IMHO - The term "Magazine Rifle" simply means a 'Repeating Arm' that has a reserve of ammunition held in a tubular, box or detachable magazine.

All Krag models, (with the exception of the single-shot .22 cal. rifles, Mann Devices, and maybe sub-caliber artillery devices), are Magazine Rifles.

"Magazine Rifle" was used in Ordnance Manuals both alone and in conjunction with specific models, (such as, Model 1898 rifle).

The term "Magazine Rifle" does not exclusively identify U.S. Krag-Jorgensen rifles that seem transitional and have features that carry-over or deviate from the "pure models".

These 'transitional' arms may have lost interchangeability and deviate significantly from the parent arm, but, "Magazine Rifle" is too generic a term to exclusively define these interesting variations - IMHO.

---

It seems interesting that the title refers to the "…Rifle, Model 1898 and the Magazine Carbine, Model 1899".  Do you expect that the tile was to infer Carbine, Model 1898 as well since by 1901 it - the Model 1898 - was assumed to have been converted to the 1899 specs?  Or maybe they simply had no idea how we collectors would become so wrapped up in trying to prove that all the details had a specific meaning and place in history.  Sorta like mounds and molehills.

It's probably more likely that the motivation for the title was determined because these were the only pieces actually in production at the time.

What do you suppose that the government call them then? They are Magazine Rifles, as are most Krags, but they have multiple upgrades on the 1892 and not all that justified (in the eyes of the government) a new model 1896 designation. So it seems that they are listed as what they are Transitional Magazine Rifle with no year designation. That would seem to be too much of a "mouth full" even for the government. Had the remainder of changes to 1896 configuration not happened so quickly it is likely these could have actually been Magazine Rifle Model 1895. Thus we have another governmental "grey area"
IMHO



(Edited to add missing word for clarification)

Franklin B. Mallory's forward for the "Krag Rifle Story" begins with:

"The Krag-Jorgensen magazine rifle, known popularly as the Krag, was the first cal. .30 smokeless-powder rifle adopted by the United States, and thus deserves a special place in American military history."

I agree that "U.S. Magazine Rifle" seems to be a generic title but at the turn of the century it probably seemed appropriate in someones mind.

Since my copy doesn't have any obvious citations I guess we can blame the title on the Chiefs of Ordanance, at the time, Generals Adelbert Rinaldo Buffington or William Crozier.

I'm glad military minds finally got things sorted out and started giving firearms titles like: "United States Rifle, Caliber .30-06, Model 1903" or "United States Rifle, cal .30, Model of 1917".  I guess much more specific and descriptive! ::)

BTW: Since "magazine" basically means to store or storage... wasn't there other magazine feed small firearms widely adopted by the U.S. miltary prior to the Krag???  Spencers and Henrys come to mind...

No, the Krag was the first repeating rifle adopted for the entire government service. Yes, Henrys and Spencers were acquired, for expediency, during the CW, but never formally adopted as THE official arm. Prior to the Krag, the Hotchkiss and Chaffee-Reece had been issued for trial in small quantities, but not adopted. Hmm, left out the Ward-Burton of 1871, guess I was in a .45-70 mode.

For collectors and arms students of today:

"Transitional Magazine Rifle" would be a nice label for the early U.S. Krag-Jorgensen rifles that were pre-model 1896, but, deviated in various aspects from U.S. model 1892.

IMHO - "1892/1896" is a handy & good label, (but, totally unofficial), for early U.S. Krag-Jorgensen rifles that were updated to model 1896 features, (bolt 'hold-open pin', clearing-rod channel filled, and rear-sight 'flavor of the day').

In the time period we are discussing, The term "Magazine Rifle" followed by a model designation appears in ordanance documents and reports etc. It also appears there with no model designation in regards to the rifles built between the Model 1892 and the model1896. Thus it would seem to be accepted if not official designation for these rifles at the time. That is what they called them then and that is what we should call them today lest we go down the Poyer road and make names up to "simplify" history.

U.S. Magazine Rifle
   Model of 1896
   Model of 1898
   Model of 1903
   Model of 1917
THE U.S. Magazine Rifle followed by Model number (year). It does not appear that the "Model" number appears on the receiver of the rifle until the "Model 1896" came along. To this end, and this is just my opinion without a lot to base it on, when the term "U.S. Magazine Rifle" was used it meant the adopted Krag Jorgensen rifle starting with the Model 1892 and including all the variants up to the Model 1896. It was the only "U.S. Magazine Rifle" fully adopted, was it not? Once there was a Model 1896, Model 1898, etc, then things had to be better distinguished.
Drop the U.S. from "U.S. Magazine Rifle" and then I believe things get less descriptive, although it may have been understood at the time between like-minded people what they were talking about.

I don't like to double-post, but I checked out the "Annual Report of the Chief of Ordnance to the Secretary of War Fiscal Year Ended  June 30, 1893". This report includes the adoption of "The Magazine Rifle, Model 1892, Caliber .30" by the Board On Magazine Arms. I believe the word Arms was used instead of rifle because it would include both rifles and carbines. The report states that the board "examined fifty magazine arms presented by American and foreign inventors". Not sure if this proves anything one way or the other, just found it interesting.

If it has not been said already, read Joe's book he documents the model between the 1892 and the 1896. It is so clear the the gubmint lists 1892's upgraded to 1896 config and MAGAZINE rifles upgraded to 1896 config. He (Joe) provides copies of the gubmints lists detailing the upgrades. Specifically "Magazine" rifles being upgraded. Not 1892's but "Magazine Rifles". Same list showing the number of 1892's being upgraded and the number of "Magazine Rifles"being upgraded.

Just go over to Joe's site, he has the lists posted right there and they clearly differentiate the specific models including a "magazine rifle".

Collectors, military rank & file, the public, and 'writers' have routinely deviated from Official Nomenclature, when communicating about, discussing, or classifying arms.

Here is a learned observation from "back in the day", regarding the "name" of one of our favorites.

IIRC - I guess, I have not seen U.S. Ordnance manuals refer to the "U.S. Magazine Rifle" as a Krag or Krag-Jorgensen.

However, a lot of contemporary accounts, ballads, and references sure identified it that way.

---

In trying to get more educated on the subject, I went to Google Books and found this free book with a lot of good info on the origins of the U.S. Magazine Rifle by the Secretary of War. It has reports on the rifle, ammunition, progress of the re-tooling of the Springfield Armory, reason for delays, etc. Maybe some of you have already seen this report, but for others unfamiliar with it as I was this could be a good read. The name of the book is:
Report of the Secretary of War; Being Part of the Message and Documents Communicated to the Two Houses of Congress. In Three Volumes. Volume III. Washington Printing Office. 1895.
I have not read much of it yet, but did scan it for any tidbits about the rifle.
On the section reporting on the Springfield Armory, it starts with "The work of manufacture of the new magazine rifle has been almost completely transferred to the new shops at the armory, the transfer of the machinery from the old to the new shops having been made during the year in the most convenient manner."

Springfield Armory in 1933: The 'New Shops' and Federal Square area shown 'circled'.

---

At the time the above mentioned report was made, rifle production was reported at 60 rifles per day. The Secretary of War reported how improved efficiencies were made:
"The most important changes are, first, the introduction of cheaper labor wherever possible; and second, the substitution as far as practicable, of machine for handwork."
Labor laws have obviously changed since then, below is how the report states the labor issue was addressed:
"To accomplish what was desired, it became necessary to replace two old foremen, several inspectors, and a number of old worn-out workmen."
Sounds like they were talking about me. Hey, I'm on vacation right now.
Back to the topic. In the beginning was the Krag-Jorgensen rifle design. It was adopted by the U.S. after requested design changes were made. It was given a new name, the same method previous rifle names were made. It became our rifle and we called it the U.S. Magazine Rifle (followed by more description). A big deal was made about it being a foreign design and the Krag-Jorgensen name was likely thrown about to emphasize this by some. Krag is a catchy name, isn't it? When pronounced wrong it rhymes with flag. How patriotic?

Call me slow. As we say here in Maine "wicked slow". Is this thread about the existence of a specific model of Krag called a "Magazine Rifle", no more, no less? If so, why the reluctance to accept it? If that is not what this thread is about stop reading here.

I totally get the fact that there are a pile of Krags with the words "Magazine Rifle" appended to the model, that has been clearly shown but that only obfuscates the fact that, tucked in there, between the 1892 and the 1896 is a rifle that is termed a "Magazine Rifle", no more, no less just "Magazine Rifle".

If someone digs into the pyramids or a tomb and finds a hitherto unknown gem or artifact we all rejoice, right?

Am I the only one that has gone over to Joe's site and seen the evidence of the "Magazine Rifle"? It appears irrefutable to me.

Seems to me like someone has dug into the tomb and found a pretty cool artifact and we need to update our database.

Those transitional rifles were indeed transitional rifles and by god, they had a model designation and it was "Magazine Rifle".

Joe is, hands down, one of the very finest researchers, and thinkers, that I have ever run across, and, he may well be technically "right" on this one - but, if so, it is an awkward truth, which does not mesh with their long-standing method of nomenclature, and is therefore not (to MY mind) a "logical" answer. That said, I've no desire to litigate it further. I guess I am really lucky in that, serendipitously, I seem to own one (20197) so, I do not need to work myself into a frenzy looking.

Is a U.S. .30 cal. (Krag-Jorgensen) carbine marked simply "1895 Springfield Armory", plus serial number, or marked simply "1896 Springfield Armory", plus serial number, a U.S. model 1896 carbine or just a "magazine carbine"?

Please don't start that stuff all over again!  [GRIN]  It is whatever you want to call it. It is a carbine, and it does have a magazine, so, there you go! At least there is (rationally speaking) no earlier carbine to describe it as being different than, only successors. Stocks are all thin wrist but have two patterns of rod-holes. Extractor is different, gas hole location is different, etc. For a long time it was described as a Model 1896 Carbine (1895 variant). That still works for me. Don't recall what Joe called them, but I don't think it was "Magazine Carbine".

If it is not accompanied in official records (not a magazine article or a book) by a year of manufacture or a model number then it is a "magazine rifle". the only place so far that this has  been found is between US Magazine Rifle Model 1892 and US Magazine rifle Model 1896. If you don't like it then find SOLID evidence to disprove it or suck it up and live with it.

Well.........I don't even know what the debate is anymore, or if there ever was one. But I'm trying to catch up with the rest of you guys now that I finally own a Krag (or magazine rifle  :D) in military configuration. It doesn't make me an expert just to own one. But I like to do some of my own research. If I'm boring any of you with some of my posts, let me know. Just because some of this stuff is new to me it may not be to the rest. I enjoy learning from you guys all the same.

I seem to have played a role in irritating three individuals, Mark, Ned, and Dick, who I like, enjoy their contributions, and have no desire to irritate or piss off.

I am a student of the U.S. Krag-Jorgensen magazine rifle and carbine and I am trying to learn more everyday.

I don't have any of the early stuff. I am trying to get a better grasp of changes and evolution. Nomenclature is tricky and apparently has been a hot button at times. (I have not been involved in 'earlier' discussions or arguments on this subject).

I started this thread 'Re: Magazine Rifle' with good intentions. I wanted to better understand the transition in U.S. rifles prior to the model 1896. I wanted to better understand rifles "updated" to model 1896 features.
I asked the question about the nomenclature for earlier carbines as an honest inquiry.

I am truly sorry if I have offended someone or have been dense.

Knute's mention of the "Report of the Secretary of War ..... 1895" has been helpful to me.

FWIW - How (Krag) rifles and carbines are labeled in the 1895 Report is varied:

MAGAZINE RIFLE AND CARBINE, CALIBER .30
The magazine rifle, model 1892
Magazine carbine, caliber .30
improved rifle

The 1895 report, (Report of action taken year ended June 30, 1895), lists and describes fifteen minor changes in the rifle. Also mentioned is a 16th change, replacing the long wiping rod with one in three sections. (At the time of the report, only the first four changes had been made in rifles issued).

Also, a description of earliest carbines.

---

Not offended or irritated, more weary of the direction (implied or intentional) of "I don't like it so lets change it" with no information or proof to dispute what has recently been deciphered. Open discussion is an important way to obtain and share information and I have no desire to cease it here. However this thread seemed to "beating a dead horse". Chuck you seem to have a knack for digging things up (cool old pictures) with computer skills (that allude me) thus my statement about finding solid evidence.

We all have things to learn from these discussions. I recall (a little foggy now though) a dispute a number of years ago between Bill Mook and other Krag collectors, Scott Duff for one at the Baltimore show about blueing of early bayonet blades. There it is in the 1895 report:
"(4) The blueing of parts of the bayonet discontinued, as the heat of the niter bath was found to injure the temper of the blade"
Good solid information many thanks

Butlersrangers! I am not pissed off in the least. Seriously! I am grateful for all the help I have received here.  I enjoy you all.

I am here to learn all I can. I freely admit that I am a leach, sucking off the work of others. For me data leads where data leads.

Someone has done the work, applied logic and sifted their way through conflicting information uncovering a hitherto un-recognized model. Resistance is futile. The truth outs. Why, as a community, would we not say thanks for all the work and enjoy the new knowledge. I am simply baffled at the resistance to acknowledging  the discovery of the new model. Why?

It bears repeating: I fully acknowledge I am a blood sucker sucking away knowledge from those more informed than I am. Maybe that puts me at an advantage since I have no ideas of my own to hang onto.

It also bears repeating that I am NOT pissed off, just a rider on the bus.

Appears all is well, great! I have another document to share. Perhaps "butlersrangers" can use his superior computer skills (mine are rudimentary) and post some info from the following. Don't mean to put you on the spot and forgive me if I have. It mentions the changes of Model 1892 rifles on hand at the armory with Model 1896 upgrades where practicable. Again, it is from Google Books and is free in its entirety:
Annual Reports of the War Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897. Report of the Chief of Ordnance. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1897.
If anybody here views this document there is an index at the very end that can take you to the pages of interest with a click.

Nor am I pissed off, in the least. Have no idea where that thought came from. I enjoy ALL such comment.

I wish to thank 'Knute1' for locating and mentioning the "1895 Report" as being viewable online.

IMHO - Some possible conclusions from the material in the 1895 Report:

By June 30, 1895, 14,491 new magazine rifles had been manufactured. Some of these rifles had been issued, (to the Engineer Battalion, and all the U.S. Infantry and Artillery Regiments).

The jealous Cavalry were waiting.

The rifles were, likely considered, "U.S. magazine rifle, model 1892", with up to four minor changes (involving a change to the safety lever and its pin location, magazine cut-off lever construction, change to a straight ejector pin, and discontinuing the 'bluing' of parts of the bayonet). Minor stuff that had little impact on interchangeability.

Twelve more changes had been decided upon and "were to be gradually introduced". These were regarded "improvements" to correct flaws and weaknesses. (At some point in the change process, the improved rifles are best called "Magazine Rifles". Some changes would become pretty significant and might compromise interchangeability).

A Magazine Carbine, Caliber .30, was accepted and about to be manufactured. (This would be a good logical term or nomenclature for carbines made prior to the "U.S. model 1896" marking).

(Significantly, in the "decided changes", there is no mention of the bolt 'hold open' pin and receiver 'notch' that would be part of the future U.S. model 1896, magazine rifle. Also, 'change #10', reversing the function of the magazine cut-off lever, would not take place for years)!

---

As there appears to be some interest in these "reports", I am attempting to find ordnance reports from 1892 to 1903 and have found some, but a few missing years. Still trying, though. When I accumulate as much as possible I'll post with the web link for each year. I have already scanned a few. Some reports were still comparing which rifle was better, the Trapdoor or Magazine rifle even during the Spanish American War. The report from 1901 already discussed the development of the Krag replacement. The report makes is look like the new rifle would be based on the existing rifle with Mauser like changes, something of the sort.

That would be great! If you can make the information "postable" I will start a view only thread for the information.

I totally get that the word Magazine was used over and over, in a variety of ways, that does not negate the simple fact that nestled between the 1892 and the 1896 was a model referred to simply as "Magazine" rifle. At the risk of being annoyingly repetitive have any of you gone over to Joe's site to see the document clearly showing this? We've looked at lots of documents here all talking about Magazine Rifles but not THE document that differentiates the "Magazine Rifle" from all the other Magazine Rifles.

I am unable to access his site - do you have a current link?

Dick Hosmer wrote on May 7^th, 2018 at 4:28am:

I am unable to access his site - do you have a current link?

5madfarmers.com

exact link to Magazine Rifle, thank you Mark
  (You need to Login

What do you have to do to register for the first time. I used the link and have been at the sight before. Do you have to contact them and ask to be registered? Otherwise I have not found how to register. Thanks