I have a 1895 dated receiver serial # 24423. It is a carbine with a 22 inch barrel. It has an unaltered M1892 style receiver with an original unaltered 92 bolt, safety, cutoff and so on. The stock is an early type with a thin wrist and a sharp 1895 JSA cartouche. The carbine is in very good condition with considerable finish remaining. Just want to know if this gun is for real or a nice recreation. 

---

'pappypete' - Welcome to the KCA Forum.

Your 1895 dated carbine certainly appears to have a model 1892 bolt.

However, is it possible that the right top of your receiver is 'notched', as in the attached photo, (for an extractor 'hold open pin')?

The early model 1896 carbines utilized 1895 dated receivers.

---

BTW - Krag #24423, is listed in Mallory's, "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd. edition, as a model 1896 Rifle, issued in 1898, to Co. 'C', 4th Ohio Volunteer Infantry.

It would be interesting to see more photos of this 'carbine'. Especially, the front-sight & muzzle crown, rear-sight, and stock.

More pictures please.

That would be a VERY low number for an original carbine.

How many cleaning rod holes in the butt trap - 2 or 3?

Sorry sent post before I was ready. Computer did it. I think I have figured out how to lower picture resolution so I can send photos. Serial # is 24432 don't think it is listed. There is no notch. Looks like an unaltered M1892 receiver I have two 92 rifles which are just about the same. Rounded muzzle and the stock is modified for oiler. Front sight does look right to me but I do not have another carbine to compare. I put a 96 carbine sight on the gun it had a 92 sight which I showed on one of the pics. 

---

'pappypete' :

In your first post, you incorrectly reported your Krag's serial number, as #24423. That number was documented by Franklin Mallory, as a model 1896 rifle.

Your actual number, #24432, is not in the appendix tables in "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd., edition.

Your Krag 'carbine' is beyond my area of experience and study. However, I am skeptical of a model 1896 carbine with a 'model 1892 action'.

To my eye, your photo seems to show a shiny spot on the right top of the receiver, where the 'hold-open notch' would be on a model 1896 carbine. (This could be reflection and illusion or a skillfully filled notch). Maybe it is a rub mark from a different bolt that had  a 'hold-open pin'.

Definitely, your Krag is one that has to be viewed directly by a collector knowledgeable with model 1892 and model 1896 Krags. It 'breaks a few rules'.

---

From my understanding the earliest authentic Krag carbine serial number was 24709 or 24708 somewhere in that area if my memory serves. I also recall the early Carbines were known as prototype 1892 carbines and I always assumed they would have been done on 92' actions. How much does the gun weigh? I think there was close to a 1lb difference in weight between the early prototype and type 1 carbine vs the later type 2. Though I also remember something about a few of the really early carbines had full length stocks?? Just a long shot here but could this be an early 1892 Krag Carbine prototype or early type 1? I concede it is beyond my expertise just like butlersranger but I thought I would chime in and get educated as well :)

'pappypete' - There is a deep scratch or 'seam' on the left receiver wall just behind the serial number. Can you comment on this?

(I hope someone didn't join two receiver sections together).

---

Your skepticism is well founded. I noticed a scratch on another photo which I have since deleted. I am almost positive it is only a small scratch but unfortunately I am not home so I can not look at it until next week. I have looked at it many, many times and never noticed anything unusual. I bought this carbine over 20 years ago from an nice old gentleman who said he had been collecting krags for over 40 years. I had no clue it  was unusual I just wanted a nice carbine. He sent me a nice letter after I bought it detailing the unusual features.      

In reply to Jeremy the lowest observed number by Dick Hosmer is 24685 and I think they just found one with a slightly lower number. Mallory's book reports a 96C with a serial number of 21451 used in sight calibration. Do not no anything about the weight. 

In reply to butlersrangers the scratches are only scratches I am afraid. Sorry you noticed because it makes me mad every time I look at them. Sorry to say they happened some time on my watch.   

Thank you for telling us that the stock was modified for the oiler. That is odd, because one would think that the thin wrist stocks - which were failing in service - would have been replaced, not modified (upgraded) for continued use.

But, once again, how many rod holes?

To another set of comments - there were exactly two M1892 Carbines. They had 4-digit numbers and were full-stocked. Both are accounted for. A few "sight test guns" occur in the 10K-20K range, but their characteristics are not known.

At one time, 24685, which I once owned, was recognized as the earliest production carbine known. That has subsequently been 'beaten' by about 200 numbers, IIRC.

The presence of an M1892R sight on the piece not a good omen, but certainly a puzzle.

Dick, agree with all you have said. I am afraid I do not know how many holes and will have to get back to you next week  when I return home. The sight and oiler hole have always bothered me. Old gun sometimes never seem to be straight forward. The carbine is in very nice shape and was not used much. Sort of doubt it was reworked by Springfield or it would have been in a much different configuration.    

'pappypete' - You have given us all 'a puzzle to ponder'.

My theory is:

In 1895 a distracted Springfield Armory workman failed to machine the newly introduced 'notch' on receiver #24432 and it went on to be heat treated.

It was assembled into an otherwise respectable early model 1896 carbine with a model 1896 bolt and rear sight. The pin on the 1896 extractor caused a bit of wear and brightening where it rubbed on the top of the 'un-notched' receiver.

In a later era, a 'collector' or Dealer, (noticing the carbine's receiver lacked the hold-open notch), attempted to make it "more Arsenal Correct". He put the 1892 bolt and rear-sight on the carbine, thinking these parts went with an un-notched receiver. He 'created a carbine that never was' - IMHO.

(This is much like some Present Day M1 carbine collectors do in rearranging parts to make 'correct guns').

Today, we ponder, scratch our heads, and wonder?????

In answer to questions there are 3 rod holes and on close examination does not appear the hold open notch has been filled in.

Thanks for clearing up the rod hole issue. The stock is then not one of the earliest ones, which only had two rod holes, one above the other. My 24893 has such a stock, which, according to the late Bill Mook, is extremely rare today - in a lifetime of Krag collecting he had only seen/heard of seven. The oiler slot is definitely a later addition, and I'm still surprised that the modification was performed.

You have an interesting piece, and, while I think it is "wrong" I do not believe that anyone can be 100% sure. One other possibility would be that it could be a Bannerman, or Stokes-Kirk assembly of some flavor. Their mission was profit, not orthodoxy, and, for better or worse, all sorts of misfits can be assembled, and look awfully "real" after 100 years of patinizing.

The pin on the 1896 extractor caused a bit of wear and brightening where it rubbed on the top of the 'un-notched' receiver.

Yep, they do that.  My 92/96 22018 doesn't have a notch.  In time the receiver or the pin will wear enough that the bolt will no longer be held open.

The serial # is close to those of the 1896 Cadet rifles.  It would be possible that one or more of them was converted to carbine rather than a full length rifle.

I guess I'm a bit confused about the rear sight on this carbine.  There are a couple of mentions of the 1892 rear sight, but the only photo shows an 1892 Rifle, rear sight on the table - not on the carbine.  The sight on the carbine seems to be, at least, an 1896 base, but there is no detail from a top view or from the other side.  Is this, perhaps a correct 1896 Carbine sight? 

'olderthansome' - I believe the O.P. said he ... "replaced the model 1892 sight that came on his carbine (pictured) with a model 1896 carbine sight".

I guess it's time to increase the font size on my screen.  My nome  de screen is getting to be more descriptive every day.  Thanks for the clarification.