First cousins and a book booboo

[5MadFarmers]

A sample size of one is no sample size at all. A sample size of two is a sample size but, if it's not coherent, raises as many questions as it answers. Three is the magical number. It's why they design triple redundant systems. After that it increases but three is the magical number.

Last fall I noticed an auction within light artillery range of my house. I returned from that auction with a Krag. "1894" on the receiver and "1897" on the stock. I went due to that "1894." The next gumped M-1896 (formerly known as M-1892) that I find up in the high 23K or 24K range will give me the third receiver I want to fabricate three cadets. Yes fabricate. Fake? Pick a label you're comfortable with. Myself I like "mock" as none exist. "They'll be passed off as right!" No they won't. Not with "JAF 2018" or whatever year I have the stock fabricated in stamped on them. I have a source willing to copy the stock I have as a template. The unaltered Magazine Rifle. Back to that in a nonce.

The rifle I bought was in the high 23K range. I took a good look at it. "Very interesting but not the one." There is no way on earth that gun is going to get any work. It's a Magazine Rifle. A specific group in fact. In 1897 they altered Magazine Rifles to 1896 format but with M-1892 Extractors. Ergo they didn't notch the receivers. This is one. Side observation: when they updated them they didn't fill channels on those stocks. This one is in a perfect drop dead unsanded stock without the oiler hole and having an 1897 cartouche. I'd wager, with 20K M-1892s out there, they just tossed those "M-1892" stocks in the "spare parts" pile. When the M-1892s were due for update their stocks decidedly did get updated but, then again, they didn't need to support M-1892s after that. This gun will not be a candidate to be altered to a mock cadet as, to me, it's very significant as it is. Did you see it? They upgraded the Magazine Rifles to full M-1896 format (as much as they could) as they were neither M-1892 nor M-1896s. M-1892s didn't get updated for quite some time.

Now we get to that "Unaltered Magazine Rifle" mentioned above. Serial in the low 21K range. Remember Dick? The rusty one sleeping on GB? Mook didn't like the sight. "That isn't right." That perplexed me at the time. Why would a rusty intact "unaltered M-1892" have a sight swap? Didn't make sense. The gun was obviously unaltered. So why would he think that? It perplexed me at the time. I'm no longer perplexed. Bill was right and he was very wrong. Bill and others simply didn't see these from the view I have. "Models, models, models." It is very Model based. It certainly isn't serial based and I've shown that clearly. Over at KCA is a photo of Tom's late "unaltered M-1892" in the high 20K range. 1896 cartouche. Lugged M-1896 rifle sight. In the photo area with "1896 manufacture." Aw, the sample rate of one that they used....

First, and most obviously, that's not an M-1892. It's a Magazine Rifle. Neither M-1892 nor M-1896. Bits of both. In the book I claim that the Magazine Rifles had M-1896 sights. I'm right and I'm very wrong. 23K showed me the light.

lugged_sight.jpg

Tom's gun, high 20K, has that sight. Lugged M-1896. Thus, per that text, all guns from serial 19K up to the late 30K range have it. I'm sure Tom and Bill believed it. It's nonsense. The assumption is 20K was assembled with that sight. Slight chance but not really. I'll get to that...

21K has a normal M-1896. As does 23K. Get it? It's right there for you. Clear as a bell. Let me help:

21K is rusty. That M-1896 has been on it for ages.
23K was upgraded to M-1896 but with the M-1892 extractor in 1897. See it? If those guns had been made with lugged M-1896 sights they'd both have them. If a batch of Magazine Rifles with lugged M-1896 sights are updated to M-1896 format why would 23K get a non-lugged edition? The odds are incredibly low. The bulk of those rifles were likely never issued before that redo. In redo they'd get a lot of CPSD parts. Which means mainly lugged M-1896 sights if they originally had them with the few having broken sights resulting in a small sprinkling of non-lugged sights. As the guns were likely never issued who exactly broke the sights? Logic points to that gun, and the rest, getting new sights at that point.

So it's likely that the Magazine Rifles were either assembled with M-1892 sights or assembled without sights at all. Then they received M-1896 sights. Then, later, they started the "upgrade to M-1896" cycles with a batch of Magazine Rifles being first out of the gate. The M-1892s followed but quite later as they weren't a "morphodite non-model" like the Magazine Rifles. Tom's 20K and my 21K missed that boat. 23K made it but it was, by their records, the first batch. All future batches got the receiver notch.

When Bill said that 21K was made without that sight he was right and wrong. If it was assembled with a sight it was assembled with the M-1892. As was 20K and 23K. If the guns were assembled without sights they were given them after the first group of M-1896 carbines were out the door as both 21K and 23K have non-lugged sights. 20K likely received its' sight a bit earlier or they had both left and that received the lugged. 21K was assembled before 20K (cartouche is clear on that) whereas 23K was likely a bit later. Regardless the great bulk received non-lugged sights which points to after the carbines were well underway as they burned up most of the M-1892 blanks on carbine sights.

My book claims the Magazine Rifles had M-1896 sights. I'd say that by the time they left SA they did. They were either assembled without sights or with M-1892s originally though.

I like things pristine in all vectors. At least three vectors, like sample sizes, is the minimum I like. With two Magazine Rifles to review (20K and 21K) I had two different M-1896 sights to consider. Once 23K joined the party I had three. Enough for logic to really start to produce. So that's vector #1.

Let me add the second....

Tom is claiming that the lugged M-1896 was used from 19K on. Normally when countering an assertion some will lie to improve their position and lie to diminish the other. Myself I understand why that's actually dumb. I'll go the other way. Tom states 19K to 38K. I'm going to improve his position by knocking that down to 19K to 24K which greatly reduces the number one would expect.

If the rifles from 19K to 24K had that sight it means 5,000 of them. Overlap at the beginning is offset by overlap at the end. So let's go with a clean 5K.
It would also mean that 19K rifles were made with the M-1892.

Giving us a ratio of 4 M-1892s for each M-1896 lugged rifle sight. How many M-1892s have you seen? How many lugged M-1896 rifle? I own half the lugged M-1896 rifle sights I've seen or heard about and it's a paltry number. I own more of the lugged carbine edition than I've seen or heard about with respect to the rifle edition and I've probably seen 10X total more of the carbine than I own. The numbers just aren't there.

The Magazine Rifles were assembled with M-1892 sights and given M-1896s later or were left without sights until M-1896s came out.

All of which tells us that the assumption that the Magazine Rifles, and those are the guns in the 19K to 24K range, had lugged sights is wrong. The numbers just don't support it. The guns don't support it.

For the time Tom had that M-1896 lugged rifle sight up there were 5 M-1892 rifle sights up. Another M-1896 lugged rifle sight won't pop up on e-bay for the next year or more if the past pattern holds but a stream of M-1892s will. I know as I troll them.

Thus the story of the first cousins. 20K, 21K, and 23K. Magazine Rifles.
Thus the story of the book booboo. The Magazine rifles, when assembled, didn't have M-1896 sights. They had no sight or the M-1892. They were updated to the M-1896 at first opportunity. Then, later, they started getting turned into M-1896 rifles. Back to two models out there. M-1892 and M-1896. The "neither fish nor fowl" moved forward in time. 20K and 21K got the sight boat but missed the full redo. 23K got it. Then missed the future boats. How do I know that? "Receiver still isn't notched and M-1892 extractor is present."

"Type post, snipe that lugged sight Tom has up, submit the post."

Just took it for $36. Item 172210622132

[5MadFarmers]

There is, incidentally, another 800lb monkey in this thread.

Mook knew that first batch of guns altered to M-1896 format didn't have the extractor notch. The parts list for the cadets is clear those had 1896 extractors. Ergo the Cadets couldn't have been assembled on a receiver marked "1894" as those didn't have notches and they couldn't add them. Those had been manufactured too far ahead - why they got so far ahead on receivers is a mystery.

The M-1896 Cadets could only be assembled on receivers with the notch. Thus "1895" marked or later. The 18K range Bill was looking for is therefore excluded.

Now that's a data dense post...

[Dick Hosmer]

Guess I'll have to look closely at 20197 - I suppose it too is one of your "Magazine Rifles". It has an 1896 sight, but I don't recall what type. Plain butt with curved toe, full-length rod, flat muzzle, no extractor pin.

[5MadFarmers]

Guess I'll have to look closely at 20197 - I suppose it too is one of your "Magazine Rifles". It has an 1896 sight, but I don't recall what type. Plain butt with curved toe, full-length rod, flat muzzle, no extractor pin.

The manufacturing report for FY95-96 lists 2,750 made.
In FY96-97 lists 3,508 altered with the M-1892 extractors.

I suspect therefore that late M-1892 were updated to "Magazine Rifle" format. By the math just under 1,000 of those. Regardless, that 3,508 number would then point down to serials about 20K.

The M-1892 sight was dropped in 26 November 1895. From what I can tell that means they probably held the rifles. It would point to them being finished sans sights. Either that or somebody ate a few thousand sights.

What safety setup does 20197 have?

Not to hijack my thread but I knew buying that carbine, 24597, would result in another, lower, showing up. It did. I didn't buy that one as the cycle is endless. 24597 has the lugged carbine sight. Those are much more common than the rifle.

[Kragrifle]

Difficult to follow your thought process but will interject that I own a well browned 1892 fitted with the lugged 1896 sight and have seen two others well under 4000 with this sight. Likely the rear sight was replaced in the field. I believe I now own the late 1892 once owned by Tom. I will need to look at the sight again but yes it is an 1896 version.

[5MadFarmers]

I believe I now own the late 1892 once owned by Tom. I will need to look at the sight again but yes it is an 1896 version.

I do not believe that that rifle left SA without that sight. I also don't believe it received it prior to March of 1896. The rifle itself could have been assembled, minus that sight, anywhere from January to March.

They held them.

The lugged rifle sights are rare. I own a handful. Might as well call it the "M-1896 Cadet sight." The number of Magazine Rifles that received it could not have been many at all.

[5MadFarmers]

Time to weave it yet another way....

Let's go back to September of 1895 again. "M-1892 rifle production will end." What comes out the end of SA that day? M-1892s. What goes in? Metal and wood. What's already in flight? M-1892 parts.

They've made let's say under 20K guns. From the start of 1894 to towards the end of 1895. 20K guns. Might I add that Eddystone could knock that out in two days in 1918? SA pounded out considerably more trapdoors in under a year. "This not going well." To say the least. "We did pound out almost 25K receivers in 1894!" Yup. Then case hardened them. Which is kind of a bummer because we want them notched now. I mention this as they're under considerable pressure to pump up the numbers.

Unlike Henry Ford, in his transition from the T to the A, they cannot just stop the factory for months. "Must pound out guns."

"From this point until the M-1896s are coming out they're going to be increasingly M-1896ish but still fairly M-1892ish." No way I can know that right?



Well I guess there may be ways I can tell...

Kragrifle's 20K heads down the line. It's not an M-1892. It's not an M-1896. It's something in between and we call it a Magazine Rifle.
My 21K heads down the line. It's not an M-1892. It's not an M-1896. It's something in between and we call it a Magazine Rifle.
My 23K heads down the line. It's not an M-1892. It's not an M-1896. It's something in between and we call it a Magazine Rifle.

As they start coming of the line, let's say October of 1895 to February of 1896, they're getting a tad more 1896ish as they go.

Do they install M-1892 sights or just leave them without sights? Pick your favorite one as it doesn't matter.

When they come off the line, either with M-1892 sights or sans sights depending on your desire for it to be one way or the other, they go into chests.

In 1896 the first M-1896 receivers are done. Case hardened. With the notch. 500 of them. Also a fair number of M-1896 parts. Let's play it this way. "Rifles." 500 are banged together as cadets. 1368 are in pieces. Not all the pieces but pieces. "M-1896 rifles." Don't even have stocks.

The first M-1896 sights are lugged rifle sights. How many? At least 500. Cadets get them. What about those 1,368 rifles? "No sights" is probably the answer. "No stocks" might be right too. Other pretty significant bits are missing.

The last of the M-1892 rear sight blanks are burned up making carbine sights. The last of the rough cut (thin wrist) stock blanks are turned into carbine stocks. Which, if you really want to split hairs, means both the rear sights and stocks on the first M-1896 carbines are "M-1892 blanks" finished as "M-1896." Did I mention they transition from M-1892 to M-1896?

The carbines are out the door. Time to make rifles. Sights get made. M-1896 rifle sights. The Magazine Rifles are taken from the chests. On go M-1896 rifle sights. "Done." Did they have M-1892s or none at all? Doesn't matter.

20K is sent to the Justice League. They too want guns. It's placed in an arms rack.
21K is sent to CHAOS. They too want guns. It's placed in an arms rack.
23K is sent to the 4th Infantry. They too want guns. Private Jones hauls it around on guard duty.

The M-1892 rifle chests at SA are cracked open. The ones made but not issued. On go M-1896 sights. "These too are now Magazine Rifles."

The 1,368 M-1896 rifles they claimed to have already made are assembled. Then, much later, I end up with one but the stock is absent now. Did I mentioned that when they reported them as made they didn't even have receivers? Now that's a parts kit. How do I know that? "1896 or M-1896 marked receivers." Kind of a hint right? "Well, in fairness to us when we reported 1,368 rifles made we did have the cocking pieces done."

In 1897 they recall the Magazine Rifles. 20K, not being under army control, doesn't come back. Neither does 21K. 23K does and a standard M-1896 is sent to the 4th Infantry to replace it.

They intend to upgrade the Magazine Rifles to full M-1896 format. "Um, how do we put a notch into a case hardened receiver?" "I guess we don't." The guns are rebuilt to M-1896 format. Let's say with new stocks. Let's further say with M-1892 extractors. That's noted. "You know, next time we do that it'll be 20K M-1892s. We should find a way to notch the receivers."

23K is sent to the Department of the Treasury. They too want guns. It's placed in an arms rack.

When the decision is made to alter the M-1892s to M-1896 they're happily sitting on an angle grinder with a diamond wheel and a talented dude. The M-1892s are stripped and he kisses each receiver. Giving them that wonderful M-1896 notch. As the "M-1896 rifles which used to be Magazine Rifles but we couldn't notch them so they have M-1892 extractors" return he kisses them too.

20K has the lugged M-1896 rifle sight. I'd be a might happier if it had the non-lugged edition but whatever.
21K has the unlugged M-1896 rifle sight.
23K does as well. It went through "alter to M-1896" format with guns which were either Magazine Rifles are updated M-1892s. So hit and miss perhaps on sight.

The rest of the Magazine Rifles would be observed today by most and the determination made that they are M-1892s updated to M-1896. Nope. Magazine Rifles updated twice. Once to M-1896 format and then notched later.

That.

[5MadFarmers]

One more post just to make the thread longer.

"One gun."

That's the answer to "what would make your world rearrange itself?"

"One gun."

1,368 M-1896 rifles in FY95-96. Right now I say they were a small pile of parts. What would make me change that? The answer to that question is obvious.

A thin wrist M-1896 rifle stock.

Then I'd say they made 500 cadets followed by 1,368 M-1896 rifles (with lugged sights) with the carbines starting to pop up increasingly in that early rifle range.

"Change your opinion to match the facts instead of vice versa."

That'd do it. One M-1896 thin wrist rifle stock.

[Kragrifle]

Without data showing serial numbers, production figures, etc. all this is pure conjecture. Interesting, but pure speculation. Just to stir the hornet's nest, would like to hear your thoughts on when the cleaning rods stopped being used? I have a brown rifle, receiver marked 1894, serial number is around 21,700. Cartouche is 1896 and there are two firing proofs. The stock never had a cleaning rod channel. Front band is a later 1898 style with the slot. Rear sight is the later 1896 style with the larger knob. This rifle looks like it has been together for a long time and is not pieced together. Was it made without a rod in 1896 and then later "cleaned and repaired" to pick up the second firing proof and later front band and rear sight?

[Dick Hosmer]

Without data showing serial numbers, production figures, etc. all this is pure conjecture. Interesting, but pure speculation. Just to stir the hornet's nest, would like to hear your thoughts on when the cleaning rods stopped being used? I have a brown rifle, receiver marked 1894, serial number is around 21,700. Cartouche is 1896 and there are two firing proofs. The stock never had a cleaning rod channel. Front band is a later 1898 style with the slot. Rear sight is the later 1896 style with the larger knob. This rifle looks like it has been together for a long time and is not pieced together. Was it made without a rod in 1896 and then later "cleaned and repaired" to pick up the second firing proof and later front band and rear sight?

And the wrist is . . . . . . . . . ?

This is a GREAT discussion, BTW.

[Dick Hosmer]

I must admit that one of my faults (as explained by my wife) is that I can be too literal. Since every Krag from #1 on is/was a "magazine rifle", and almost always further subdefined by a model year, I have a hard time with "Magazine Rifle" as an interim appellation between a "Model 1892" and a "Model 1896". Granted however that that particular production period was a cross between a Chinese fire drill and a game of musical chairs, perhaps our frazzled ancestors just gave up and - unable to think of a truly definitive name - simply fell back on referring to them as "Magazine Rifles" out of sheer desperation?

[5MadFarmers]

Without data showing serial numbers, production figures, etc. all this is pure conjecture. Interesting, but pure speculation.

Not really.

The true meaning of "synergy" is the value added on top of the bits in combining them. 2+2=5. "Synergy" in that formula is 1. I buy a factory which turns out 100 cars a day. I buy a second that does 100. By rationalizing the two as a unit I get 300 cars a day. Synergy is 100 extra cars.

Some people do a lot of research. This results in a lot of data.
Some people do a lot of forensics. This results in forensic results.

I did both. Not a little of both, a lot of both. Mook never believed in swivels on carbines. I found the General Orders. I found the production reports. I found the Chief of Ordnance testimony covering it and that in addition to having Ordnance do the work it could be contracted out. I found the reports on the conversions of the PCs. In the P.I., not Springfield.

And I found the guns and the pieces.

Research + Forensics = more than the two on their own. My book is "Synergy."

Ask Mr. Hosmer about the level of research and the level of stuff I bought.

Just to stir the hornet's nest,

Without open discussion nothing advances. If you have problems with my assertions tell me I'm full of swampwater. I may very well be. I often am. "Um, 5, you prematurely put those cups in the book and then found the production contract showing date, cost, maker, and just to rub it in found the blueprint for the set they went to." Um, the part in the book on those enamel cups? It's wrong. Very, very wrong....

would like to hear your thoughts on when the cleaning rods stopped being used?

The M-1896s didn't have them with the exception of the Cadets. Everything earlier did. I included a picture of the butt plate transition to M-1896 format so it's clear that the Magazine Rifles had those plates. Part of being a Magazine Rifle. The Cadets had rods. Straight line to M-1896 with the Cadets being the sole exception. The telegram on the Cadets is centered on the stocks. Because they're odd? No idea, I'm not Flagler. I do know those specifically are called out in the DRM. Models, models, models. Serials are an accounting item.

I have a brown rifle, receiver marked 1894, serial number is around 21,700. Cartouche is 1896 and there are two firing proofs. The stock never had a cleaning rod channel. Front band is a later 1898 style with the slot. Rear sight is the later 1896 style with the larger knob. This rifle looks like it has been together for a long time and is not pieced together. Was it made without a rod in 1896 and then later "cleaned and repaired" to pick up the second firing proof and later front band and rear sight?

Wrist thin or thick?
Receiver notched or not?

Firing proof is an indicator of enough work where they felt the need to test fire it to make sure it worked as designed. Put a stock on? No need. Rebarrel? Probably want to right?

Pictures would be good.

[5MadFarmers]

I must admit that one of my faults (as explained by my wife) is that I can be too literal. Since every Krag from #1 on is/was a "magazine rifle", and almost always further subdefined by a model year, I have a hard time with "Magazine Rifle" as an interim appellation between a "Model 1892" and a "Model 1896". Granted however that that particular production period was a cross between a Chinese fire drill and a game of musical chairs, perhaps our frazzled ancestors just gave up and - unable to think of a truly definitive name - simply fell back on referring to them as "Magazine Rifles" out of sheer desperation?

I'm wondering if "Would have been an M-1892 but we're transitioning to M-1896 so it's a bit of both but the harder parts is the bits are kind of random" was too much.

The real answer? They're not this, that, or the other thing. Models, models, models. M-1892s are supposed to be a "MODEL." Which from the book means "they're all the same." M-1896s are a MODEL. Magazine Rifles are not M-1892s and they are not M-1896s. Then it gets weird. They're transitional guns and thus may not even be the same as other Magazine Rifles. Maybe some got M-1892 sights and some M-1896? Would explain Kragrifles gun wouldn't it? They're not really a model. They're individual guns.

[5MadFarmers]

Without data showing serial numbers, production figures, etc. all this is pure conjecture.

In the book but we'll go over them.

Just to stir the hornet's nest, would like to hear your thoughts on when the cleaning rods stopped being used?

That question is evil. Not just your run of the mill evil but evil incarnate missing the malevolent tinge. I love it.

That could really go both ways couldn't it? That's the kind of question that makes one stew the great soup that it is. That's a useful question. What if, towards the end of the Magazine rifles, they started adding M-1896 stocks? Conversely what if the last of them had "1895" notched receivers but M-1892ish stocks? Could go either way right?

Models, models, models. They were big on them due to support. Big on them to the level that they issued trapdoors with only 1879 sights to some units and only Buffingtons to others. They considered them different models. I know this as I read the issue reports, repair reports, and order reports. The Militia mixed them in units but when issued they all had the same sight.

An M-1896 is going to be an M-1896 unless otherwise noted. The cadets.
An M-1892 is going to be an M-1892 unless otherwise noted. They distinguished between "type 1" and "type 2."

Later the rear sight bingo thing came about and that made them adapt but we're not later here.

FY1893-1894. 917 rifles (Brophy reports 914 which is correct but misses the three in the tool room in the report).
FY1894-1895. 14491 rifles.

I'll ignore the two carbines as noise.

15408 to this point.

FY1895-1896. 6407 M-1892 rifles.

Total reported M-1892 rifles: 21815.

Now we hit "Magazine Rifle" land.

FY1895-1896. 2,750 Magazine Rifles.

24565.

23797 is marked "1894." Clearly Magazine Rifle material as it cannot be an M-1896.
24110 is marked "1895." Clearly M-1896 able but could be Magazine Rifle.

I own those two so I know the markings are right. In fact I grabbed both to confirm. I'll add that I looked at 23820 and it was 1895 marked.

Magazine Rifles were assembled on "1895" receivers. Which would imply the stocks were cleaning rod stocks.

24565 (M-1892s and Magazine Rifles) +404 cadets =24969.

Back to that 24K range. Carbines start to appear in there. The cadets are in there. No room for the M-1896 rifles they reported.

I think I did the math right.

Evil question. Good question.

Stocks sans cleaning rod appear in the 35K+ range.


====

Want an odd sample size of one? I own 24110. Ready? Really? Think so?

It has a carbine barrel.
Which isn't crowned.
It has an early M-1896 bolt.
With the squared channel firing pin.

No sight or stock present.

That gun bugs me.

====

krag_prod.png

[Kragrifle]

I plan a display of 1892 Krag rifles at the July Kansas City show. I would really enjoy people to show up and talk Krags all week end!