I've been conversing with an uncle (in his 80's) about an ancestor (his grandfather, my great-grandfather) over the phone lately. Our ancestor  was in the 14th Infantry Regiment and carried a Krag in the Filippino Insurrection and the Boxer Rebellion. My uncle just offered me to buy a Krag he apparently bought some years back. It's a Model 1892 upgraded to 1896. Serial #21XX. Still in military configuration, good bore, still has the stamping in the stock (1894 dated). I only met him maybe a dozen times, but know him to be a stand up guy. He offered it to me for $750. That is all he wants, no more. Just what he had in it. He will be dropping it off at my parents house in the next month for me to look at it before buying when I get up home. You're kidding me.............right? How can I pass this up? I presently have a sporterized 1896, which I have enjoyed shooting. If this Model 1892 is as good as he says it should be worth more, but I won't be letting go of it. Somebody pinch me!!! If I get it (should be a for sure thing) I'll post some pics.

Can't offer much help on pricing but sounds good to me.  I'm sure the experts will provide some good advice. I do know condition is dang near everything.

I've got a couple of 98s.  My first was a project gun that started out reasonable in a trade but eventually ended up$800+ (new barrel, handguard, sights, shipping (2 trips to gunsmith), ejector, magazine box parts, etc.  So goes the story.  Ha!  And damn if it still ain't in the shop for feeding issues and headspace too tight.  The second 98 is very nice.  Purchased for $650 shipped.

Anxious to see your new acquisition. Pics are always good!

Vic

Unfortunately, I may be jumping the gun (pun intended) since I started this post without seeing the gun, only a description. But I couldn't contain myself and wanted to share with others that may understand my excitement. My uncle does not have a computer so he won't be sending me any pictures. This won't be instant gratification, so I will just have to wait for him to come down from the north with the gun for me to see during a visit that isn't scheduled yet. He is about 4-5 hours away. If it isn't soon I may have to make the trip up. I have only recently discovered that my uncle was once an avid gun collector and had more than a few Winchesters (1873, 1876, 1886, 1895, etc). I did not realize that he had any Krag Jorgensens until a day ago.

'Knute1' - It is good to savor and anticipate adding an original Krag to your collection!

The early model 1892 Krags updated to model 1896 configuration in the early 1900's are an interesting variation.

If you do not have it, I would suggest you purchase a copy of Joe Poyer's book, "The American Krag Rifle and Carbine". It is not perfect, but, will explain a lot and answer basic questions. It will make your wait more productive! It sells for about $25 on eBay.

Knute1 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2018 at 3:02pm:

Unfortunately, I may be jumping the gun (pun intended) since I started this post without seeing the gun, only a description. But I couldn't contain myself and wanted to share with others that may understand my excitement. My uncle does not have a computer so he won't be sending me any pictures. This won't be instant gratification, so I will just have to wait for him to come down from the north with the gun for me to see during a visit that isn't scheduled yet. He is about 4-5 hours away. If it isn't soon I may have to make the trip up. I have only recently discovered that my uncle was once an avid gun collector and had more than a few Winchesters (1873, 1876, 1886, 1895, etc). I did not realize that he had any Krag Jorgensens until a day ago.

Even though this Krag is an antique, it might be wise to consider going up north yourself. (If Wisconsin, it is an adjoining state)  Asking anyone from outside Ill Annoy to bring any firearm - even an antique - into Ill Annoy without a FOID card should , at least, be looked into.  When I lived there, antiques were not a problem unless there was ammunition present, but in the time since I left, I've heard that things have only gotten worse.

Damn shame!  I never even gave a second thought to problems of bringing a Krag, or any other firearm, into the state.  But I don't live in Illinois either.

My uncle lives in central Wisconsin. My folks live in southwestern Wisconsin. I live in northwestern Illinois, just 20 miles south of the Cheese Curtain. I'll be bringing it through the Cheese Curtain with my FOID card into Foidistan (Illinois). Won't be a problem, but thanks for the concern. Just something we have to live with in Illinois due to Chicago Land politics. Fortunately, my county Sheriff has the same views as most of us do. He recommends that  I get conceal/carry. After all, a lot of criminals carry.

Picked her up today after work and just got home after passing back through the cheddar curtain. Needed to wind down before going to bed, so I thought I'd share my new acquisition.
My uncle at first wanted $750. He came down to $650 before I even started talking price. But after some expert negotiating on my part I gave him $700 ;). He included a Spanish-American service badge with it, 1898 book on the Spanish-American War and an oiler (which I need to check out if it is proper for this gun).
The gun isn't exactly what I heard over the phone, but it is still in original military condition. The top line on the receiver reads "U.S." The second line reads "1894.       SPRINGFIELD ARMORY         
      21015". So this puts it into 1896. The cartouche also indicates 1896. The cleaning rod groove has the usual expertly installed filler piece and has the rounded bottom versus the squared off bottom. I believe everything is correct except for the sling. I'll post pictures as time allows. There are three sections of cleaning rods in the butt.
My uncle knew me as a young boy, not as an almost grown man at the age of 59. He doesn't know my dry sense of humor. So when I told him after the deal that all I needed to do now was to shorten the barrel and put a scope on it, well, that was a mean thing to do to a 84 year old man. Took a lot of explaining on my part to calm him down and that the gun wasn't going to be altered. Won't do that again. Sorry Uncle Gordon.

I have one rather close (20197) which is still as built - or -as Joe Farmer calls the wobblers in this general area a "Magazine Rifle", neither an 1892 nor an 1896, but with features of both.

Flat muzzle
Long cleaning rod
1896 rear sight, but still with short handguard
Thin-wrist stock
Thick curved buttplate without trap.
[JSA/1896] cartouche

So I have:
  A crowned muzzle.
  Curved butt plate with trap.
  Cleaning rods in trap.
  1896 sight, long handguard.
  JSA/1896 cartouche.
  Cleaning rod channel under barrel filled in with rounded strip.

Dick, are you suggesting this is a "transitional" set up? Using up some of the Model 1892 parts (stock, etc.) with some of the newly developed Model 1896 parts before getting into the full blown Model 1896 Model?

sounds for all the world like you have one of the many thousands of 1892 rifles that was upgraded to 1896 config. Your extractor has the hold-open pin, yes?

For an explanation and description of the "Magazine Rifle" visit 5madfarmers dot com

Yes, Mark, it has the hold-open pin. This gun was portrayed to me as a Model 1892 upgraded to 1896. I may have misinterpreted what Dick was saying.
So this gun apparently started out as a Model 1892.
The "1894" on the receiver means what?
The serial number shows the gun being built in October 1895?
The cartouche indicates it wasn't inspected until some time in 1896?
I don't have a cement head, but my skull is thick.

Yes your rifle probably started life as a model 1892. Production didn't start until 1894.
Early rifles were stamped with the year of production, 1894 is the year that the receiver was made. this ceased mid model 1896 production then the model was stamped on the receiver
Where did you get your serial number info?
Stock was probably switched during refurb. at some time in its life.
During production parts were placed in bins and pulled at random, "first one in last one out" nothing was done in perfect sequence. Slight over laps happen from time to time.

The serial number is 21015 on the receiver. I looked at Joe Poyer's book for date of mfg. It is admitted that this in not exact science and this is more of an approximation of mfg date. There may be a better way or no way to determine the date, but I don't know of it.

Joe Farmer has thrown the collecting world a bit of a curve with his "magazine rifle" nomenclature/theory/whatever. For eons we had pure '92s, pure '96s, and anything in between was thrown into the "'92/'96 conversion" sack. This was tidy enough for most folks, but Joe, brilliant micro-researcher that he is, found another path - which may well be the correct one.

The middle ground is VERY difficult to get a firm handle on, due to a lack of consistancy, and the fact that the guns themselves have been through so many hands. All sorts of configurations are possible.

In this case, because of the high serial number, I believe the arm was originally built as a "magazine rifle" (which still had a very '92 appearance - and a lot of '92 parts) but has had the 1896 conversion performed.

Knute1, there are some very bad sites out there regarding Krag (and certainly other older firearms)information. Bowers is the first that comes to mind and I wanted to be sure it was not them!

Looking at my copy of Bill Mook's 'Krag Crap' notes, #21015, would have likely been assembled around September, 1895.

I think Ned's point about 're-building' is well taken. Knute's Krag was taken apart to perform model 1896 updates so its present stock is not the one it was born with.

FWIW - The term "magazine-rifle" seems to me to lack any specific meaning. All Krags, (except .22 cal. 'gallery rifles'), as well as most bolt action rifles, have a magazine and are thus magazine rifles.

Although 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official documents, it is kind of like calling a rifle a 'repeater'.

The term 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official Ordnance Manuals in conjunction with specific Krag models.

It is not exclusive to the rifles that deviate from 'standard models' and show a 'hybrid' mixture of transitional features - IMHO.

There is another one on gunbroker, item# 766391947.  Guy took a ton of photos of an 1892 disassembled.

It would make sense to me that before the Model 1896 was released for production, that "built-in" conversions were made when producing rifles with some existing '92 parts instead of throwing them away or using for repairs. I have no basis for this "transition" theory. But why not use these parts up when production needs seemed to be somewhat great at the time? Makes financial sense. Perhaps some future evidence will cement this concept. For now, I'm keeping an open mind.

Pictures if it works.
  (You need to Login

Here is the rest.
  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login

I think you have an early 'high-hump' model 1896 rear-sight.

The "Proof P" looks double and I think there is a letter stamped on the tip of the 'clearing-rod groove' filler.

Lovely Rifle!

I'm not sure why the "P" has a ghost double. Did the hammer bounce? Was it applied twice?"
I am not sure what is above the "P".
The indention in the cleaning rod filler end looks just like it does in the picture. Doesn't appear to be a character I am familiar with if it is intentional.
The barrel has some good bluing on it, making me suspect that a previous owner may have fooled with it. The bore is good. Also, the buttplate screws are nicely blued and may be replacements. I have a 1896 sporter with the original screws. Do I dare swap them out?

'Knute1' - Your Krag was at Springfield Armory for work applying the model 1896 updates.

It likely would have been taken apart to update and refurbish parts.

The stock that is now on it had the 'ram-rod channel' filled, and was likely scraped, sanded, and refinished.

When all the parts were assembled into a complete rifle, it would have been tested for function and fired.

A new "Proof P" would have been stamped on the stock since the work was done at the armory.

Earlier stock markings would remain. They would likely be faint due to sanding and scraping. There was no need for a new 'Acceptance Cartouche', since the arm had already been accepted.

FWIW - This mark on your stock tip looked like a letter (probably just an illusion).

---

I'm with you on everything you said, butlersranger. That would explain the double "P".

I purposely shown the end of the forestock to show that the cleaning rod fill was round bottom versus the later square bottom fill-in.

So what I'm trying to figure out is why the cartouche is dated 1896 (in the the right light it does end with 6). The serial number indicates it was built in September/October of 1895. Would it be possible as Dick suggests (if I understand one of his earlier posts) that before the gun was issued from the armory that it was held to perform the updates? When did this inspector's initials start showing up in 1896?

Thanks for everyone's responses.

My 20197, spitting image of yours except that it was not converted, has an 1896 rear sight and 1896 cartouche. I believe that Mallory states that rifles made in late 1895 were held in partially finished condition waiting for the new rear sights.

So if I got this right (within reason):
This is a Model 1892 Magazine Rifle.
The receiver was made in 1894 and is so marked.
It was built in September/October 1895.
It was possibly held up for a Model 1896 rear sight.
After the sight installation it would have then received the 1896 cartouche and then issued.
It would have then returned later to the Springfield Armory for other Model 1896 updates including the buttplate with trapdoor, filling in of the cleaning rod channel, replacement of the ejector for the hold open on the bolt, crowned the barrel, installation of a longer upper fore end, etc.
After the updates were performed it would have been proof-tested and stamped for a second time with the "P".

I t was born an 1892 and was upgraded to an 1896 at which time it got the 1896 rear sight. I don't think it was held back awaiting the 1896 sight.

My .02.

Perhaps you are right, I don't know if there is clear evidence. I was just going off what Dick Hosmer replied about his rifle having the 1896 sight and cartouche, but no other 1896 updates. His rifle serial number is 118 less than mine. At that time they were making about 120 rifles per day. So it is likely his was made a day or two ahead of mine. I'm just trying to just figure out why the cartouche is 1896. It may be a completely made up, altered gun with no significance of whatever dates are on it. But I am not going to challenge Dick Hosmer.

Your Krag had to have been taken apart for some of that 'update' work.

Springfield Armory likely put your current 'updated/refurbished' stock on your rifle.
But, it is not likely that your current stock is the original 'wood' on your rifle.

IMHO - your cartouche date is kind of irrelevant.

Of special interest to me is Knute's rear-sight. It appears it could be the 'high-hump' early version of the model 1896 sight. Also shown is the more common 'low hump' leaf-hinge.

---

I'm with BR.  Your stock likely got changed during some rebuild.  22018 has an 1895 cartouche.  Can't say it didn't get swapped someone along the line.  The high hump sights are the same sights that were shipped later for the 1896 Cadet rifles that were already delivered sans sights.

Geez, I guess there are too many variables. But I just couldn't explain the 1896 cartouche. Now if it is because of a stock replacement, well then that changes the pedigree. So during the 1896 updates the original stock was replaced and didn't stay with the gun? A different already altered stock was grabbed (from another 1892 rifle)? Then the stock original to this rifle, if it was still in good condition, was altered and put on a different rifle? Splitting hairs here, but researching details, on things that interest me, sometimes I go farther than most would.

As I understand things, during re-building and major updating of Krags, at Springfield Armory, the Rifles and Carbines were taken apart.

The parts were inspected and serviceable parts underwent specified treatment and refinish.

The 'recycled' metal and wood components went into Bins. The 'rebuilt' rifles were assembled with randomly selected parts.

The rebuilt arms were function tested and fired. When "passed", a 'circle P' was applied to the stock wrist in the area behind the trigger-guard.

Ohhtay!!! So my stock may not be original to the rifle, but it was still likely installed by the armory. Plus, I got a high hump rear sight. I'm good with that. :)

This is NOT intended as ANY sort of put-down, or any desire to stop the discussion. We find many 'odd' assemblies today. Some are so goofy that they can be dismissed out of hand, but others are quite logical, and MAY well be (within reason) "correct". The arms have passed through too many hands, with no chain of custody, to be 100% certain in all cases.

Bottom line: The personnel of the Ordnance Department were trying to field the most up-to-date TOOL that could be provided to the soldier, and that involved swapping some parts, not always at the same time, or place, and not always with the same parts(!) though they WERE also striving for interchangeabiity. They had absolutely NO thought that they might be confusing future participants in a hobby that had not even been invented yet!

End of rant  :)  :)

These were the early days of fully interchangeable parts and they tested the limits, when doing refurbs. In earlier days mixing parts like this would have been impossible.

BTW - Knute's bolt (body) is the early type or "model 1892", with the solid rib.

The 'Striker Mechanism/bolt sleeve/extractor' are of a later type.

His bolt body has none of these listed changes.

---

The dragnet for non-converted model 1892 rifles in 1901.

  (You need to Login

Hmmmm - wonder where you would find one with a "Model 1892" stamping?

The following is from The Secretary of Senate report fiscal year ending 6/30/1897. It lists the expenditures for the Springfield Armory. Circled in blue is in regards to model 1892 alterations. Not sure if I understand what it means.

  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login

In researching the "Expenditure at the Springfield Armory " reports, the following was found:

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1897 (as seen in the post above),
    3,508 magazine rifles altered to model of 1896 with model of 1892 extractors.
    2,800 magazine rifles, model of 1892, altered to model of 1892, second pattern.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1898,
   No mention of model of 1892 alterations.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1899,
    Report could not be found.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1900,
    1,588 altered to model of 1896.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1901 (as found in Chief of Ordnance Report),
    6,123 altered to model of 1896.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1902,
    5,420 altered to model of 1896.

Fiscal year ending 6/30/1903,
    No alterations of model of 1892 shown.

This is only an opinion, and I know the horse has been beat to where there isn't even any pulp left, but:
What I can gather reading the various reports, once a model of 1892 was converted to model of 1896 it was then considered a model of 1896 and no longer a model of 1892 as far as the military was concerned. Somewhere I found a list in one of the reports showing what consisted of a conversion and I will post it if found again. Others likely already have this info.

I am quite confident that my particular rifle was converted in the 1897 fiscal year, but there does not appear to be any solid evidence.
   

Guys i am new here and think i need some help and i dont know where to post it. I think i have an unaltered 1892 but am not sure. I have pictures.

Jon - Welcome to the KCA Forum!

You may want to start a new thread and post your Krag pictures. Each attachment needs to be less than 769 KB.

Ok thank you!

For kicks and giggles, I added up all the Model 1892 altered to Model 1896 and came up with the following. I have not been able to find anything for the fiscal year ending 6/30/1899, but I don't believe any alterations were done that year anyway.

3,508(1897) + 1,588(1900) + 6,123(1901) + 5,420(1902) = 16,639

Poyer's book shows the Model 1892 production ending in December 1895 with serial number 24,919. This may also include some Model 1896. For the sake of argument, I am using the 24,919 as the rough total of 1892's built. So the very rough total of 1892's not altered to 1896 would be:

24,919 - 16,639 = 8,280

Then consider those lost, destroyed, somewhere in another country, sporterized, etc.  Can't be too many left in original configuration. Of course, we already knew that.

Also in Poyer's book he mentions that the 1892 altered stocks with the rounded cleaning rod channel filler (as mine is) was done to "new, unissued rifles" (pg. 39) in 1897. I'm not sure where he found this information. For now, I am going with that. Still there is some conflicting information to sort out. If anybody has some better info I'd like to hear from them.

At the risk of everybody thinking I'm a freak, I have a hypothesis to try.

As Poyer lists the last of serial numbers in December 1895 to be 24919 and stating that the Model 1892 ended that month, I believe that 24919 would be the maximum number of Model 1892's built. Again, if anybody has a better substantiated number I'd like to know it. There was mention of some Model 1896's having been built in 12/95, also. This would of course decrease the number of 1892's having been built.

The Senate report of fiscal year ending 6/30/1897 shows 3,508 Model 1892's having been altered to 1896. If Poyer was again correct that only "new, unissued" rifles were altered, then I would suppose that these would be some of the last 1892's having been built. Applying some mathematics again:
    24,919 - 3,508 = 21,411
This gets it close to my serial number 21,015 (a difference of 396). As my rifle does  have the resemblance of the alterations, I am thinking my rifle is part of the 3,508. Dick Hosmer's gun serial #20,197 was not altered and built 6-10 days before mine (120 rifles per day during this time period). So to end my hypothesis, I believe that somewhere between his serial number and mine would be the beginning of the Model 1892's grabbed for the alteration in the fiscal year 7/1/1896 to 6/30/1897.

Receivers went into a bin in no special order.
Receivers were pulled out again for assembly in no special order.

Wisdom is but a mouse click away.

  (You need to Login

This is the wisdom.
>>>>>      (You need to Login;  <<<<<<

As for the last in/first out for the bin scenario, how much production time did it take to fill up a bin? Hours? A day? Production at this time was 120 rifles per day. I doubt there would be 120 receivers in a given bin. But it's possible.

I need to get the 5MadFarmers book if it is still available. I did find a year old posting of his from another forum. In it he said:
"What is a magazine rifle? A Krag from about 19k to 24k. Basically a M-1892 with ever increasing M-1896 features."
In one of my earlier posts above, from the Expenditures at the Springfield Armory it lists some alterations done, fiscal year ending 6/30/1897:
3,508 magazine rifles altered to model 1896
2,800 magazine rifles, model 1892, altered to model 1892, second pattern
It is strange that in the first line the rifle is referred to only as a magazine rifle. I am starting to become a believer in 5MadFarmers theory of the "magazine rifle" to describe these in-betweeners. But once altered, I believe they would be recognized by the military as M1896.

Although I have not received a book from 5MadFarmers as of yet, I did find another forum where he had many replies dealing with "Magazine Rifles". I humbly apologize to all those that tried pointing me in the right direction, but I stubbornly tried to find my own way. Although I did stumble into a few things that 5MadFarmers had researched, I could have taken a shortcut directly to his findings. It was still fun for me to find what I could, just unnecessary.
First off, I now understand why the simple term of "magazine rifle" was used. It was meant for those rifles that didn't have totally all M1892 parts or all M1896 parts making them neither models. And not all "magazine rifles" had the same combination of M1892 and M1896 components. I won't go into detail on this for 5MadFarmers gets all the credit and I don't want to usurp what he has rightfully found and published.
Second, I was trying to find why my particular rifle had all the discrepancies of dates and the hodge podge of parts. Appears that most, if not all, could be explained by 5MadFarmers information. Using his serial number ranges and changes made, it appears that my particular rifle was built with some 1896 components, but not the sight, which would have been with a 1892 sight or built without a sight at all. When it was altered to 1896 it would still not have had the 1892 receiver modified for the bolt hold open. This would have been due to not having the expertise and/or equipment to perform the required grinding for the notch in the hardened receiver. It would have been returned at a later date (if it actually was issued during this time) for the modification including a new extractor. So I believe that I found most of the answers I'll be able to find. There are some subtleties that may never be explained due to the time that has passed and the hands that this rifle has passed through, as somebody earlier has pointed out.
Fred G, forgive me for my miscalculated response to your reply.

I don't think you need to apologize This has been a good discussion with many interesting facts and information shared.
I wish I had the time and ability to dig up some of the things you have found