$1780.00

[Dick Hosmer]

I doubt it; there is really nothing you can do (with total invisibility) to "un-96" a stock. If it were only the butt, yes, maybe - but you cannot recreate the rounded end of the rod groove which is visible in front of the band - unless you made a fake forend, which woud leave a joint showing, unless done perfectly. Even the "narrow" form of groove filler would be impossible to remove without leaving traces. If I were worried about someone shaving something, I'd think first of squaring off the muzzle. Also recall that there are legitimate original 1892 stocks with curved butts, though they do not have traps. FWIW, I never heard Bill mention rifles in connection with Ostberg. Interesting topic - we could go on and on with this.

In a similar vein, I have (as an intellectual exercise ONLY) fantasized about a way to make a new tip for a trapdoor "carbine" stock where ALL joints are either buried or occur at a break in the profile, and the barrel bed is undisturbed. The work would be tedious to the max, but only an x-ray would reveal the patch. Bad Dick! No, I will NOT explain how to do it, nor have I actually tried it.

[Fred]

The guy was canting the angle of the butt plate in a bit from the heel down after altering the shape at the heel of the butt to a more acute angle. The mystery was, how he came up with an altered front band that looked so good. I think that his stuff was stained pretty well to hide any wood around the old rod channel that remained after he would drill down the length of the old rod channel plug. Hell, he might've been slimming the wrists of the 1896 stocks for all that I know to look like 92's.

[Kragrifle]

Actually the filler in the 1892 rod channel was held in place by a pair of small wooden pins that could be driven out . I have never seen it done but have seen three rifles reconverted in this way and externally they all looked pretty good. At one time I briefly owned one of these rifles until I bought my first good 1892. I never took it apart to see how the front band work was done, but externally it looked good.

[Dick Hosmer]

Actually the filler in the 1892 rod channel was held in place by a pair of small wooden pins that could be driven out . I have never seen it done but have seen three rifles reconverted in this way and externally they all looked pretty good. At one time I briefly owned one of these rifles until I bought my first good 1892. I never took it apart to see how the front band work was done, but externally it looked good.

The pins were only used with the narrow filler, but still left four holes to be plugged. The bottom of the groove was squared out for the full length, and the eliptical end of the cut, visible at the band, was removed. That is the first place to look - NEVER buy an 1892 on which the rod cut disappears under the band. If one's goal is only to install a rod and view the rifle from the side from ten feet away, then it can be done - but if the piece is to look right in one's hands, then I stand by my original comment that restoration is impossible, short of a new forend, which would itself ultimately be discoverable. I do not believe that anyone but a novice could be fooled by a faked 1892 stock.

[Fred]

Nobody was buying the stuff from him that I noticed. Bill didn't get pissed off because that particular fellow did good work and was fooling anyone, he was pissed off at him because of what the guy and his wife was trying to pull. He wasn't finding any buyers that were knowledgeable collectors. He was just out hustling people and buggering up good Krags.

[madsenshooter]

I see pins in both narrow and wide fillers of my 92/96 rifles, Dick. Pretty much the same location, so much so that the heads of the ones on the wide filler are awfully close to the edge of the filler.

[Dick Hosmer]

Now, I'll have to look, Bob - I only have the one, and it has been a long time since I looked at that area in detail.

[Kragrifle]

The width of the filler was probably determined by how much wood had to be removed to clean up the ram rod channel to where it could be filled neatly. Pins were used in all the conversions I have seen. As I said, I have heard that it was relatively easy to drive the pins out and remove the wood filler strip. I actually still own one of the two such rifles I have owned in the past. One day I will try and find the one I still have and inspect it better. On this particular rifle the metal has not been altered, only the stock. Years ago another collector showed me a similar rifle he owned that had not been messed with and it had original metal-flat crown, no hold open notch (cannot remember the serial number so cannot remember if cutoff had been altered). So based on his rifle and mine, it would appear there are rifles out there that had updated wood, but early metal features.

[Dick Hosmer]

Now I'm REALLY going to have to look! [GRIN]

According to Mallory, and Bill Mook, the whole 1892/1896 thing was a cross between musical chairs and an Asiatic fire-drill. Time to remember the truism that we are trying to divine through the mists what happenned - from a collector's point of view - to objects that were seen solely as tools, to be utilized as efficiently as possible. Of course there are going to be variables, and, if the truth were known, many of our closet treasures are likely not quite as pure as we'd want to believe. The "unfired" Springfield is a complete myth, with the "untouched" specimen a very close second.

This has drifted from the original point - I still say that an 1892 stock, once upgraded, CANNOT be restored to original appearance. A 'ten-footer', yes - but nothing more.

Happy New Year to all!

[Kragrifle]

Sorry Dick if I suggested it was undetectable, which is isn't.

[Dick Hosmer]

Sorry Dick if I suggested it was undetectable, which is isn't.

Understood - didn't mean to get carried away! GRIN