1896 Krag rifle

[Dick Hosmer]

Speaking of that 1897 date. A fellow on facebook recently showed off a model 92 that had an 1897 cartouche. I don't know how that came to be unless some officer wanted his rifle to be like the one he was using at West Point.

Would be interesting to know more about that. I suppose it is possible that a 92/96 conversion could have gotten cartouched in that manner during the process, but a completely proper 1892 stock with original rod channel, thin wrist, flat butt, etc., etc. would make one wonder.

I have what Joe Farmer's research suggests that the world should recognize as a "Magazine Rifle" (an undated unicorn between the 1892 and the 1896) bearing number 20197, and having a [JSA/1896] "transitional" stock (exactly like an 1892 except that the butt is curved and has a thick plate with no trap).

FWIW, I would not participate with ANYTHING involving guns on Facebook.

[5MadFarmers]

Remember the cartouche follows the fiscal year.

Let's test that theory. Fiscal cut-off of mid-year at that time as I recall it was but I could check that. Regardless.

If FY93-94 was considered "fiscal year 1893" then there would be early M-1892s with "1893" cartouches. None.
If FY98-99 was considered "fiscal year 1899" then there wouldn't be any M-1898s with "1898" cartouches. There are.

Fiscal year is typically called by the "future year" and that would, by that rule, exclude 1898 cartouches on M-1898 rifles. They have them. M-1898s started coming off the line in July of 1898 (FY1899) but have 1898 stamps.

It's calendar based.

Speaking of that 1897 date. A fellow on facebook recently showed off a model 92 that had an 1897 cartouche. I don't know how that came to be unless some officer wanted his rifle to be like the one he was using at West Point.

For the simple cost of a nickel I can figure out a plausible reason for that, excluding the officer thing but it's close.

In addition to the military, other "executive branch" departments purchased arms from the army. Prisons as a simple example. Let's say the "Department of the Interior" had purchased 5 chests of rifles in 1895. Then, in 1897, one was stolen and they wanted to replace it. "We want the same model for parts compatibility." Parts matching was very important for specifically that reason.

That leaves the question of stock. If it was "new" then it would be thick wrist. They could, and did, make those. Thick wrist with channel. If it was thin it'd have to be a sanded original or a spare they finally had a chance to burn up.

So not impossible really.

In fact I'm of the considered opinion that the "unaltered" M-1892s were, by and large, not under army control and that is why they missed the updates. Officer's guns, other departments, etc., Those missed the 1896 alterations.

[Fred]

I have what Joe Farmer's research suggests that the world should recognize as a "Magazine Rifle" (an undated unicorn between the 1892 and the 1896) bearing number 20197, and having a [JSA/1896] "transitional" stock (exactly like an 1892 except that the butt is curved and has a thick plate with no trap).

I once owned an unaltered 1892 (rod in channel, thin wrist stock, 1895 cartouche) that had a Straight and Thick butt plate that also had a trap door with a hole underneath but No holes drilled in the bottom for rods.

[Kragrifle]

Would love to see that rifle. Of all the 1892's out there those in the 20K serial number to end of production range are the hardest to find and likely the most interesting.

[5MadFarmers]

Would love to see that rifle. Of all the 1892's out there those in the 20K serial number to end of production range are the hardest to find and likely the most interesting.

All 1815 of them. That's the maximum possible. It appears to be even less for obvious reasons.

I once owned an unaltered 1892 (rod in channel, thin wrist stock, 1895 cartouche) that had a Straight and Thick butt plate that also had a trap door with a hole underneath but No holes drilled in the bottom for rods.

That would have been an interesting rifle to review.

[Mark Daiute]

The 1892 with the 1897 cartouche referred to above was an 1896 in aspects save the cleaning rod.1896 1892.jpg1896 1892 a1.jpg1896 1892 a2.jpg1892 1896 a3.jpg

I took it to be fakery and will be happy to be proven wrong

[Mark Daiute]

deleted double post

[Fred]

All 1815 of them. That's the maximum possible. It appears to be even less for obvious reasons.



That would have been an interesting rifle to review.

Bill Mook handled it and looked it over long ago. He thought it was the first one of that type he'd seen.
A lawyer who's also a Krag and 1903 collector owns it now.

[Dick Hosmer]

The 1892 with the 1897 cartouche referred to above was an 1896 in aspects save the cleaning rod.[ATTACH=CONFIG]40738[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]40739[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]40740[/ATTACH][ATTACH=CONFIG]40741[/ATTACH]

I took it to be fakery and will be happy to be proven wrong

Pictures provided don't show the crucial areas (upper band from front, muzzle, lower end of rod groove with band pulled forward, etc.) Clearly it is a thin wrist stock, but with a 96 bolt, though apparently the receiver has not been notched- at least it seems to have a flat extractor.

[Mark Daiute]

Dick, I thought the I could see a hold open pin on the extractor as well as a notch in the receiver.

Regards,

Mark

[Dick Hosmer]

You're absolutely right, what looks like a carpet nub at first glance, actually IS the pin lug. My bad.

[Kragrifle]

I have a rifle with unaltered metal in a converted stock. Doug Rainbow had a similar rifle so they exist. If you put that metal in an 1897 dated stock I guess you could create that rifle (except for the rod cuts in the butt)?

[1911Ron]

Good looking rifle!