Identifying Gun

That's a Remington sporter .308, my dad has one. It's got the same wooden stock and black barrel.

Terrible picture. With a 1917 date it should be a M1903. Looks like a krag though

Krag-Jorgensen rifle, either a Springfield Model 1892, 1896, or 1898. There are no US Krags dated "1917", so you're either reading the date wrong or reading the serial number.

File: Screenshot_20170529-145002.jpg (442KB, 1080x619px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1080x619px

Maybe a little better?

File: Screenshot_20170529-145219.png (1MB, 1080x2220px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1080x2220px

Here is the imprint it's bad quality but later today I can take a better one

>>34099538
Definitely a krag. Take a pic of this date you mentioned. No krags were made at that time.

I will, it may have been 1898 maybe I'll look and post what I find the year

File: Bayonet.jpg (117KB, 1024x710px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x710px

>>34099559
With a serial number over 400,000 it was made in FY1903 or 1904, so at the tail-end of Krag production.

Krags were not used in combat by American forces during WW1, and IIRC only one National Guard regiment actually deployed to France with their Krags, where they promptly turned them in for M1917s. They were used to train new recruits.

On a random note how did the Krag fair? But I am curious now how he acquired the rifle yet still served in the war.

2004 called, they want their shitty camera phone back

>>34099399
>>34099538
Your dad is retarded, it's clearly a krag

>>34100297

They were replaced in the 1903 Springfield because they were shown to be obsolete in the Spanish-American War when they got BTFO by more modern Spanish Mausers. They were widely available as surplus after that point, your dad probably bought it for $20.

That said they were still good rifles with an interesting magazine, it's too bad the stock on yours was sporterized.

Spoterize is bad I am assuming with the modifications. Just slowly been trying to look more in to weaponry toniwn slowly as I grow.