M1892/96 carbine

[5MadFarmers]

M1892/1896 carbine. I love it. No dash and that odd foreign designation that those not understanding the guns glommed onto. A post to annoy you and make your brain work a bit.

"Know, think, feel." Inside to outside. Imagine a sphere. It can be lit, it's a light, or not. Put that inside another. That lights a different color. Another around that. Yet another color. Light the outermost? Can't see the two inside. Leave the outermost off but light the middle? Can't see the center one. Know, think, feel. From the inside to the outside.

Lady in a car accident. Kids hurt. "Strong feel." Don't try to reason with her as that's know or think. She's feeling so strongly she cannot manage the others. It's why car dealers want you to "feel" about a new car - then you won't think about the payments or know you cannot afford it.
Think or know? Bubble tests. "Know." When students review them they then "out-think" the answer they knew. They change it and the changes, in 70% of the case, are wrong. "Leave what you know."

Every had somebody ask you a question? "Who invented the automobile?" Something you know. "What is 2+6+4-5?" You'll have to think out that answer. Ever had somebody ask you a question? "Who invented the automobile?" If you don't get the answer immediately, which you know, you'll start thinking. Then you're doomed. It's not something you can "think" as it's something you know and now you're thinking. Get frustrated and walk away. It hits you. "I know who!" Yeah, you quit thinking and now you know.

Like to mess with people? I do. Understanding the above I really saw "mental poison." Don't ask open questions. Poison the well first. "It wasn't Neil Diamond, who wrote 50 ways to leave your lover?" Now "Neil Diamond" is in their head. That has to be ejected first. Thinking takes over and they're doomed.

When the M-1892 rifles were altered to M-1896 format, what were they? "Model of 1896 rifles." Exactly. Not "M1892/96" or any such nonsense. M-1896 rifles. Does it matter? Yes. That M1892/96 thing is mental poison. You see a list of guns issued to a regiment. "M-1896 rifles." What does your brain tell you? "As made M-1896 rifles." Why? Because the M-1892 rifles are now invisible. You have the following:
M-1892
M-1892/96
M-1896
M-1898.

When you encounter "M-1896" the "M-1892/96" isn't a match and that degrades to "as made M-1896." That odd mental poison makes the M-1892s altered to M-1896 disappear.

"In inventory in 1917 were the remainder of the M-1896 and M-1898 rifles." See them now? They'd be invisible if that poison was present.

With that out of the way, let's do stage 2.

M-1896 carbine, serial 14,567. "Impossible! They didn't make M-1892 carbines outside of oddities!"

After rebuild the M-1892 rifle was the M-1896 rifle.
There is no difference in the M-1896 carbine and the M-1896 rifle receiver.
After rebuild the M-1892 rifle was the M-1896 rifle.
There is no difference in the M-1896 carbine and the M-1896 rifle receiver.

See it now? If I was wanting to push M-1896 carbines out the door, circa 1907, and had to bang them together, using parts, I'd see that "M-1892" receiver and say: "Impossible. They didn't make M-1892 carbines!" Except it's not an "M-1892" at that point. It's simply another M-1896 receiver.

So not so impossible. Unlikely? I'd say: "not particularly."

YMMV.

"But that's just so wrong! I know better!"

Nah, that's "feel." You don't "like it." That's emotion.

Got ya?

[Dick Hosmer]

Well, yes, but.

On the one hand - functionality - you are correct, but there are still visual clues (especially in the wood) that obviously differentiate three specimen rifles (1892 as made, 1892/96, and 1896 as made) if laid side-by-side. To some people (recall that there are not enough unaltered 1892s around for every one to have one) the "1892/96" is as close as they will ever come to owning an early rifle.

By the way, in a somewhat similar vein, I have, grudgingly, come around to your "Magazine Rifle" (though I despise the name - being, for my taste, waay too close to the generic term "magazine rifle") thing.

[5MadFarmers]

Well, yes, but.

On the one hand - functionality - you are correct, but there are still visual clues (especially in the wood) that obviously differentiate three specimen rifles (1892 as made, 1892/96, and 1896 as made) if laid side-by-side. To some people (recall that there are not enough unaltered 1892s around for every one to have one) the "1892/96" is as close as they will ever come to owning an early rifle.

I'm not big on hijacking people's threads. That "1898c" carbine in the other post. Didn't want to hijack his thread so I started this one. The first thing that person mentioned was "it's out of range." "Out of range?" For what? "As made." Yeah, well, most of them aren't "as made" any more. I've seen enough M-1896 carbines in "1894" receivers now where they don't bother me too much. "Just another banged together M-1896 carbine." "Banged together by who?" That is always the question and, as you noted with respect to wood, that takes some review and some logic and a crystal ball. Perhaps some chicken entrails. Not "wrong" - more "questionable." "Who assembled that?" Academically it's an interesting question but, with regard to buying or selling, it isn't. "Buy only ones which don't raise questions and avoid that issue entirely." So on one hand "oddities must be reviewed on their own merits or lack thereof" academically but, with respect to buying or selling, "be safe and avoid them." Unless you know what you're doing. Because, if you look deeply into the chicken entrails, the "oddities" are in fact the most valuable guns. The ones least likely to get good coin but be worth really good coin. The BoOaF rifle is an oddity. The M-1892 carbines (both) are oddities. Positive cam trapdoors are oddities. Etc.,

What is an "M-1898 carbine?" "In the range of..." Yeah, whatever.
What is an "M-1896 carbine?" "Marked 1895, 1896, M-1896 and in the range of...." Yeah, whatever and whatever again. Range and receiver markings are a guide, not a rule.

M-1898 carbine out of range is a problem. An oddity. Reviewed on merit. A problem gun.
M-1896 carbine on the "1894" receiver is going to get people screaming "they never made any" but, the reason for this post really, that's not too useful. Eject the mental poison and they're "M-1896" receivers. No reason a carbine couldn't be banged together from one. With that out of the way it's then "by whom?



By the way, in a somewhat similar vein, I have, grudgingly, come around to your "Magazine Rifle" (though I despise the name - being, for my taste, waay too close to the generic term "magazine rifle") thing.

Not "mine" - it's "Ordnance Department's." Repeatedly. When they made them and when they altered them they used it. That specific term. When I first encountered it, in that report with M-1892 rifles, M-1896 rifles, M-1896 Cadet rifles, and M-1896 carbines, it gave me grief. "What the heck are those? Making magazine trapdoors in hopes of going back? Some weird Navy gun?" That second encounter, "magazine rifles altered to M-1896 with M-1892 extractors" was the key. That's when the light went on. So it has two advantages: it's their term and it really tells us what they're going on about. It has the disadvantage as it's an awful term.

The M-1896 carbine was going to be the "M-1895" before they changed it. So I guess "M-1895 rifle" was probably out of the question but I, myself, would have preferred that. "Magazine rifle" is what we get.

Except they're M-1896 rifles. Then maybe even an M-1896 carbine or three.

[5MadFarmers]

New post as I'm going to swing those "M-1892 as made but now an M-1896 and, poison removed, no longer so invisible."

Been writing "Part 2." War One mainly. Unfortunately my brain is writing another book in protest so I'll have to hurry part 2 so it can get its' book in. Rather crowded in the noggin right now.

When they gathered up the soldiers olive drab they slammed together the 1st and 2nd divisions. "Off to gay Paris you go." In training were, at the same time, divisions 3-8 (regular army), 26-42 (now "national guard"), and 76-93 (national army). As mentioned in the book the Krag rifles were launched at the camps in October of 1917. National guard had guns as did the regulars. So "national army camps." One Alvin York...

When those divisions hit the ships, emigrated if you will, that freed up the camps. With the front grinding up men, 11 of those divisions sent were broken up to feed replacements into the others, they started shopping around for more men. "Raise the age limit." Which they did. Divisions 9-20 were formed. 11 brand spanking new divisions. Old men. Entered training in June and July of 1918 in those vacated camps.

I saw a picture once, taken as the war ended, in a training camp. The troops were turning in Krags. I'd wager it was one of those 11 "New regulars" divisions. They never finished training - the war ended. Except for the 11th division which did finish and was shipping as the war ended.

M-1892 rifles altered to M-1896. "As new in the chests." After rebuild. They're generally in really good shape.

Which, if the logic proves out, means those were the rifles normally sent to those camps. The M-1898s too of course but those M-1892s altered to M-1896 would have been the most likely to be in the chests in cold storage. From 1903 until they received the M-1903 rifles the Militia would most likely have received M-1898s. We even have indicators. "Stock markings." Army was forbidden from marking guns. Militia "owned" them and was less likely to conform. Most the marked stocks I see are M-1898s. I have a complete list of Krags issued to a fairly well populated State and those are entirely M-1898 rifles.

The M-1896s sent to the training camps, by and large, would have included those altered M-1892s.

[dave]

I always thought the M.R. term was used as it was the first (outside of some purchased during CW or for limited use) adopted as standard and made by SA.?

[5MadFarmers]

I always thought the M.R. term was used as it was the first (outside of some purchased during CW or for limited use) adopted as standard and made by SA.?

What we're discussing is a very specific group of Krag rifles - not the "generic term." As they were getting close to the end of production of the "United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1892," and before they made the "United States Magazine Rifle, Model of 1896" they made some thousands of guns which combined features of both. Being neither fish nor fowl they designated them simply as "Magazine rifles." No year designation as they were neither.

So, yes, you're correct but we're referencing a specific set of Krags and not really the generic term.

This is more Dick's area than mine but the first "Magazine rifles" would be the Spencer carbines altered to rifle format at Springfield. First "Magazine rifles" made from scratch were the Chaffee-Reece rifles. The Hotchkiss guns were assembled from parts supplied by Winchester (with SA making some parts) whereas the Lees... I'd have to go look that up. Probably bought.

So the first "entirely made" was the Chaffee-Reece right?

Colt revolving rifle. That would be the first "magazine rifle" in the truest sense of that term.

[Dick Hosmer]

Now we have to deal with "experimental", "made for trial", and "standard issue", in quantities of 1 or 2, a few hundred, or as many as needed/wanted. Then we (or at least I for my chosen niche) also need to differentiate between arms made (wholly or in part) at SA and those made by commercial firms. If we are speaking strictly of total SA fabrication, and choosing "made for trial" the answer would - IIRC (and I don't always) - be the Chaffee-Reece. That was by attrition since the inventor had no factory and Colt wanted three times the (estimated) price. As it was, only 753 were made, well short of the usual 1000.

[PhillipM]

The first paper I wrote i my writing for engineers class had blood all over it whengraded and returned. I used the word feel frequently and each was circled in red. A note in the margin said, "You are an engineer, you do not FEEL, you THINK!!!"

That lesson has stuck with me so firmly I cringe when feel is used. I even took note when Hillary used it a few times in last night's debate.

[5MadFarmers]

The first paper I wrote i my writing for engineers class had blood all over it whengraded and returned. I used the word feel frequently and each was circled in red. A note in the margin said, "You are an engineer, you do not FEEL, you THINK!!!"

That lesson has stuck with me so firmly I cringe when feel is used. I even took note when Hillary used it a few times in last night's debate.

When somebody wants something they often can come up with a reasonable argument for why. As soon as "no" is hinted at their emotions take over and that ability to "defend" the acquisition is out the window. Generally "the sky will fall if we don't" follows. The press specializes in getting people's emotions running high. "Sensationalism." "Little Jimmy was ran over by a skateboarder and broke his arm. Should skateboards be banned so no more kids get broken arms?" Not an "appeal to reason" but an "appeal to emotion."

Mental poison, in another fashion, is something I had to always watch out for at work. "Broken solutions." Instead of bringing a problem people generally bring a broken solution. "I keep trying to pound this nail in with a bottle but the bottle shatters. How do I make the bottle not shatter?" Broken solution. With that mental poison you start thinking about filling bottles with water to prevent them from shattering instead of seeing hammers in your head. The "solution" they're bringing you, by definition, doesn't work. Thus they're handing you a ticket on the bus to Berlin so you can repeatedly make that journey with them.

"As made" can, and often is, mental poison. Catches me often enough. "How many carbines were made with "1894" on the receiver?" "Perhaps 10. 2 M-1892s and additional ones for sight tests and such." It could easily be higher; just not "as made." Thus "how many carbines were made" is mental poison. "How many carbines were assembled with "1894" receivers?" might get a different answer.

[5MadFarmers]

Now we have to deal with "experimental", "made for trial", and "standard issue", in quantities of 1 or 2, a few hundred, or as many as needed/wanted. Then we (or at least I for my chosen niche) also need to differentiate between arms made (wholly or in part) at SA and those made by commercial firms. If we are speaking strictly of total SA fabrication, and choosing "made for trial" the answer would - IIRC (and I don't always) - be the Chaffee-Reece. That was by attrition since the inventor had no factory and Colt wanted three times the (estimated) price. As it was, only 753 were made, well short of the usual 1000.

Accidentally hijacked my own thread mentioning the earlier "Magazine rifles." Whatever. The other version of the Bus to Berlin: get off the bus and, after looking around, declare to anyone who will listen that this is in fact where you intended to go all along in a vain hope that you don't look like a dunce.

Dick, government contracting 301: "Three bids are required and the lowest bid will be accepted." The letter of the law right? The way that is addressed, when you want something, is contacting two places you have a working relationship with. "I'd like a bid for these guns. I need three bids and already know what I'm after so what I want from you is a bid for, say, $1,000 each." Two engineered high bids and you're golden.

Why would they do such a thing? If they want to do business with you they will toe the line. "That's a mighty nice business you have there, supplying us with pistols, it'd be a shame if anything were to happen to it. A mighty shame indeed."

Not theory....

Government contracting 302. "A refusal to bid is a bid." Want to buy something from somebody? Contact two other places which don't even supply that specific item - just close enough to not raise eyebrows. "Only WidgetmakerA tendered an actual bid. WidgetmakerB and WidgetmakerC provided a "bid" stating they wouldn't or couldn't supply it."

Not theory....

The money appropriated for the Chaffee-Reece rifles was not, I do have the document, entirely expended.

I remember Colt being high and, I'm going from faint memory, the other place contacted provided a "non-bid."

Ask me how that could have possibly happened....