Value of 1896 carbine

[1563621]

Ser. 22176. Looks in good cond. asking 3500. Me thinks too high.

[sdkrag]

Is the serial number correct? I would call it a cut down with that number.

[Dick Hosmer]

Absolutely NOT a real carbine if the number was quoted correctly. Lowest known production carbine is 24685. Here is 24893

[1563621]

http://cdn2.armslist.com/sites/armsl..._rough_640.jpg On armslist now.

[Dick Hosmer]

Looks like "1896" and 33whatever to me. That is a proper carbine number, but not a bargain price.

[sdkrag]

I've got one I might consider selling for that kind of money.

[Dick Hosmer]

Me too!!!

I have got to start thinning the collection!

[5MadFarmers]

Me too!!!

I have got to start thinning the collection!

Send 24434 this way. I'll have three cadet stocks made instead of one. The next time anyone sees 24398 it'll be sitting in one. With the correct parts to boot.

"Making up a gun!!!" Yeah, kind of like making up the Titanic. Given none survived it won't be a mystery that this one is assembled. Might even cartouche it with my initials.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'll give it some thought.

[5MadFarmers]

Stocks don't exist. The butt plates are easy. The hard part is the other unique bits. Especially these:

[TerryR]

I've got 24,173 it has a rear sight like the one on the right in your pic.
Any other differences to distinguish it?

Stocks don't exist. The butt plates are easy. The hard part is the other unique bits. Especially these:

[5MadFarmers]

"Any other difference?"

Many.

I've got 24,173

Mattoon last year in January per chance? If so I was debating taking that one away from you but decided to save my pennies for the incredible selection of field gear. Most of which I took but I'm kicking myself for the bits I didn't. Took a box of "leggings" for $2. Had a Krag action cover in there. Sad part is I did that three times.....



The three pictured initially were all rifle sights with the 1892 blank. Center above. Compare with the 1892 (left) and normal 1896 (right) and you'll see the lug is the same as the 1892. They burned up the 1892 blanks on the early 1896 sights.

[TerryR]

Yep, this ones from Mattoon! She's a beautiful rifle! I'm so very glad you passed on her!
The sight has the bevel on top of the leaf, and serrations on the very top to lift it.
So I'd say 1896 as it has the squared cut lugs .
Thanks for the info.

[5MadFarmers]

Wrong part to focus on. I've updated the picture so reload in your browser. Notice the two on the left have the same shape whereas the one on the right doesn't have that lug.

Left is 1892.
Middle is very early 1896.
Right is "normal" 1896.

It's that lug that identifies those sights. Early carbines have it also.

[Kragrifle]

Early, "lugged" rifle sights?