Well, that is the title of the article in the June, 1895 piece in "Journal of the United States Cavalry Association" by the same author in my last post on the U.S. Magazine Rifle, Model 1892. In this article on the carbine he may have gotten a little ahead of himself by calling the carbine the Model 1895. It apparently took a little longer than he thought for it to come out as it has been labeled the Model 1896.

  (You need to Login
  (You need to Login

From the biographical information you supplied with your "Army Navy Journal" post, Lt. John Taylor Haines was serving in some capacity at Springfield Armory from October 1, 1894 to October 1, 1895.

He must have been quite involved in events or testing of what was to become the U.S. model 1896 carbine. He attests to the strength of the carbine's extractor ... "In 3,000 rounds fired by me, the extractor has never failed to withdraw the empty shell".

Lt. Haines' bio also showed that he was an assistant instructor in engineering. With his educational background and involvement with testing, I think it would be safe to say that he left his thumbprint on the design/improvements for the Model of 1896 regarding both the magazine rifle and magazine carbine. He was likely sought out by the Springfield Armory for both his engineering education and his cavalry experience when it came to the carbine design improvements.
I could find no more information on him outside of being on a list for promotion to captain in February, 1901.

Lt. John Taylor Haines left us with a gem of a document from 1895. He certainly seems to have been involved as the model 1896 carbine was being developed and readied for issue.

Points that caught my eye:

Cut-off is reversed (from model 1892 rifle) - actually, I don't think that really happened until around 1898?

Changes to bolt and bolt-sleeve are well described.

Jointed 2-sectioned carbine cleaning rod and butt-trap are described in detail, (except two sections are not identical).

The 'New' carbine is similar in weight, muzzle contour, forearm shape, and protective barrel-band to the model 1873 carbine.

There is concern that barrels may be vulnerable to being bent in use (with the short forearm).

There is a delay in issuing carbines, because the rear-sight slide projects and is vulnerable. (Maybe there was a 'carbine' variant of the model 1892 sight)?

Last point is a very good one, I'll bet they did.  They were always after cost savings.  Never mind the fact that it sticks out and would wear a scabbard.

It might be interesting to confirm what version of Cavalry boot or scabbard was being issued between 1892 and the Spanish American War.  The trapdoor carbine had, I think, a similar problem with the Buffington sight and the 1887 Boot was designed with a brass reinforcement at the opening to protect - what?.  The sight or the boot?  Was the boot still planned to be used for the Krag?  Maybe the thinking was that it would be cheaper to redesign the sight to work with the latest scabbard.  Instead of a rework of the 1892 sight, it was thought to totally remake the sight.  When was the 1896 sight available?  Wasn't it issued on the carbines with the 1895 dates?  Between BR's Smithsonian-like computer and Mr. Hosmer's experience we can find all we need.

FWIW - A couple of period photos showing Krag carbine scabbard.

First photo & detail is from "Leslies Weekly", Dec. 8, 1898, described as Rough Riders - (Machete is described as 'Regulation Cavalry Sabre').

Second photo is First Cavalry at Bauan (Philippines) in 1901. Captured arms are hanging from riders' shoulders.

---

Here is a clear view of a 6th Cavalry man - (Probably Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, October, 1899).

---