Senior Member
Krag #45, etc.
For those who like to look at Krags for sale, Joe Salter has some 1894 receiver rifles available, including #45. Maybe some of them were magazine rifles at one time. His pictures are, as usual, quite good for a sale site. His prices? Well, I'll let you judge.
Last edited by 11mm; 06-05-2016 at 09:51.
Senior Member
Maybe a slight premium over a typical "92" conversion, but $6000. I don't think so.
Senior Member
When selling you can always come down but can never go up. Interested in a brass muzzle cover for $450? If so let me know. If I had offered it for $4.50 I might be kicking myself.Originally Posted by robh5
Item 23538. Interesting that somebody took the time to file the rear sight to 1902 format. I mention that as it "retained 95% plus of the original blue finish." Probably some bored trooper in the field. Nothing better to do that week.
Item 28230. Took one, serial about 25 from that one, about 1.5 years ago. Fine rifles.
Item 22249. It's not often one sees an original M-1896 Cadet stock. "My God, the M-1896s are in the 22K range!!!" Either that or they're on altered M-1892s now. Side plate is late. "Curved rear" late. It's not wearing a lugged rifle sight.
Item 25516. Earlier M-1892 bolt wearing the safety sleeve from a gun circa 25K. Lunchbox is later edition. Sight is M-1892. Cut-off is later. Bayonet band is later. People do like to maximize the M-1892 parts on altered rifles don't they? I counted 4 distinct eras and I didn't look real hard.
Very Senior Member - OFC
Hmmmmm - to my eyes, 22249 has a thick-wrist stock - so, perhaps the (pretty poor color match for SA work) bandspring filler is ersatz, or a red herring?
Senior Member
It has a filled cleaning rod channel. "Why" it is the way it is - that's a series of questions. I'm not uncomfortable calling it a Cadet stock - altered.
Very Senior Member - OFC
How did a thick-wrist stock get a rod channel in the first place? I think someone with a fantasy just wanted to make it look (almost) like an altered Cadet stock. I cannot share your comfort.
Senior Member
Page 262. It does no good to put the book out there if people don't read it.
Now that we know there are at least 200 thick wrist M-1892 stocks in 1898 shall we move to the ability to make replacement M-1896 Cadet Rifle stocks in 1897 or 1898? What would the wrist size be? If they made a stock for a Cadet in 1897 would it have the cleaning rod channel? Check the parts list for the Cadets and the answer is clear.
Could be an M-1892 thick wrist stock altered to parade as a Cadet stock.I think someone with a fantasy just wanted to make it look (almost) like an altered Cadet stock. I cannot share your comfort.
Could be an M-1896 thick wrist stock made for a Cadet.
What's clear is that it's a thick wrist stock with a rod channel. Which, given page 262 is simply an example I included for people to get the point, simply means I fully understand that they didn't stop making parts for the models when new models came about. Today, somewhere in China, are two rotors being made for an 1997 Ford F-150. When I go to get rotors for that truck they'll be the correct rotors for my truck. Why? Because 1997 Ford F-150s are out there and need parts. The right parts for the right model. Guns are no different from the rest of life. Kind of a main point that book makes.
The book, in spite of the warts which are intentional to a certain extent, is a tour de force.
Shall we move to the next point? That is, without any doubt, a replacement stock. The rod channel in the thick wrist alone assures it. That stock was never heavily sanded. Sanded, yes, but not heavily. It has zero traces of an acceptance cartouche. It does have a clear proof cartouche.
That stock was screwed onto a gun which received work. Not a field replacement - a replacement for a gun getting serious work. Doesn't rule out a Cadet but I would be more comfortable if I saw that stock minus the band spring fill.
For now I'll say I'm not uncomfortable with calling that a Cadet stock.
Senior Member
I'm going to pivot the thread. Play devil's advocate.
Let's, for a moment, pretend that all those Krags came from one collection. Let's take four guns:
A two digit with what, for the purposes of this pretend world, appears to be somebody playing "maximize the 1892 parts" as I mentioned on another thread.
Two guns in the 22K range. One showing signs of a "Cadet" stock. Let's split the difference and say that's an M-1892 thick wrist replacement stock, a legitimate and rather scarce item, baked to look like a recovered Cadet stock. Almost as if somebody felt the cadets were in the 22K range and acted upon that idea.
An "1899" gun which has the 1898 sight altered to 1902 format. Calling much else into question.
What if it was a collection in the hands of somebody trying to make the guns appear to be what they think they should be? What would it mean?
It'd mean a two digit gun that generates discussion on how much it looks like an assemblage of random parts trying to "restore" it. Poorly. I really don't like that sight on that gun. In fact I'd go as far as to say, IMHO, it's wrong.
It'd mean a rather rare stock mucked up in an unrecoverable way which, instead of having people admire it, gets people to question it.
I don't know that it was a collection. I don't know that those are the result of somebody trying to "restore" guns without really knowing what they're doing. Might simply be something else. What is unmistakeable is attempts to hammer oddities, like a rare stock, into the normal molds isn't a good thing.
Leave them be. Unless they're pooched. Then practice your art skills.
Very Senior Member - OFC
How could I have missed p. 262? Must have brought the samples for Stuttgart, when I boarded the bus to Berlin. For readers other than 5MF, that is an inside joke.
Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 06-06-2016 at 04:50.
Senior Member
There are, so the psych tests advise us, two distinct personality types with respect to having things decided. I'm the one that doesn't really need them decided. The danger with that is paralysis of indecision. Which the "leave it hanging" type normally has to be aware of. The other half, on the other hand...
If I had a dart and somebody required me to throw it, I'd throw it at the "made an altered cadet" board. So in that regard I'd agree with you that it's a mite fishy. That said I really dislike calling something bogus if I don't know that it's so. I'd rather leave it undecided. "Not impossible so don't muck with it but it's slightly off kilter."
Why is it off kilter? That proof mark. Think about it and you should see it. The proof mark moves it the off kilter arena to a level that disturbs me.
For those looking at it, let's get back to that two digit for a moment. I was going to let it pass without getting further into bits of that gun that bug me but I guess it's not a bad thing to go over.
1) They kept the models models. Models, models, models.
2) They were frugal to an astonishing degree.
3) They hated the Militia with a passion. As a result of WW1 that changed to "they hated the USMC with a passion" but let's not digress.
The altered M-1892s require an eye to all three. So it's very murky in many regards. Much more so than it needed to be. When those guns were altered to M-1896 format they suffered greatly from those three items.
That said one can navigate through it. Apply the three bits above and then ask yourself if it's likely.
"They altered an M-1892 to M-1896 format but reused the M-1892 sight." Very unlikely. Firstly, they were sight nazis. They'd not give a gun with a sight they didn't like to their worst enemy. More importantly the M-1896 does not have the M-1892 sight. M-1896, yes, M-1898, yes, M-1901, yes, M-1902, yes, M-1892, NO. I'd not be big on the M-1898 sight on one but it's not impossible. An M-1892 sight on anything later than the M-1892 is really unlikely. "Pretty much impossible even for them when they were angry and drunk at the same time." That. The M-1898 if they were drunk and not angry but the M-1892 never.
Hand guard. There is no interchangeability issue with that hand guard so it's likely they reused them. #1 isn't violated and #2 thus rules.
Bolt. M-1896 bits will fit on the M-1892 bolt so no big deal. It's wrong at a level that would bug them so they could likely blow hot and cold. So they'd do it but they'd mutter as they did so.
Side plate. No problem. #2 rules.
Lunch box. Again, #1 not a problem so go with #2.
Interchangeability. If the part doesn't affect it, it'd likely be reused. If it did it's a question of how much. An unaltered M-1892 safety making it through conversion? Snowball, meet hades. A sight? Not likely.
I'm aware of claims that M-1892s were used later in a pinch. I'd say "hogwash" to that. More like "only with a gun to their head."
So the bolt in that thing is not something I'd like to see. They did re-use them but it wasn't a good choice. The sight though - that is, IMHO, bogus.
Every time you see an M-1892 part on an altered M-1892 ask yourself: "does this affect interchangeability?" If the answer is "yes" consider it questionable at best. If it's a sight - run. If it doesn't - it's a not a problem.
Last edited by 5MadFarmers; 06-06-2016 at 05:20.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote