16,7XX Krag with 1896 cartouche

[Matt_E_Wright]

I own one Krag. I've had it for several years, and something about it has always bugged me, so I thought I'd finally ask.

It's serial number is 16,7XX (not hiding, just in the safe right now). The stock has a curved toe, butt plate w/ trap, and cleaning rod channel that has been filled. The stock also has a very clear 1896 cartouche, which seems kind of late for the serial number.

The cartouche is so clear that I don't think the rifle was in service before being converted to M1896 (the receiver has the hold open notch).

But the fact that it was converted so early, I think suggests that it was an Army rifle.

What do I have? Was this originally built as a M1892 and then for some reason retained at Springfield for a year or so until inspected, and then another year until converted?

Is it an anomaly early receiver built in late 1895 and inspected in 1896 as a "magazine rifle" and then converted?

Is something else going on here?

If specific photos will help, let me know. When I received the rifle it had a M1892 sight that had obviously not been with the rifle very long. I replaced that with a M1896. The bolt group is standard M1896. But the bolt group finish compared to the rest of the rifle makes me think it may be a later replacement also.

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

V/R,
Matt

[free1954]

i'm sure one of the krag experts will be along shortly, but you may also want to try here on the krag collector's forum http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl

[butlersrangers]

WAG - Your very nice Krag was taken apart, updated, and put together from mixed parts in the early 1900s.

[Kragrifle]

Actually early 1896 if stock original to receiver. Photos?

[butlersrangers]

Model 1892 Rifle, #16,7xx, was likely originally completed in May to July, 1895.

Model 1896 updates of model 1892 rifles were, per Poyer, done in 1897 and 1900.

Since rifles were taken apart to perform receiver and stock updates, it is likely such modified rifles no longer wear their original stocks.

[Ned Butts]

Or it is a "Magazine Rifle" manufactured with the up dates before they became a dated Model

[Dick Hosmer]

In my opinion, ANY of the scenarios advanced above it technically and physically possible. I have a slightly higher specimen (20197) which is still basically an 1892, yet has an 1896 rear sight and a very clear 1896 cartouche. I GUESS it is one of Joe Farmer's "magazine rifles". It is time to remind everyone that these were tools, and that SOME 'mysterious' swaps we see today represent not a "new variation" but rather something as simple as replacing a broken stock to keep an arm serviceable. Obviously, we also see a lot of arms that are just plain wrong and present configurations for which there is no rational explanation. And there are some, like this one, that is quite likely "right" but we cannot explain exactly how it got that way. It's all fun, and keeps life interesting.

[Kragrifle]

One of the hardest 1892 Krags to find are the late, >21000 serial number rifles.

[blackhawknj]

Weren't most of these "swaps" done by Army Ordnance ? Granted the Krag did not see the same amount of hard use the M1903 and M-1 Garand did, but as they wore out wouldn't they be turned in for rebuild ?

[Mark Daiute]

Weren't most of these "swaps" done by Army Ordnance ? Granted the Krag did not see the same amount of hard use the M1903 and M-1 Garand did, but as they wore out wouldn't they be turned in for rebuild ?
Many thousands of rifles went through IRAN and the Krags saw a lot of tough service.

I did not know what IRAN was so in the off chance I was not alone it is INSPECT AND REPAIR AS NEEDED.

- - - Updated - - -



- - - Updated - - -

The Magazine Rifle does not have the hold-open notch on the receiver and obviously does not have the pin on the extractor, it may have the curved toe and it does have a cleaning rod.

[butlersrangers]

Thanks Mark for defining IRAN.

FWIW - Frank Mallory reprinted the instructions issued by the U.S. Ordnance Department guiding the refinishing procedures for Krag components by arsenal and armory facilities. This information appears in the appendix of "The Krag Rifle Story". The U.S. Krag rifles saw hard service from 1894 to 1918 in front line, national guard, and training and support roles. Use in Naval service continued even later.

I have to assume much of this repair and refurbishing work resulted in the disassembly of many Krag rifles and serviceable parts being mixed in the reassembly process.

[Dick Hosmer]

It should have a curved toe, but the buttplate will be without trap.

[jon_norstog]

What Mark says - a lot of Krags led VERY tough lives. The rifles that went to Cuba got really wet. The Army did not issue gun oil and a lot of soldiers and troopers used salt pork fat to keep the guns from rusting. Those weapons, and the ones coming back from the Philippines generally went into an arsenal for a refresh when a unit returned to the US. About Krag configuration: the bigger the mystery, the more likely it has a history.

jn

[madsenshooter]

One of mine in the 12000 range must've been someplace where it got real rusty. But you could tell it was an arsenal did the clean up, made the magazine a tad longer!

[Kragrifle]

Could you post photos of that magazine alteration?

[madsenshooter]

Not really enough difference to see, let me see what my calipers say. Well I can't get them where I need to without some disassembly. It's only a few thousandths. Ok, I took the sideplate off a pair to get access. 3.17" on the parkerized Krag, 3.20" on the once rusty but cleaned up rifle. Might be that much difference amongst individual specimens, not sure. I also got 3.17" for a 98 receiver I had laying around. So clean up added about .030" to the internal magazine length of the ugly rifle. I measured another 98, a late one, and got 3.156".

[CPC]

I have one in the 15,6 range that was modified and has a 1895 cartouche. Looks like it may have been in a wet environment.