Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28

Thread: 1896 Krag rifle

  1. #11

    Default

    Thanks guys. I am going to clean it up this weekend. I'll try to get some pictures of the bore. The bore is dang near perfect. I haven't figured out how to get really good pictures. Still working on it though. I was curious about the 1898 cartouche. I am assuming it is right for this rifle. My research says it was made in 1897. Any thoughts?

  2. Default

    I'm with Dick as well. I have a lot invested in Krags. Never saw one I didn't love!

  3. Default

    Remember the cartouche follows the fiscal year. If all parts of the rifle match to fit and finish I wouldn't worry too much about the date, but this early a number may fit better with an 1897 date. Remember, Krags, unlike trapdoors tended to follow dates and serial numbers pretty closely.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kragrifle View Post
    Remember the cartouche follows the fiscal year. If all parts of the rifle match to fit and finish I wouldn't worry too much about the date, but this early a number may fit better with an 1897 date. Remember, Krags, unlike trapdoors tended to follow dates and serial numbers pretty closely.
    The receivers were stored in trays on rolling carts and were pulled as needed at random but with a natural/physical bias towards FILO (first in, last out) so an "1897" one could easily have not received final inspection until 1898. Now, two years "off" could well be suspect, and of course the cartouche should never be a year earlier than the estimated receiver date!

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Upper Appalachia aka SE Ohio
    Posts
    1,476

    Default

    Speaking of that 1897 date. A fellow on facebook recently showed off a model 92 that had an 1897 cartouche. I don't know how that came to be unless some officer wanted his rifle to be like the one he was using at West Point.
    "I have sworn upon the Altar of God, eternity hostility upon all forms of tyranny over the minds of man." - Thomas Jefferson

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madsenshooter View Post
    Speaking of that 1897 date. A fellow on facebook recently showed off a model 92 that had an 1897 cartouche. I don't know how that came to be unless some officer wanted his rifle to be like the one he was using at West Point.
    Would be interesting to know more about that. I suppose it is possible that a 92/96 conversion could have gotten cartouched in that manner during the process, but a completely proper 1892 stock with original rod channel, thin wrist, flat butt, etc., etc. would make one wonder.

    I have what Joe Farmer's research suggests that the world should recognize as a "Magazine Rifle" (an undated unicorn between the 1892 and the 1896) bearing number 20197, and having a [JSA/1896] "transitional" stock (exactly like an 1892 except that the butt is curved and has a thick plate with no trap).

    FWIW, I would not participate with ANYTHING involving guns on Facebook.

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kragrifle View Post
    Remember the cartouche follows the fiscal year.
    Let's test that theory. Fiscal cut-off of mid-year at that time as I recall it was but I could check that. Regardless.

    If FY93-94 was considered "fiscal year 1893" then there would be early M-1892s with "1893" cartouches. None.
    If FY98-99 was considered "fiscal year 1899" then there wouldn't be any M-1898s with "1898" cartouches. There are.

    Fiscal year is typically called by the "future year" and that would, by that rule, exclude 1898 cartouches on M-1898 rifles. They have them. M-1898s started coming off the line in July of 1898 (FY1899) but have 1898 stamps.

    It's calendar based.

    Quote Originally Posted by madsenshooter View Post
    Speaking of that 1897 date. A fellow on facebook recently showed off a model 92 that had an 1897 cartouche. I don't know how that came to be unless some officer wanted his rifle to be like the one he was using at West Point.
    For the simple cost of a nickel I can figure out a plausible reason for that, excluding the officer thing but it's close.

    In addition to the military, other "executive branch" departments purchased arms from the army. Prisons as a simple example. Let's say the "Department of the Interior" had purchased 5 chests of rifles in 1895. Then, in 1897, one was stolen and they wanted to replace it. "We want the same model for parts compatibility." Parts matching was very important for specifically that reason.

    That leaves the question of stock. If it was "new" then it would be thick wrist. They could, and did, make those. Thick wrist with channel. If it was thin it'd have to be a sanded original or a spare they finally had a chance to burn up.

    So not impossible really.

    In fact I'm of the considered opinion that the "unaltered" M-1892s were, by and large, not under army control and that is why they missed the updates. Officer's guns, other departments, etc., Those missed the 1896 alterations.
    Last edited by 5MadFarmers; 05-07-2017 at 11:59.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    My wife's house in Nebraska
    Posts
    4,976

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dick Hosmer View Post
    I have what Joe Farmer's research suggests that the world should recognize as a "Magazine Rifle" (an undated unicorn between the 1892 and the 1896) bearing number 20197, and having a [JSA/1896] "transitional" stock (exactly like an 1892 except that the butt is curved and has a thick plate with no trap).
    I once owned an unaltered 1892 (rod in channel, thin wrist stock, 1895 cartouche) that had a Straight and Thick butt plate that also had a trap door with a hole underneath but No holes drilled in the bottom for rods.
    Last edited by Fred; 05-07-2017 at 08:35.

  9. Default

    Would love to see that rifle. Of all the 1892's out there those in the 20K serial number to end of production range are the hardest to find and likely the most interesting.

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kragrifle View Post
    Would love to see that rifle. Of all the 1892's out there those in the 20K serial number to end of production range are the hardest to find and likely the most interesting.
    All 1815 of them. That's the maximum possible. It appears to be even less for obvious reasons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fred View Post
    I once owned an unaltered 1892 (rod in channel, thin wrist stock, 1895 cartouche) that had a Straight and Thick butt plate that also had a trap door with a hole underneath but No holes drilled in the bottom for rods.
    That would have been an interesting rifle to review.
    Last edited by 5MadFarmers; 05-08-2017 at 05:30.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •