No, you are not "wrong" about the 1892, except that you may be misunderstanding the term "solid upper band". Along with the brass-tipped rod - of which no legitimate specimens are known to exist - the early upper bands lacked the top cutout and appear as simple, nearly cylindrical, tubes. Speaking of rods in general, VERY few are original - even advanced collectors frequently have to make do with repros.

Breaking the M1892 down into "types", since there were so many changes, is a frustrating effort - where do you draw the line? I don't like Joe Farmer's use of "magazine rifles", even though it was official, as it sounds (to me) too generic. However, it was an official term. If I were to split the M1892 into two collectible versions, that would be where I would do it.

Here (20197) is an example - not an 1892 and not an 1896, yet it has features of both. Even with the curved buttplate there is no trap. The muzzle is still flat. The bolt has the cutaway rib, but still no extractor pin. The rear sight is an M1896. Cartouche is 1896. The rod is not original, but the rounded head would be correct.

---