1896 carbine? srs check please

[keith smart]

Just picked up what appears to be a 1896 carbine but receiver is 1895. Serial is30349. Cartouche is faint but wood is proper carbine . Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks-Keith

[madsenshooter]

1895 is the proper receiver date for a 96 carbine with that low a serial #.

[JOHN42768]

Keith, There is no hit in SRS. It is however deeply into Carbine numbers. 30341 1st Cav. (marked on receiver Model 1895), 30352 1st Cav. (Marked on receiver Model 1896). Pure guessing, but could very well be one of the last 1895 Carbines. Enjoy, John

[Dick Hosmer]

That would pretty well isolate the break point, Assuming there was no overlap, if 30349 is"1895", and 30352 is "1896"!!!!

IIRC, there are a couple of the lower (not 96/98 for example) breaks at which overlap is claimed, but I have no idea how to straighten it out for sure without having the guns in hand. All sorts of errors could have occurred in the recording of the data.

[JOHN42768]

Hi Dick, It sure looked like the break point to me. The SRS lists three later (30588 ,30625 &30647) as a Model 1895, but those could be a typo errors in the model or serial numbers when recorded as you suggested. John

[Dick Hosmer]

Allowing for the posibility that the model designation was applied prior to numbering all sorts of mischief may have occurred, especially since they wouldn't have cared anyhow, because, at the early changes there were no differences. The 96/98 change (at around 108900) has to be clean cut, due to the receiver shape. The word "Model" was added around 37100. For many years we'd thought 37200, until another example showed up.

[jon_norstog]

Wow! I had a carbine in that S/N range with the "model" designation. I sold it to Ron Peterson in Albuquerque for $300, must have been 20 years ago. I was surprised at how much he offered me for it.

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

You mean substantially under 37100, with "Model"?

Unless you are allowing quite a bit of latitude with the statement "in that S/N range", I'd say - with all respect - that you are most likely somehow mistaken in your remembrance.

[jon_norstog]

It was 37,something hundred something. I had a list of worldly goods S/N that I lost a few years back. I'm thinking about seeing if Ron kept a record, and if he feels like going to the effort of retrieving that number. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

Assuming there was no overlap

That's like assuming Democrats won't be supporting "Diversity" in the next election.

With respect to Krags "overlap" is a fact of life.

Next week an "overlap" carbine will be arriving here. Kind of hard to mistake the overlap in this one as the "1899" isn't ambiguous. One the up side it's the earliest 1899 I've ever encountered.

Given the overlap I see in the guns for which it's obvious, 1898/1899, it would be foolhardy to assume it didn't occur earlier. Then we get to the 1896 rifles sitting right smack in the 96c block and we say "seems to be." 25973, by the way, was in rifle format. Given that 24685 you had we see the pattern.

It was 37,something hundred something. I had a list of worldly goods S/N that I lost a few years back.

35792 was recorded by Ordnance as a carbine. I don't think just over 1K is a stretch. Not given the way these things seem to have been turned out.