OK I changed the resolution on my camera. Here are a few pics. This was definitely installed on the rifle a very long time ago by someone who knew what they were doing.

---

Fascinating! Hate to complain, but could you please redo the series with the lights turned on?  :-)

I'm guessing one of two things:

(1) Prototype - wonder if it differs in any way from the "production" version? Do you have a clip?
(2) Old assembly of one picked up off the floor by an SA worker?

Certainly isn't one of the trial pieces from the 288xxx period.

Again - fascinating - thanks for sharing!

d rail and Dick Hosmer:  I took the liberty of brightening up d rail's pictures.  This is really fascinating!  Mallory cautioned that the screw holding the 'Parkhurst Guide' might be a left-hand thread.

---

Questions:

1. Can these things be reproduced today?

2. How difficult to install on one of the plentiful altered Krags?

3. Could these be modified to use the British .303 chargers?

Thanks for lightening the pics for me! You can definitely see the detail better. I am new collecting Krags and the only book I have  Poyer's. He only mentions 1 prototype that was an 1892 and the Parkhurst was bolted to the receiver were as the test guns were dovetailed. Sources on the internet say they were riveted to the receiver. The screw holding it to the receiver is a standard  righty tighty.

In reviewing photos of the Parkhurst - Warren device in "The Krag Rifle Story", page 79, it appears Mallory and Olson used a photo of the Model 1892 'test rifle', as well as, two photos of a Model 1898 action bearing the device.  Model 1892 rifle #4070 was the Ordnance Dept. test rifle and was in the Smithsonian Institution, when Mallory Published (1979).
  d rail's photos of his device show a strong resemblance to the device on the Model 1892 in the photograph used by Mallory.  (IMHO)

I have never had the opportunity to examine the 'inner workings' of a Parkhurst clip attachment.  My knowledge is limited to references.  Brophy, page 195, describes the "Parkhurst attachment riveted to receiver".  Mallory, page 79, has a picture of a Model 1898 receiver with the device 'screwed on' very much like d rail's rifle.

That's a big improvement! I've never seen one up close, but I believe the guide lip - which is slightly different than the normal one - is the riveted part being referred to. Had forgotten about 4070, wonder if there was another prototype somewhere in the process?

I was looking through Poyer's book and found a photo of a Parkhurst equipped rifle and the magazine guide lip is different than on my rifle. Also found an old auction online for a Parkhurst carbine and the guide lip appears to be the same as mine. Saw a rifle on gunbroker that has the same guide lip as mine  (no Parkhurst). Do all Krags have a guide lip? It doesn't show in any of the exploded diagrams I've seen. Also found an old auction for one of the few surviving trial rifles and it said that the Parkhurst device was riveted to the receiver. Any idea how many of these still exist? Would it be worth it to replace the cut stock and barrel? 

d rail:  Actually, allowing for the difference in camera angle, the Parkhurst device pictured in Poyer's book looks very similar to your 3rd picture.  (BTW - S & S Firearms, in their 2012 catalog, had a Parkhurst clip for sale at $150)!
  You have a rare item that most of us have never had an opportunity to study.  My 'unsubstantiated hunch' is that in 1900, when the Parkhurst/Warren device was being manufactured for trial, over 1/3 of the U.S. Krags in Service were still pre-Model 1898.  I would be real surprised, if it did not occur to someone at Springfield, to try the device on a Model 1896 Krag.  (Just my opinion and hunch).  Personally, I would leave your Krag as it is;  no point in corrupting evidence.

In my 1974 copy of Joe DeChristopher's catalog he speaks of owning an 1898 Krag rifle (sn 289154) equipped with a "Parkhurst device". Perhaps one of you who know him should give him a shout and ask how his is device is attached. He also gives the SN's of six others he was able to examine. He might be able to shed some more light on the subject.   

d rail wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 5:11pm:

I was looking through Poyer's book and found a photo of a Parkhurst equipped rifle and the magazine guide lip is different than on my rifle. Also found an old auction online for a Parkhurst carbine and the guide lip appears to be the same as mine. Saw a rifle on gunbroker that has the same guide lip as mine  (no Parkhurst). Do all Krags have a guide lip? It doesn't show in any of the exploded diagrams I've seen. Also found an old auction for one of the few surviving trial rifles and it said that the Parkhurst device was riveted to the receiver. Any idea how many of these still exist? Would it be worth it to replace the cut stock and barrel?

All Krags have guide lips - I think those for the Parkhurst device are supposed to be "different" ( a little squarer at the tip, IIRC). I have never heard that the clip-guide block itself was anything but screwed on, and, IIRC, at least some sources state the screw is LHT. I'm nearly positive that any riveting involved was on the little lip piece. 288-289xxx is the correct range for the real ones. Even though this recently discovered example was done LONG ago, and quite possibly at SA, I'm not we should automatically assume that the installation is 100% typical of the trial arms. Still fascinating, though.

I just wanted to thank everyone for their input, I've learned a lot. Unfortunately, these are very rare and there is not much info on them. I did read somewhere on the internet that not all the trial guns were in the 288,000-290,000 range, but you can't trust everything you read on the internet! Like butlersrangers said, I wouldn't be surprised if someone at SA had the piece of mind to see how it worked on an 1896.  So it can be documented, the serial # of my rifle is 95329. Thanks again :)

d rail:  It would be interesting to see a picture of your Krag's stock, if it still is an original.  The workmanship of the inletting for the device would give some clue if it was Springfield Armory work.

Will these do?

---

It looks like everything was done in a very workman like manner.  Are there any markings or a Cartouche on the stock?  How was it sporterized?  (Barrel length, front sight, modification of fore-stock).

The barrel was cut to 25" and re-crowned, nicely done. A ramp front site was brazed on rather poorly, it leans to the left a little. The fore-end was cut in front of the lightening groove, nicely done. There's a crudely made barrel band that fits in the front handguard groove with a screw going through the bottom of the fore-end. The rear sling sling swivel groove was filled in with a small piece of birds-eye maple and about 1/2" of the butt was cut off (a little crooked) for a recoil pad which is hard and dried out. It looks like a skilled gunsmith did a few things to it and then Bubba got a hold of it  :'(. It does have a faint script proof and a faint J.S.A. cartouche with unreadable date possibly 1898 which was when this rifle was made.

Is there any interest in a modern (CNC) version of the Parkhurst attachment?  One that would work with British chargers?

d rail:  Too bad about your butt stock being shortened for a recoil pad.  Otherwise, it would be a good candidate for restoration.  I personally think your altered stock gives added credibility to your Krag's Parkhurst device being installed at Springfield Armory.  But that's just MHO.  Great find and thanks for sharing it!


reincarnated:  Any Krag I own, that I would be shooting rapid fire in a Match, does not have blemishes that would allow me to consider adding such a practical device.  I would have to go with the type of 'chargers' made by Parashooter and psteinmayer.

Yes, It can be reproduced but would need to have one to make a mechanical drawing of it and show it to a friend to see what the cost would be per unit. I am sure it it be around 150-250 per unit unless there were a large order and then the price would then come down some but cant say for sure till I were to show it to them.

It's a lot easier and less expensive to make and use one of parashooter's chargers.

yes this is true, but some would pefer the Parkhurst cost be damed.

While you're at it, see what it would cost to get us some new receivers made!   Just kidding, nobody would undertake that.  ::)

My money would go to high quality 'drop-in' Krag rifle and carbine stocks & hand-guards!  (Like the CMP 1903 Springfield stocks).

Dumb question coming here:  Does a Parkhurst device include something to guide the cartridges into the magazine well?  The way it looks to me, it just allows a stripper clip to be used.  That would allow the rounds to be forced down, but they still must make a left-hand turn to enter the well.  I'm just trying to wrap my head around the functionality of it.

Also, if someone modified his rifle to attach an aftermarket Parkhurst device, wouldn't that violate the "As Issued" rules of CMP competitions? 

As to the feed - that is why I believe the guide-lip is different, since the cartridges are coming in a precise path, as opposed to being tossed at random, the lip can be higher and more beveled to translate the downward push to a sideways slip.

As to the rules, I do not know - I'm fairly sure they'd have to accept a real Parkhurst, but would not be too surprised if they balked at a "Steinmayer Device".  :-)

There doesn't appear to be a stop on the Parkhurst clip, like other stripper clips.  It appears to me that it just barely went in the slot, with perhaps the bevel on the front of the rear slot catching the spring of the clip, which some clips I've found images of, don't appear to have.  It looks as though the rear slot was meant to open the spring of the clip, or at least allow room for opening of it.  Now I see, thanks to OP's pic at just the right angle, it was made to open the spring of the clip and said spring has wings that would make for a positive stop.  A major redesign might be needed to make Enfield strippers work.  The ones I have are pretty stiff and require considerable force to get the rounds moving.  Steinmeyer device, I like that!

I'm sure I have read something about the device actually acting on the clip, as opposed to just being a guide slot and no more.

While the inletting does not appear to have been done in one pass of the cutter, it is certainly nice work! For that matter, I'd guess that the real ones are custom inletted as well - doubt that they would change the tooling setup for a couple of hundred pieces.

A similar case occurs with the 26" BoOF stocks, but simpler, all they had to do (in addition to NOT doing something) was crank the clamp over 4", with no cutter change-out required. The increased taper was likely done by just a little longer stint on the belt sander.

I don't know where this recent find fits into the chain of events, but IMHO it should be treated very kindly, and nothing done to it in a rush. Sort of a treasure, really - could (even if a lunchbox special) wind up being quite valuable. Of course, if it could be some sort of intermediate prototype between 4070 and the production guns, it could be almost priceless.

If a shooter were to show up at the match and the device were to be on a rifle, I can not see them not allowing you to shoot. The device as long as it is to the orgional specs should be allow. If they were to say it is no, then any rifle that had a after market or reproduction part should not be allowed to shoot. I would personally never do it to my Model 94 rilfe or Model 96 Carbine but if I were to keep my parts gun then I might would like to have one once I were to get all of the needed parts to bring it back to shooting condition.

Does any one even have any striper clip for a Krag? enfield clips work for Krag ammo, but are not designed for the Parkhurst. I am sure if asked for the modification it could be done, but then it is no longer orginial issue part. This would then allow it to not be allowed  in ventiage matches.

S&S has some of the Parkhurst clips, for $150 a whack.  If you look at pic Butler'sRanger lightened, you can see, the rear slot is angled to pull the tab back, sorta locking the stripper in place.  It probably wouldn't take much of a nudge to get them falling down in there, depending on the fit of the clip to the rim.

---

does that come with the sales receipt for the London bridge and the ocean front property in Arizona!!!!!

The problem I see with having a Parkhurst device attached is not in the use of the device.  For example:  If there were only 100 original devices made, and 250 people showed up with them, then 150 would obviously NOT be "As issued."  (yes, I know... these numbers are for example only)

Now I'm not saying that 5 or 10 shooters with Parkhurst devices would not be allowed as "As Issued"... just as someone with a replacement handguard or trigger assembly wouldn't be a disqualification.  However, what I am saying is that all Krags have a hand guard.  All Krags have a trigger assembly.  NOT all Krags have a Parkhurst, and the odds that 30 or 40 shooters would show up at a single event with an actual Parkhurst device installed would be extremely slim, given that so few of the actual devices even exist!

my question is just what would make for a as issued weapon, as most Krags have changed over there is short service period and all changes were by the Army. What would be considered as issued as the data on Krags is so limited on the ones that were modified. Even in the message all who have seen it with the correct knowledge to comment would have said a Model 1896 Carbine would not have been in the group of one modified. I have seen the pics and it look like it was done at a arsenal to me and the work does not look like a bubba to me.

That's a good point.  Even an 1892 may have a 1902 sight on it.  It would be hard to narrow down, although an 1896 Krag with a 1901 sight and a stock with no cartouche issued to a National Guardsman stationed in England in 1917 would still be "As Issued" because it was issued by an armory to a serving member to be used in service!

It does murky the waters just a tad...

I'd guess the CMP officials would have to decide that.  It's obvious though that one made to work with anything other than that $150 clip wouldn't be as issued.  They might work as is with an Enfield clip, I don't know and don't have a Parkhurst to try one in.

the Clips I have would not without modifacation so can say.

I have a couple of them, one would have to cut away most all but where the rims slide.  Getting what's left to stop at the right height wouldn't be hard.  Whether or not they'd even go in the slot would be the question.  They have to be reasonably close since the rim is the same diameter.  Job for Mr. Dremel, after you get your parkhurst installed. ;)

Possible but would have to have a way to stop the clip from going all the way down. As I have no drawing to go by I cant say for sure nor do I have th access to one to check it out, as I would be willling to cut up a E to slide intonfield clip with a notch to allow it the Parkhurst and  then stop it at the right hight to allow rounds to cycle into the mag. The last issue would be if it would hold the rounds without sliding out of the clips.