So there was this gun.

[5MadFarmers]

Which made me ask myself: what else would I expect to find?



Hmmm.

[Dick Hosmer]

All right, WHERE did you come up with THAT? Or at least the pictures of that - which I HOPE we all know what it at least APPEARS to be. If so, you appear to have been correct about the numbers, not that you ever doubted it, I'm sure. Is it real, or one of your mock-ups?

[5MadFarmers]

It's better work than SA's redo for the museum don't you think? At least I used the right parts. Right down to the striker. I kind of like it. Did you notice the lugged rear sight? Correct cleaning rod? The bolt is pure 100% perfection. The cleaning rod channel is perfectly shaped as SA did the work. I think it's kind of cute.

I did learn something from that exercise though. They used the "cadet" band for the M-1899s but it's not the same. Shape of the stock changed. The M-1899 as made won't fit. Mine fits. Like it was made for it.

The best part is that it's all aged. Nothing shiny and new.

A fine rifle indeed.

I wouldn't call it "fake" though as it doesn't exist. It's a figment of my imagination. I've been told that I have a vivid imagination and am quite creative. Viola - the M-1896 Cadet Rifle.

[jon_norstog]

5MF,

that's a nice piece of work. I hope you put a note under the buttplate ...

jn

[5MadFarmers]

No note for that one as it's back to where it came from. The source gun was too interesting to me to leave it that way. Nothing was harmed in that exercise.

I do have the parts to make three though. I'm thinking if I do one I might as well do three. Setup and work isn't greater. The stocks will be new. The metal bits will be correct except for the cleaning rods. Those I can make now. I have a little milling machine. Not something I'm going to worry about in the near future - that's retirement fun.

I wouldn't worry about marking them overly much. None are real. Zero. Nada. I'm aware Brophy felt some may have survived. Not a prayer. The were quite thorough. Thus the reworks. If they originals had still existed there would not have been reworks.

I just needed a copyright clear picture for the book. So I baked one up.

[psteinmayer]

That's quite a sweet piece of cake 5MF... Nice baking! Too bad we all can't share a slice of it!

[CJCulpeper]

5MF

That is some kind of fantastic work. Great Picture. Please reserve a couple of signed copies of the book for me when it come out. I have money!

Culpeper

[Kragrifle]

Is there a cartouche on the stock? As to the serial number, I am sure you have an opinion. Brophy's book talks about numbers in the 24K range. However, most others I have spoken with over the years believe it is around 18K. I have a rifle that has been converted with an 1896 date (though smudged) and a number around 18K (can't remember exact number). The four made later are around 35K. Neat rifle.

[madsenshooter]

I believe that the 17-18000 range rifles sometimes found in modified cadet stocks were 92 rifles in for rebuild at the time the cadets were being rebuilt into service rifles. I have no way of knowing that for sure, just a hunch. Being remade into service rifles sometimes included being placed into thicker wristed stocks rather than waiting around for the woodshop to get done with the cadet stocks. They were being hastily modified into service rifles so that payment of royalties could be made, cadets didn't require payment of royalties. They already knew circa 1900 that a new rifle was coming, "Let's get this project over with and paid for". I also think that all 400 of the cadet rifles had an 1895 marked receiver. No proof for any of this, just a feeling. Speaking of royalties, I wonder how much Krag and Jorgenson got in the end for the nigh half a million rifles made here.

[Dick Hosmer]

I'll probably regret this, but, having been round and round with my publisher over photo quality, I'd warn you that what you presented above is nowhere NEAR what you need for publication. Needs a LOT more light, and, unless you want to do a LOT of Photoshopping (you don't) a no-texture background.

The only reason I bring it up is that I infer that you MAY (???) have already disassembled the gun, and are thus "done" with the photos - I say that based on the assumption that if you HAD taken the "book ones", that you would have used THEM instead of what you posted. If I am off track, I sincerely apologize, but thought I might save you some effort.