New to me Model 1896

[Darrylg60]

My brother-in-law was getting rid of his gun he learned how to shoot with and asked if I wanted an "old .22" I said sure, sight unseen. I picked it up Sunday and was surprised that this was his .22 SN 38266, looking for any info and where to find parts to try and make it correct if its a carbine.
4916749164491654916649168

[Dick Hosmer]

While it appears to be of carbine length, with the original short 30" stock, the rear sight is from an 1896 rifle, and the serial number is from the very beginning of a rifle range, though that exact number is not listed. I'd need to see some better-lit pictures, especially of the front sight and muzzle. The use of a rifle sight on a carbine - though certainly NOT original - is not that unusual today, since carbine sights have been extremely rare for the last 50 years, at least. The sling bar and ring can be obtained with no problem.

[jon_norstog]

Darryl, you have got yourself a real prize! Ask your brother in law where he got it and when, it's worth keeping as much of the story as you can.

jn

[Darrylg60]

Thank you for the information Dick. I measured the barrel with a cleaning rod and it shows 22". I've read about some of the rifles being sporterized. Here are some more pics, let me know if you would like different ones. I appreciate it.
4917649177491784917949180

[bruce]

What a beautiful rifle. Very much appreciate your post and the pictures. Hope you will be able to find the rear sight, etc. Sincerely. bruce.

[Dick Hosmer]

It's a bit hard to tell for sure, but that could be an original carbine barrel/sight/crown. If it's not original (and the fact that it is associated with an original carbine stock is a plus) it's very well done.

[Darrylg60]

Thanks again Dick, for taking the time to look. Now, off in search of the elusive '96 carbine rear sight. $$$$$

[Dick Hosmer]

You're very welcome. Expect to pay upwards of $600, and be VERY careful as the sight has been both faked and POORLY reproduced. Look for nothing less than workmanship fully equal to the sight that is now on the gun. Run away if ANYTHING seems fishy. SA did NOT re-stamp graduations, for example.

[butlersrangers]

I hate being a 'Debbie Downer', but, looking at Darrylg60's front-sight photos raises my suspicions.

I believe this is a barrel that has been cut-down with a Krag sight-base 're-attached'.

It appears a dovetail was filed into his barrel's muzzle area and a 'reclaimed' front sight-base was fitted or jammed into the dovetail.

The front sight-base appears a bit canted and it also looks like some edges have been cleaned up and slightly beveled.

IMHO - This is not the very neat brazing and contouring of the Krag front sight-base that was done at Springfield Armory.

4919149192[ATTACH=CONFIG]49193

[Kragrifle]

Krag front sights were installed with a very shallow dove tail. You should be able to make this out on inspection. There have been a few clever ways to put a front sight on a shortened barrel.

[butlersrangers]

As 'Kragrifle' states, the front sight-base of U.S. Krag carbine and rifle barrels exhibits a very shallow 'dovetail'.

There were something like 30 manufacturing steps at Springfield Armory in the manufacture of a Krag barrel.

At around step #18, a dovetail was milled across the unshaped and unrifled barrel blank and a small block of steel was bronze brazed into the dovetail.
This 'block' became a fixed-point, that the barrel shaping & taper, rear-sight holes, 'clocked' or timed barrel threads, barrel index-mark, and extractor-cut, were all based on.

Ultimately, this 'block' was shaped, slotted, and cross-drilled, to become the front sight-base.

The Krag barrel was actually a fully manufactured, proofed, and "browned" (Blued) item, when it finally 'met' and was screwed into its fully finished 'case hardened' receiver. (Wow, interchangeable parts)!

The machine work and "browning" (rust blue) make the attachment of the Krag sight-base very subtle. Close scrutiny will usually reveal the color and outline of the bronze seam.

(IMHO - The OP's model 1896 front-sight attachment looks oddly done. It does not appear to have the Springfield Armory manufacture characteristics, shown in the two attached photos).

4919449195

[Darrylg60]

Thanks for the insight butlersrangers. I hope I can get more info from brother-in-law concerning family history. He received it in the late '50's but can't remember if it was in the family longer.

[Kragrifle]

While on the subject, the early Model 1892 rifles had a wider slot cut in the front sight post than the 1896 and later rifles and carbines. The Model 1892 sight blade had a step cut to make the sighting portion of the blade narrower than that portion in the front sight post. When these early rifles were “upgraded’ the front sight post slot was made narrower or was replaced with the later sight post with more narrow blade cut out.
Question is whether the posts were replaced or was the slot somehow made narrower? Asked this question to Tom Pearce years ago and he stated it was not known exactly how it was done.

[butlersrangers]

That is an interesting question, 'Kragrifle'.

According to William Brophy, "The Krag Rifle", (page 114), the difference in the front sight blade thickness was only five thousandths of an inch - (.055" for model 1892 vs. .050" for model 1896 and later Krag models).

This is only a difference in thickness about equal to the thickness of a sheet of printer paper.

It would not surprise me if maybe Springfield Armory simply squeezed the model 1892 front sight-bases in a vise to tighten the early wide slots.

[Darrylg60]

Some better pics of my front sight.
49213492144921549216

[Darrylg60]

Not sure if I have type 2 handguard or cutdown type 1. If it's type 2, I'm missing the "legs". It has a crimped clip.
4921749218

[butlersrangers]

Your latest photos show your front sight base is mechanically fitted into a new dovetail and not brazed to the barrel.
It has been neatly done, but, not correct for original U.S. carbines.

A real model 1896 carbine hand-guard, for the 30 inch stock, has only one 'spring-clip' riveted to the wood to the rear of the back sight.

The front of the hand-guard is retained by a novel barrel-band, with sight-protecting 'ears'. The front-edge of the hand-guard fits into a cavity in the rear of the band.

49219

[Darrylg60]

I was looking forward to your response butlersrangers, thanks. I can see what someone has done regarding the front sight with your explanations. From what I've read, my handguard is from a Model 1892 since it has a crimped clip, not an 1896. I appreciate the knowledge this forum has to offer for newcomers like me.

[Dick Hosmer]

I have a HUGE amount of respect for the depth to which Chuck goes in his responses, but to my eyes that sight base still COULD be good. On a scale of bubba=50 and SA=100, that sight attachment is at least a 99, well into the gray area, or head-scratching range, and - FWIW - much, MUCH better done than the one currently under discussion at KCA (which has been adjudged "real" by some members).

[Darrylg60]

I've surfed a couple of other forum sites and I gotta say that you, (Dick), and butlersrangers are well respected for your comments and knowledge concerning Krags. I'm trying to see what, if anything other than a shortened/sporterized Krag I inherited. Its staying in the family with some history as I can find it. Thanks for your comments Dick. Did see an 1896 carbine rear sight on ebay...went for high dollar.

[butlersrangers]

Dick - I think this photo by 'Darylg60' clearly shows his front base to be mechanically held in place and not Springfield work.

Daryl is developing a 'good eye' to spot the 'crimp' in his hand-guard's spring-clip, which suggests the hand-guard is likely improvised from a model 1892 guard.
(I reviewed Daryl's first posted pictures. One shows that the rear of his hand-guard has the distinctive contour of the model 1892 wood guard).

49220

[butlersrangers]

I don't like being a 'Devil's Advocate' or perceived as being argumentative.

(Truthfully, I've made more than my share of 'enemies' on Jouster2 and probably other Gun Forums.
I've been occasionally vilified, maybe because of my screen name, persistence, or for what I've typed).

It is fun to analyze the origin of Krag parts that look sort of right, but, are not.
Krag rifles & carbines, as well as parts, have been around for a long time.
Some creative things have been done by civilian dealers and owners to make useful 'parts guns'.

It is a challenge to unravel Krag riddles from just photographs. Especially, if photos are not always the best.

Daryl and Dick Hosmer are good sports, with healthy egos, and are honestly seeking the truth.
I think we are just trying to understand what Daryl actually has. Is it a Model 1896 carbine or not?

Here is my take:
It is a cut-down model 1896 rifle put into a real model 1896 carbine stock.
It has a rifle sight and rifle barrel-band, without a swivel.
An altered model 1892 hand-guard has been improvised to stay in place.
The front-sight is an altered original base, reshaped and installed in an improvised dovetail.

It's a handy short Krag, that a civilian nicely put together from available parts, for Hunting and with no intention to deceive.

4922249221

[Dick Hosmer]

After looking at another pic - which I'd not seen before - I'll have to go with Chuck (B/R) but it IS still one of the better-looking re-dos!!

[Darrylg60]

Never having one before, let alone aware of their existence, I really like the way the whole short-rifle looks and will consider this my seed starter. Now, to get some decent ammo without breaking the bank.

[Kragrifle]

As to the difference in the 1892 and later front sight blade width, if you have seen them the difference is obvious.

[Darrylg60]

Seeing different pictures of cartouches, I had to hold my stock at an angle and I could make out the outline of the box. Reading Poyer's book, I know what should be stamped in there but sure is hard for me to make out other than the J. Quick question, are Joe Farmer's books still available? Thanks.
49245

[butlersrangers]

'Darrylg60' - Many of the wood stamps are faint on Krag stocks. This is because worn, but still useful parts, were refurbished, during arsenal rebuilding.

Stocks were scraped and skillfully sanded to appear like 'new'. Since the arms already had been accepted into service, there was generally no need to stike another 'acceptance cartouche'.

I believe your cartouche is located directly behind the 'saddle-ring bar'. Because of the narrow year-range, during which your stock was made - (1895, 1896, or 1897), the stamp is [J.S.A.] in script letters over the year. The initials are for Joseph Sumner Adams, assistant-foreman of the assembly room.

I've reoriented OP's cartouche and paired it with detail of similar 1896 carbine cartouche for context:

49248

[Darrylg60]

Thank you for the explanation butlersrangers.

[Kragrifle]

Interesting. Could I ask where you were able to get this information?
Thanks
Mike Raborn

[butlersrangers]

Mike - In Frank Mallory's book, "The Krag Rifle Story", (2nd edition), the author included in Appendix 12 (starting on page 224) - 1907 Instructions for Overhauling Small Arms.
This covered 1903 Springfield rifles, model 1898 and 1899 rifles and carbines, .45 cal. Springfield rifles, as well as, revolvers and shotguns. IMHO - This gives good insight into the reconditioning process.
Attached are a couple of snippets from Appendix 12.

"U.S. Military Arms Inspector Marks", by Anthony C. Daum and Charles W. Pate, has good information on Joseph Sumner Adams and his [J.S.A.] cartouche.

I had also, independently, found information on 'Sumner' Adams and family in U.S. Census, Massachusetts, and State of Maine Census Data.

I hope this answers your question.