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.