OK, I give up...........

[kragnut]

Where'd this front barrel band come from?

[Rick the Librarian]

Looks like a VERY early 1892 upper band - does it have the "hole" for the cleaning rod?

What info can you tell us on the rifle?

[madsenshooter]

Type 1B using Poyer's nomenclature. Used from serial #201 through 2100, when they started using the type with the cut out top. I'm curious if the cleaning rod hole is still there too.

[sdkrag]

IF the band is original you can name your price. I had a fake that was so good it took Bill Mook a couple of weeks to decide. Close to impossible to find.

[Rick the Librarian]

The rifle doesn't look like an 1892 or 1892/96 - I don't see the cut for the cleaning rod or the filled in place for one on an 1892/96. Can you post a picture of the part taken from the muzzle end?

[5MadFarmers]

[5MadFarmers]

Type 1B using Poyer's nomenclature. Used from serial #201 through 2100, when they started using the type with the cut out top.

Good humor.

[Rick the Librarian]

Good humor.

Are you saying that Poyer's Krag book is about as accurate as his M1903 book??

[5MadFarmers]

More "aspires" to that level....

Poyer and his "types." Types are nonsense. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

I have at least 6 variations of Model of 1892 butt plates. How many "types" does Poyer claim? Six isn't the total - that's just the number I have sitting in a bag.

I have 4 safeties sitting on a shelf. Two are thick and two are thin. Two are 1896 and two are 1892. If you follow Poyer's "types" that means the two thick are one model and the two thin the other. Except of the four I have 1 thick and 1 thin are Model of 1892 whereas 1 thick and 1 thin are Model of 1896. Try fitting those into his "types."

Types are nonsense. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

A particularly stellar example of the fallacy of "types," not Poyer material but it's a nice example, is eagle snap cartridge belts. How many "types" of them? Guess first then continue reading....


Ready?

Based on the blueprints the answer is "over a thousand." How's that for types? Krags aren't much different. Types are bunk.

[Fred]

Bill Mook told me years ago that the first type solid band didn't have a cleaning rod guide hole of steel. He showed a drawing of the first type in his book, Krag Crap, that had no steel hole. I guess the rod just went through a hole in the wood.

[madsenshooter]

When you get that book out with nomenclature more to your liking, that's what we'll use. In the meantime some of us have to make do with what info we have out of books we can afford. But I do understand, I've been seeing little variations in carrier/follower assemblies lately, some of the 98 assemblies have numbers on them, for example a 2 on one, like they could be swapped if a rifle was having a particular problem.

[Rick the Librarian]

More "aspires" to that level....

Poyer and his "types." Types are nonsense. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. If they understood the material they'd understand the fallacy of types.

Types are nonsense. If they understood the material


.

I couldn't agree more. I often get M1903 questions asking, "I have a Type 6 stock and ..." I usually answer back professing ignorance as to what a "Type 6 stock" is!

When Poyer published his first ed. of his M1903 book, I criticized the use of "Types". As a result, in his second ed., he at least said that the "type" invention was his own. More galling to me was what was obviously a proof-reading error in his first ed. He listed 1920-range serial numbers as 1921, 1921 numbers as 1922, and so forth. When I contacted him about this (expecting him to say that there had been a proofreading goof), he told me (in a quite pompous manner, I thought) that there was more than one way to interpret the data! I noticed it was corrected in the next edition.

When I did a review of his M1903 book on Amazon, his reply compared me to the Anti-Christ and also insinuated that I step on baby kittens and pull wings off flies. He even got a member of the Remington Society (for reasons unknown) to agree with him.

Needless to say, I'm not a Joe Poyer fan!

[5MadFarmers]

When I contacted him about this (expecting him to say that there had been a proofreading goof), he told me (in a quite pompous manner, I thought) that there was more than one way to interpret the data!

From what I can tell it travels in three stages. The first stage is simple typographical or proofreading errors. Then there are "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance..." type errors. His "guessing" at JSA's first name, a swing and a miss, I'll ascribe to that. Then we get to the third stage. This is the stage where one fabricates data outright to support a case. Poyer's trapdoor book:



The Springfield trapdoor was the board's choice right?

The original report's results:




No, it was the Remington.

Needless to say, I'm not a Joe Poyer fan!

To quote somebody whose work I respect, the estimable Mr. Beard, Poyer's books are good "for bird cage lining."

Don't get my going full stride on this one....

[5MadFarmers]

Meh, I'll carry it further. I once produced a document from Blunt during the Spanish Fair stating he wanted trapdoor sights to make guns serviceable and he mentioned either 1879 or Buffingtons would do. Mr. Hosmer about had a cow. The thing is they didn't just gather up 1879 sights and install them on rifles, which was apparently the idea of which launched Dick into orbit, they actually fabricated over 5,000 of them. They weren't made as "Saleman's samples" so presumably they were in fact screwed onto rifles. So if one encounters a trapdoor made in 1890 with the 1879 sight one will be told, with sternness, that it's incorrect! That the sight was made in 1898 and screwed on by ordnance workers at an arsenal is apparently not kosher - in spite of the records that it was done.

So what "type" are those sights?

My automobile is 10 years old. If I take it to the dealer and there is something amiss will they give me a new car? No - they fix it. Using the "Correct" parts. Which are the parts made in 2003. If they don't have them? They can make them. When Krags were in use post-1903 they weren't just living on OEM parts - they made parts to support them. One shouldn't assume that they only made the latest model parts either - they made stocks of earlier parts. For earlier guns.

What types would those be? Made 10 years after the first batch were turned out and long after newer bits were screwed onto guns?

Types are bunk. They're a sign that somebody doesn't understand the material. "This replaces that" is one of the golden fallacies of this stuff. It never did. They made .50/70 rifle parts in the late 1890s.

Very recently the CMP sold M1 rifles which were substantially new. Very late production and likely unissued. Except some small parts were from much earlier production. The customers asked for the early parts to be replaced with late "correct" types. That's the joke. Those rifles were made with those early parts. WW2 "type" parts being screwed onto mid-1950s rifles to get them out the door using up the sweepings from SA. The CMP abided by the customer wishes and swapped the parts for the "correct" types. The customer is always right. Except when the customer starts believing in "types" and "this replaced that" to a unrealistic level.

Types are nonsense. The 1896 sights which were used after the 1898s were pulled were new production.

Types as used by certain authors, like "interchangeable parts" as understood by the ordinance department, are fallacies. Neither group understood the material.

I guess they go together is some strange fashion because one begot the other. What a strange thought but entirely accurate. The O.D.'s inability to understand interchangeable parts directly led to the fallacy of types.

[Dick Hosmer]

Not wanting to be seen as carrying water for JP, but, from the selections posted, I fail to see the mortal sin. He does not say the arms were listed in order of finish. He does err in saying that the Model 1870 TD was one of the participants - it was simply the Allin/aka OD entry, the word "Model" was not applied until after the trials. And, how do you define "winning"? The Remington may have received more preferences, but, it wasn't ever built in quantity for the US, so did not garner the income/local glory expected. "US Model 1870" was bestowed upon the TD, whether it "won" or not. The deck was always stacked in favor of (pick the) TD entry, because of the musket part availability/interchangability