US Krag Sight Preference

[TheAbe]

Hi everyone. As mentioned in another thread, I recently acquired a US model 1898 Krag “sporter project.” I got a good deal (don’t anyone say there aren’t any good deals on GB), but it is missing a few parts (besides those removed when the stock was sporterized).
Specifically, the rear sight (and front sight blade for that matter) is missing. The original sight holes appear unaltered, but I’m left with the problem of choice of rear sight.
So, assuming my final goal is to restore this rifle (it’s full-length, and the barrel has not been cut) to “military configuration,” which model of sight is the better or preferred among those here with Krags: model 1901 or 1902? Or does someone have an argument for other models? I’ve seen both for sale for around the same price, and I want to know what everyone thinks.

Arguments/opinions for or against model 1896 sights are also welcome, though I really do prefer a peep sight. I’m attempting to create a poll as well, assume option 1 for 1901, 2 for 1902, 3 for 1896, 4 for other.

Thanks!

[fifty four]

The 1901 rear sight is probably going to be the most popular, as it's very similar to that found on a M1903 Springfield. But I prefer the 1902, which also uses an aperture that can be raised to use or lowered out of the way. My eyes can't see through those little holes so far down the barrel, so the u-notch 1902 it is. Both sights are readily adjustable for windage, something which can't be said of the 1892 and 1896 sights.

[RayinNH]

The 1901 rear sight is probably going to be the most popular, as it's very similar to that found on a M1903 Springfield. But I prefer the 1902, which also uses an aperture that can be raised to use or lowered out of the way. My eyes can't see through those little holes so far down the barrel, so the u-notch 1902 it is. Both sights are readily adjustable for windage, something which can't be said of the 1892 and 1896 sights.

I have a couple with the 1902 sight , but you need the eyesight of a teenager to see through that aperture hole.

[Texas by God]

My first Krag had a Lyman peep and my current Krag has a Redfield peep so I’d better go with #4- Other.
I’ve preferred reciever sights over barrel sights since I was twenty something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[littlejack]

August of this year, I bought my first 30-40 Krag. It had the 1901 rear sight. With my aged eyes, I really didn't like the rear sight. It took a little time, but there was a really nice Redfield no drill and tap sight came up in flea-bay. I won that auction, and really like that sight. So, for me, I'll go with #4 "other" as well.

[gnoahhh]

I too prefer the 1902 sight. It's a simple matter to open the aperture hole with incrementally larger drill bits until you achieve "sight nirvana". Conversely, on custom sporters I much prefer a Lyman 48, or a Redfield "No Drill", receiver sight.

Redfield on the latest one I built. (Metal has been rust blued since the pic was taken.)

[TheAbe]

I appreciate the offer, but I intend (in the long-term) to get this one back into military configuration to be able to compete in the CMP’s “Teddy Roosevelt” class. They only allow original configuration Krags and M1903’s made before 1913, and they have to be “arsenal” configuration. Someone else might be interested though.
Still, lots of great info and perspectives. My eyes are still decent, though I appreciate gonahhh’s comment on drilling the aperture slightly larger. The peep plates are available for relatively little so if one makes a mistake or wants to revert back to the original size, it would not be expensive to replace the peep plate.

[Kraschenbirn]

'Nother #4 here. My '98 carbine came to me with a Lyman receiver sight (according to Lyman made between 1919 and 1922), a taller-than-stock front blade, and a reshaped bolt handle. According to my local authority on U.S. Small Arms, the gun is probably one reworked by Bannerman, Sears-Roebuck, NRA, or a similar source after the Krags were surplused out after the end of WWI.

Bill

[WILCO]

Bannerman's Castle!

[Gewehr-Guy]

I prefer the 1901, but am finding it harder to see through as I get older, may have to drill it out a few thousands. The 1902 would be my choice for hunting while using cast or jacketed. I have never tried the little aperture on the 1902. I have thought of mounting a 1902 sight leaf on a Mosin Nagant rifle , to get some windage adjustment

[gnoahhh]

'Nother #4 here. My '98 carbine came to me with a Lyman receiver sight (according to Lyman made between 1919 and 1922), a taller-than-stock front blade, and a reshaped bolt handle. According to my local authority on U.S. Small Arms, the gun is probably one reworked by Bannerman, Sears-Roebuck, NRA, or a similar source after the Krags were surplused out after the end of WWI.

Bill

The NRA never reworked Krags for sale to civilians. There was a "sporterized" Krag that was sold through the NRA though.

[Kraschenbirn]

The NRA never reworked Krags for sale to civilians. There was a "sporterized" Krag that was sold through the NRA though.

Probably what Charlie meant when he was reciting possible sources for 'Sporter Krags' in the early 1920s. I imagine Sears-Roebuck also farmed out the any modifications as well.

Bill