Guys i have had this krag for a few years now and never really looked into them much. But now i think it may be something special. Can you guys help me? Also how do i get my pictures to 768kb? Its not letting me post pictures.

Pics

---

So far so good, Jon.  Welcome to the forum.

You have an uncut 1894 stock from what I can see.  Do you have a photo looking down on the rear of the receiver?

As for resizing, Open MSPaint, "save as" a new file name, go to resize and resize in equal per cents on the vertical and the horizontal.  Never work on your original photo.  My camera takes 4 meg sized photos.  I reduce them by fifty percent and save.  Then I check the file size.  If I need to tweak it I just do a couple of percent.

Heres a shot of the rear of the receiver

---

It has and old repair on the stock that appears to be a very old school gunsmithing technique. Any ideas as far as value? I think i need to update my insurance.

---

Man, I want you to buy me a lottery ticket.  Your receiver has not been upgraded to 1896.  So you are missing a cleaning rod.

Now for the next round.  Ding Ding Ding  Johnny Donovan what does Jon need to do next?

Well, Culpeper, he needs to pull the side plate off to see if the number 2761 is stamped in it.

Most inportantly is to buy Joe Farmer's Krag book if you want to get up to your arm pits in all things Krag-Jorgensen.

  (You need to Login

  (You need to Login

  (You need to Login

:D

Side plate matches. I could not find a serial on the bolt but i might not have been looking in the right spots.

---

'Jon' - You have a very awesome model 1892 Krag.

Your bolt is a model 1892 bolt. (I don't believe they were numbered).

Your rear sight is the model 1896 with the pronounced 'hump' on the hinge. These sights were a very early update and relatively scarce.

Interesting wrist repair! (Oddly, that is the type of copper-wire reinforce that British Ordnance performed on the forearm of 'Grenade-Launching' Short Magazine Lee-Enfields).

Krag, #2761, was produced around June to September, 1894.

Would this be the sight that should be on it?

---

Thank you butlersrangers for the info!!

There are three places where the serial numbers up to a certain serial number were stamped aside from the receiver.  The side plate, the loading gate and one other hard to remove piece.

Yes the 1894 rear sight would be correct when new.  HOWEVER.  However the Arsenal was dinking with different powders in the mid 90s and changed rifle sights under IRAN (Inspect, Repair as neccessary) and other insanities of the period.  your 96 sight is probably correct from Springfield given the look of your gun.  I would not change any thing on it.

And at 37 dollars they ain't that rare.


Take it from a certain pinhead who tried to make rifles correct.  It is futile.  :( I am not sure if the screws are the same for both sights.

How did you come about this rifle?  Have you checked and shot it?


culpeper

'Jon' - I agree with Culpeper, leave the sight alone. Very early on, Springfield Armory changed the sights and replaced the model 1892 sight. Your Krag has an early and scarce sight, that Springfield likely installed.

IMHO - Your Krag is a very interesting 'time-capsule' and should be left intact. Even the wrist repair is interesting and should be left alone.

It would be worthwhile to get a reproduction Cleaning-Rod and it would be neat to have a model 1892 rear-sight, as a conversation piece. Otherwise, Do No Harm!

Thanks for posting your photos and sharing!

(p.s. - I lust for your Krag. It's interesting)!

Thanks guys! I bought this rifle a couple years ago from a buddy of mines grandad. The man is a collector from another era. What i mean by that is he got in in the good ol days in the 50s and 60s when all of this surplus stuff was 20 bucks a rifle. I saw this rifle last time i was down there among hundreds more. What drew me to it was the stock repair and the fact i have never owned a krag. He sold it to me that day after i inspected. Last year i tracked down some brass and worked up some reloads using 147 grain m2 ball bullets. The gun shot great. It was a little inaccurate but i believe that is due to the light bullet weight i was using. Needless to say my friends grandpa did not know what he had because i got a heck of a deal. I will be in contact with him soon to let him know he had something special and offer him some more money. What would be a good insurance value for this rifle if you guys dont mind me asking?

Would you guys know where to try and track down a cleaning rod? Real or reproduction i would be interested. Also any idea what bayonet and sling would have came on it? I would love to get this rifle back to its original glory.

Would you guys know where to try and track down a cleaning rod? Real or reproduction i would be interested. Also any idea what bayonet and sling would have came on it? I would love to get this rifle back to its original glory.

Hi John.

The inaccuracy may stem from the lightweight spitzer bullets.  Krags are funny beasts, and almost human in their love of "food."  The original Krag load was a 220 grain round nosed cupro-nickel jacketed bullet with 40 grains of Laflin & Rand .30 powder.  The closest you'll ever get to this with todays components is a 220 grain jacketed bullet with 40.0 grains of IMR-4350.  The IMR-4350 (originally made by Dupont) is practically a clone of the old L&R .30 powder in composition and burn rate.  Most of us use the Hornady 220 grain RN Interlock bullet, which has an exposed lead tip, but follows the same dimensions, meplat and ogive of the original bullet.  However any 220 grain RN bullet will do. 

There are other loads that shooters use that work amazingly well too.  I have a friend who shoots a 150 gr RN bullet (normally a 30-30 bullet) and he WINS matches!  The point is to try several different loads and bullets and find what works best and is the most accurate in your rifle.

This is a great forum with TONs of helpful people who will gladly help you figure out anything you need to know about all things Krag!

Maybe next summer, you can venture to Camp Perry and shoot in the Roosevelt Match with other Krags.  Unless Culpeper makes it next year, you'll likely have the oldest Krag on the firing line!!!

He just might, Steinmayer.  I was planning on bringing 3140 next year.  I know it shoots well from a bench.  Just need a taller front sight to bring the POI down.

The main trouble is getting the shooter in condition to shoot well.

Hey, Jon.  What state are you in?  And Heck yeah!  Bring that old girl to the Roosevelt (spit) Match. 

Jon Waite wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 11:47am:

Would you guys know where to try and track down a cleaning rod? Real or reproduction i would be interested. Also any idea what bayonet and sling would have came on it? I would love to get this rifle back to its original glory.

I do not want to cool your passion of the moment but do send for Joe Farmer's book before you start to spend money on other stuff. 

The photo section of KCA can answer eighty-one percent of your equipment questions.  Research before buying will get you the rest of the way.  I bought a lot of items for too much money through my ignorance.  Bought #112 from a founding member of the KCA and discovered way too late it was upgraded to 1896 specs.  He never mentioned a thing about it as he was taking my money. >:(

  (You need to Login

Thanks guys. I live in central Illinois.  I would love to make it there but with a newborn at home it is gonna be tough. Will periodically shooting this gun hurt the value? It sounds like this is relatively a rare rifle. Also, where would be a good place to find out value for insurance? And maybe a line on cleaning rod and bayonet and sling?

Ok thank you culpepper!

If you buy a bayonet make sure it has a scabbard.

  (You need to Login

  (You need to Login

  (You need to Login

  (You need to Login; (Otto is a good guy last time I bought from him)
14867 M1892 Krag bayonet with scabbard.  Marked US on the right ricasso and 1895 on the left ricasso.  Blade is BLUED (Correct for 1895 only).  Grips retained with flush rivets and the scabbard is a 1st pattern with the open belt hook.
(culpeper - correct scabbard)

Blued blades were not 1895 only, probably not 1895 at all, or just a few early in the year

Re: Magazine Rifle
Reply #23 - May 5th, 2018 at 7:36am
     Quote Print PostModifySplitRemove 
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

Farmer's research of the matter shows the engineering change was dated 1895 04 01 as published in Krag pamphlet of 1917 by Ordnance. So there is a posibility of an unknowable quanity of early 1895 bayonets being produced.  The picture is proof that blued 1895 bayonets are extant.

Otto just needs to correct his write up a bit.

On the subject of bayonets and blued blades:  I have a couple of 1894 dated bayonets with at least some amount of blue still showing.  The 1895 dated blades are, I think, harder to find than the 1894.  The report on blued blades is from April, 1895, but did they date bayonets with calendar or fiscal production dates?

On shooting this rifle, I would strongly resist the temptation till the stock is repaired - again.  In the meantime, I would look for help in finding a serviceable stock without a repair.  The repair you have is probably "of the period" and may even be the reason this rifle survived with only the change of the rear sight.  I have an identical repair on an L C Smith that belonged to my wife's grandfather.  He broke the stock in two sometime around 1900 and did shoot it successfully a couple of times, but in the 55 years  we've had the piece, the repair has loosened and I think shooting yours would have similar results.  I've been told that there are modern methods that may save our shotgun, but to break it again by shooting, may make a another fix impossible.

My point is that blued bayonets are not 1895 only (should have deleted the probably none from my post but got in a hurry :() The change was early 1895 so depending on monthly production numbers some but likely not many 1895 bayonets will be blued. Fiscal year and calendar year do tend to cloud things at times also. 
I have seen later dated bayonets that were blued, certainly after official service for what ever reason.
With this in mind I would want to look very closely at a blued 1895 bayonet.
I am not passing judgement on the bayonet in this thread.

Donald Hartman's Book "The U.S. Krag Bayonets", page 31, "Krag Bayonet Modifications", indicates that the Krag bayonet was issued blued (blade, pommel, guard) in 1894 and that the finish was discontinued on April 1, 1895

Mr. Hartman's book also includes a reprint of a letter composed by Col. Mordecai, Commanding Officer, Springfield Armory (dated March 9, 1895), recommending that the blade be left bright.  Col. Mordecai's recommendation was due to the reason stated above by Ned Butts and also due to the coating of the blade being destroyed/marred by digging, cutting and inserting/withdrawing from the scabbard.  Also the cost savings of not bluing the blade was a consideration. 

As stated many times on this site... do your research, However, I often learn a Great Deal by my mistakes!  Especially when my wife hits me upside my head and says "Why in the H_ _ _ did you do that!"

Here's an Ebay item that requires some thought and knowledge.

  (You need to Login

Hope I'm not stepping on some toes by posting this Ebay item.  I Just thought it would be a nice educational subject.  I actually like the bayonet!

BTW: Welcome and awesome Krag Jon Waite... I am so envious!!!

We are all here to learn something new and to further the Krag rifle fraternity of oneness and brotherhood.

cue the music

We shall gather by the river...

Jon Waite wrote on Aug 12^th, 2018 at 3:11pm:

Thanks guys. I live in central Illinois.  I would love to make it there but with a newborn at home it is gonna be tough. Will periodically shooting this gun hurt the value? It sounds like this is relatively a rare rifle. Also, where would be a good place to find out value for insurance? And maybe a line on cleaning rod and bayonet and sling?

Butlersrangers and I both live in Michigan (Me near Ann Arbor, and BR near Flint).  Where in Central Illinois?  My father was born in LaSalle and we still have family there!

I will let someone else more knowledgeable in values speak to that... but unless it's museum quality, shooting it won't hurt a thing, unless you physically damage it.  Try googling "Grandpa's Gun Parts" for a cleaning rod.  Not sure if he'll have one for the 1892/94, but he has just about everything else. 

As for the sling, there are several that are correct.  Originally, the 1887 sling would have been used. Later, the 1907 sling (for the 1903 Springfield rifle) was authorized.  If you do plan on shooting in competition like some of us do, you'll want to use the 1907 sling, which helps with position shooting.  As far as I know, Turner Saddlery has the best (Mr. Turner obtained all of the original Rock Island sling equipment and makes them to exact spec)!  Turner also has the 1887 sling.  All of my leather slings are from Turner.  There are several other sling companies whos products are good also.  Also legal by CMP rules are the web slings used on the Garand Rifle.

Hope this all helps.
Paul

Can anyone help Jon Waite on the U.S. model 1892 Cleaning/Clearing Rod specifications: dimensions, head type & profile, and thread on 'small end'?

I've got no specifics. I suspect one would have to be made. Don't know of any source!

Found lots of three piece rods on the WWW but no original/reproduction one piece.

Looked at all my usual parts places with no luck.

Listed below is information taken from "The Krag Rifle Story" and "The American Krag Rifle and Carbine":

---

If anyone has an 1892 cleaning rod, remember, I was first in line and I am looking for an 1892, open front band.

Joe Poyer gives the most information on the model 1892 cleaning rods.

I don't know if his dimensions are correct. He describes four variations.

Poyer gives the thread as .181"X 26TPI (I think!) and the threaded area as .475" long.

He gives rod lengths as going from 29.50", later reduced to 29.25".

He gives basic rod diameter, (not including head-area), as tapering, from .20" (behind the head) to .189" (in front of threaded area at rear).

FWIW - If I was having one made, I would get a $12 front section (of the 3-section rod) from Grandpa's Gun-parts. (The head dimensions are almost identical to the last type of model 1892 rod).

I would have the front-section rod's thread turned down to a simple pin. I would have 21.25 inches of .20" diameter rod counter-bored to accept the 'pin' and have both rods silver-soldered together.

---

Been offline for a while due to a lightning strike 5 ft from the house. But just logged on and found this great post about a newly acquired Krag drawing a lot of attention. John, if  possible and when you have time, could you post a full length photo of your rifle?

A nice inexpensive item, to go along with Jon's Krag, would be a reprint of the 1894 Ordnance Department booklet: "Description and Rules For The Management of the U.S. Magazine Rifle and Carbine Caliber .30".

These show up at gun shows and on ebay. The 1894 version shows the front and rear areas of the second type of model 1892 cleaning rod.

Although illustrated at "full size", the rod graphic may be slightly oversize and not conducive to precise measurement.

FWIW: Poyer gives thread size as .196"X26TPI.

'Ordnance Rules' illustration appears about 24TPI and about .300" length of threaded area.

Probably irrelevant, but, threaded end on three-section rods is approximately .162"X30TPI.

---

'Ordnance Rules' illustration appears about 24TPI and about .300" length of threaded area.

Brophy shows as 26TPI and .285  -  good eye!

'olderthansome' - You had the 'good-eye'. I totally missed the drawing in the appendix, (page 212), of Brophy's - "The Krag Rifle".

It appears Joe Poyer was simply citing the dimensions given by Brophy.

FWIW - 26TPI is the pitch used on Krag side-plate and sling-swivel screws.

It would be fun to measure an original "long wiping rod" to confirm Brophy's dimensions.

p.s. Brophy also has a dimension drawing of the 1st type of brass tipped rod on page 212.

---

Jeeze. Thank you guys so much for the information. This is a wealth of knowledge that i have never found with any other group ive been a part of. I have a buddy that is a machinest and i will see if he can make me a replacement with the specs you guys have provided. Just curious, since the 1892 has no provision for a cleaning kit, what was the threaded end made to utilize? Also i live in Bloomington il. My mothers side of the family is from LaSalle.  Well after they came here from Slovonia in 1918 that is.

'Jon' - I am not aware of any appendage that screwed on to the threaded end of the Krag 'ramrod'.

I believe the 'manual' says it all. The treads were to retain the Rod in the Stock, via the threaded 'rod-stop', (the plate inletted into the stock).

---

Has anybody used an 1891 Argentine cleaning rod as a type 1 or 2 substitute???

                                   Krag              Argentine

Total Length                  29 5/8              28 3/8
Rod Diameter                0.196                0.201
Head Diameter              0.259                0.280
Head Length                 1.165                1.155
Head Slot Length           0.430                0.440
Head Slot Width            0.120                0.130
Thread Rebate               0.181                0.185
Thread                         24TPI                 32TPI*

* = Not sure about the TPI

Both 1891 Argentine brass and steel head cleaning rods can be found by searching the WWW.  Prices range from $11 to $40.

Not sure if the diameter of the cleaning rod hole, on the front band, would allow the Argentine cleaning rod to be used, however, it might be an alternative... unless you had your heart set on a cleaning rod meeting exact specs.

I've tried screwing my 1891 Argentine brass head cleaning rod into the Krag sling-swivel screw hole but met with limited success.  I could get a few turns but any further would probably result in something being damaged.

Anyway, just a thought.

Local Boy - That's a good comparison and stop-gap idea. I imagine that it has been done.

On the rare occasions that I have seen early Krags with cleaning-rods, at gun-shows, they have sometimes had 'brass-tipped' rods. The rods, even all steel ones, have looked 'suspect'.
For a hobbyist seeking to fill a hole, it would be a lot easier to make a substitute rod with a brass-tip, than a 'flared' steel one.

IIRC - The real Krag brass-tipped rod use was short-lived and the rods are very rare.

Out of curiosity, I measured the steel rod on my (7mm) No.5 Remington Rolling-Block rifle. The Rod was about 1 inch too short, too small in diameter, and the screw thread was cut similar to a wood-screw.

(I like your 'comparison list', but, I think the Krag thread is probably 26 TPI).

If Jon's Machinist friend can make him one to Mallory's specifications, that would be pretty cool. If he could make multiple ones, at reasonable cost, he could make several people quite happy!

A 'stop-gap' rod that is too short would look odd. The 'flared part' of the rod has a visual relationship to the Krag's muzzle area.

(I suppose an 'extension' could be added to a substitute rod that is too short. FWIW - I would prefer a 'correct' replica).

---

I agree wholeheartedly with BR!

I would much rather have the real deal or good reproduction.

I don't have an 1892 Krag but some day...  I just might need one of those cleaning rods that JW has manufactured!!!  ;)

BTW: I'm sure somebody already posted this but what I've read is that "no Krags were issued with the brass head cleaning rod".

I don't have an early Krag and maybe never will, but, if ya got em ... flaunt em!

---