Were the Model 1896 Krag receivers dated "1895" ever used on Rifles or do they only appear on early Model 1896 Carbines?

They definitely were used on the 400+ Cadet Rifles, which occurred in the high 23xxx and low 24xxx range, as well as on some standard service rifles, but they are quite uncommon. Frank Mallory notes this in his book(s).

It also seems that there are small overlaps in numbering between "1894" and "1895", as well as, IIRC, between "1895" and "1896". No such anomalies are known at the higher changeovers.

Thanks for your response Dick. I'll have to 're-read' Mallory on the matter. The topic must be kind of subtly mentioned.

I am confused.  My krag 25175 has 1895 on it and it is a 1896?  I had to dig it out of the pile to have a look at it.  It is in a cutdown rifle stock.  The front sight is not an aftermarket or M1903 sight, looks like a regular krag front sight.  I have been treating it as a 1895 rifle.

'Culpeper' - How long is the barrel of your '1895' marked Krag, (#25175)? What rear-sight does it have?

FWIW - Krags #25150 & #25181 are listed as model 1896 carbines in the Appendix of Mallory's "Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition.

The krag carbines with 1895 dated receivers were produced late in 1895 and were officially considered 'Model 1896' carbines. (If I understand it correctly).

If your barrel is exactly 22", I'm guessing you have a carbine in a 'sportered' rifle stock.

Why not post some detailed pictures?

It took some digging to narrow the range for those 96 Cadet rifles, since the remodeled stocks were in some cases put on model 92 rifles that were in for rebuild.  I think Mallory may have mentioned a range beginning down in 17,000 or so, which would be a 94 marked receiver.  The consensus now is that all 400 cadet rifles had 1895 receivers, and 4 more museum pieces were made on 1896 receivers.  I agree, sounds like you have a real early 96 carbine in a sporter stock.

No such luck for yours truely.  Twenty-four inches to the bolt face.

It does not have a rear sight which is okay since I have six or so carbine sights lying around somewhere.

Also it needs the spring for the magazine.  Anyone know where i can find one?

Will try to get a new camera today.

madsenshooter wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 8:05am:

It took some digging to narrow the range for those 96 Cadet rifles, since the remodeled stocks were in some cases put on model 92 rifles that were in for rebuild.  I think Mallory may have mentioned a range beginning down in 17,000 or so, which would be a 94 marked receiver.  The consensus now is that all 400 cadet rifles had 1895 receivers, and 4 more museum pieces were made on 1896 receivers.  I agree, sounds like you have a real early 96 carbine in a sporter stock.

I believe that Joe Farmer's research (and I do recommend his book) has now proven Mallory's contentions on the Cadet range to be erroneous. In any event, use of an "1895" receiver on an arm other than a carbine was quite limited. FWIW, plain "1896" (no MODEL) is the scarcest receiver date.

Re: Joe Farmer's Research

Sadly, I do not get along with Mr. Farmer and the way he treats and assassinates the character of people he takes an exception or dislike to.

(There seem to be long gaps in his participation on other Forums, like 'Culver's Pages'. He has stated: he does not participate on the KCA Forum, because, I do. I have noticed at times his 'Going Off' on other people, some quite knowledgeable and Forum Moderators).

I can not be comfortable ordering his 'Book' from him because he despises me. I do regret not having access to his research, analysis, and vast knowledge on American Krags.

This is all quite uncomfortable for me and way out of my experience with most of the 'Gun Collecting Fraternity'.

Dick Hosmer wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 4:32pm:

madsenshooter wrote on Dec 12th, 2015 at 8:05am: It took some digging to narrow the range for those 96 Cadet rifles, since the remodeled stocks were in some cases put on model 92 rifles that were in for rebuild.  I think Mallory may have mentioned a range beginning down in 17,000 or so, which would be a 94 marked receiver.  The consensus now is that all 400 cadet rifles had 1895 receivers, and 4 more museum pieces were made on 1896 receivers.  I agree, sounds like you have a real early 96 carbine in a sporter stock. I believe that Joe Farmer's research (and I do recommend his book) has now proven Mallory's contentions on the Cadet range to be erroneous. In any event, use of an "1895" receiver on an arm other than a carbine was quite limited. FWIW, plain "1896" (no MODEL) is the scarcest receiver date.

I have a 1896 rifle.  The first krag I every owned.  The chamber was reamed to fire 30-06 blanks and the crown on the bolt was smashed to fit the 06 rim.

butlersrangers wrote on Dec 12^th, 2015 at 6:24pm:

Re: Joe Farmer's Research Sadly, I do not get along with Mr. Farmer and the way he treats and assassinates the character of people he takes an exception or dislike to. (There seem to be long gaps in his participation on other Forums, like 'Culver's Pages'. He has stated: he does not participate on the KCA Forum, because, I do. I have noticed at times his 'Going Off' on other people, some quite knowledgeable and Forum Moderators). I can not be comfortable ordering his 'Book' from him because he despises me. I do regret not having access to his research, analysis, and vast knowledge on American Krags. This is all quite uncomfortable for me and way out of my experience with most of the 'Gun Collecting Fraternity'.

You should go the "third party route", then. The book is well worth reading. Get your next door neighbor to order it for you.

I've considered getting a copy via the local book shop. However, I understand the photos did not print well and there is a need to go to Mr. Farmer 'site' to get clearer views and make inquires. Quite awkward.

My understanding is that Mr. Farmer's book is rather expensive.  I think the purchase should include decent photos.

Joe definitely marches to his own drum, and it can be frustrating to interact with him.

His writing "style" is not (for better or worse) what we are accustomed to, and the photo quality is not what it could have been.

BUT, that said, his work is thought-provoking, corrects some errors/omissions in Mallory/Brophy, and particularly Poyer - and, in my opinion, any serious Krag collector would be well-advised to spend the $40.