barrel til it touches the face of the bolt results in a 22" barrel length measurement, consistent with a 'real' carbine.
Rifling is still very pronounced, but the bore is clearly not new.
Shoots fine.
I have a handful of reasonable quality digital photos totaling about 850k which I can send if anyone is curious.
What do I do to identify whether this is a thin-wrist carbine stock? Seems that this matters? I think it is NOT a thin-wrist, since the photo of a thin wrist on the wizard's site show the stock thinning a bit as you move back from the receiver, whereas mine seems to get a little thicker at this point....and mine has three cleaning rod holes, not two.
Comments found on an expert's site that his 1895 stock is drilled for only TWO cleaning rod sections. My buttplate has one hole with a hinged door, above the flathead mounting screw, and behind that door it seems that the stock is drilled for 3 cleaning rods.
"...forward-placed gas escape hole...' No clue how to check the bolt for this. The gas relief hole is just below the pin, however I should interpret that.
Lacks a saddle ring under the bolt on the left side of the stock which carbines have, so I've been told......not sure how to deal with this, since the stock sure seems to be consistent in other ways with what a carbine is supposed to have...
Thanks in advance for any and all input!
jim / unkiemotorhead
Mine appears to be an "1895 variant" of the 1896 carbine.
http://www.oldguns.net/ says that this was made in 1895. SN 28717
The front sight base is brazed into a small dovetail in the top of the barrel (which I understand from reading that this is a real Krag, not a cut down one).
No visible cartouche - may not be consistent with what some expect...mebbe it's there and I just don't recognize it.
Rear sight has a "C" may be inconsistent with the rest of the carbine, depending on who you read. Looks original to me, or at least "old".
Running a cleaning rod down the barrel til it touches the face of the bolt results in a 22" barrel length measurement, consistent with a 'real' carbine.
Rifling is still very pronounced, but the bore is clearly not new.
Shoots fine.
I have a handful of reasonable quality digital photos totaling about 850k which I can send if anyone is curious.
What do I do to identify whether this is a thin-wrist carbine stock? Seems that this matters? I think it is NOT a thin-wrist, since the photo of a thin wrist on the wizard's site show the stock thinning a bit as you move back from the receiver, whereas mine seems to get a little thicker at this point....and mine has three cleaning rod holes, not two.
Comments found on an expert's site that his 1895 stock is drilled for only TWO cleaning rod sections. My buttplate has one hole with a hinged door, above the flathead mounting screw, and behind that door it seems that the stock is drilled for 3 cleaning rods.
"...forward-placed gas escape hole...' No clue how to check the bolt for this. The gas relief hole is just below the pin, however I should interpret that.
Lacks a saddle ring under the bolt on the left side of the stock which carbines have, so I've been told......not sure how to deal with this, since the stock sure seems to be consistent in other ways with what a carbine is supposed to have...
Thanks in advance for any and all input!
jim / unkiemotorhead
