My intro to Krags was with a sporter I picked up earlier this year.  I'm sure you all know how that goes .... one thing leads to another.  Anyway, I just received this rifle today and I'm hoping the experts on this forum will help me identify exactly what I have as I take it apart.

First, I want to note that the wood and metal is very dry - it doesn't appear that anything has been done to this rifle in a long long time.  I'm thinking it may be best to get some oil working on it - RLO for the wood and gun oil for the metal - before I start taking things apart.

Attached are the photo's I've taken so far - I'll be glad to take more photo's of anything I've missed that you think would be helpful. 

---

More photo's

---

and more photo's

---

Last batch of photo's.  I've included the stock markings here even though they are almost non-existent.

---

"I'm thinking it may be best to get some oil working on it - RLO for the wood and gun oil for the metal - before I start taking things apart." Sounds like a good approach.

Do wait awhile before you try disassembly. What I see in the photos is a nearly-original model '92 that has survived 120+ years without significant molestation. As such, it may have greater value as-is than with more burred screw heads or other damage from unnecessary disassembly.

The experts here will soon join in to give you better advice and evaluation than I can.

Congratulations on your new acquisition. It may not be in perfect condition, but it sure has a lot going for it. Definitely worth the time to get it back in better shape and preserve it.  If it were mine I would take the good advise that comes out of this forum. I would also get a book on gun restoration and study up on it some taking my good sweet time. Enjoy.

Valuable original M92 with the only upgrade being the M96 rear sight ( which was probably done by the military ).

Nice rifle.
Don’t be afraid of disassembling. It’s not a minty unissued rifle so you won’t damage it unless you’ve never used a screw driver before.
I believe Linseed oil is better for the wood than anything else.
I LIKE it! Thanks for sharing this boomer.

Forgive my ignorance, why do you guys say it is a model '92, when it is stamped 1894?

Good question Capt Frank!

According to Brophy's book "The Krag Rifle", The model 1892 is exceptional because it is identified by the year designation of 1892, although none was manufactured until 1894... Model 1892 receivers can be dated either 1894 or 1895.

Collectors generally agree, according to Brophy, is that there are two types:

Type 1 has a solid upper band and a brass-tipped cleaning rod under the barrel.

Type 2 has an open upper band and one-piece steel cleaning rod.

What I think is especially interesting, besides being a Model 1892, is seeing some features that brought about changes to future models.  For example the chunk of wood missing near the butt plate toe.  Later models incorporated a butt plate that had the toe curved inward to protect the wood.

Knute1 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 12:55am:

....I would also get a book on gun restoration and study up on it some taking my good sweet time. Enjoy.

Do you have any recommendations?  I've got a 'passel' of books on a variety of military surplus arms (including the Krag) that address the history, collecting of, yadda yadda yadda about each of them - but I don't have any geared to restoration.

Capt. Frank wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 2:21pm:

Forgive my ignorance, why do you guys say it is a model '92, when it is stamped 1894?

Did you notice all your photo files are labelled "92Krag_. . . .JPG"? I suspect whoever took and named them knew what it is.

Parashooter wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 6:58pm:

Did you notice all your photo files are labelled "92Krag_. . . .JPG"? I suspect whoever took and named them knew what it is.

I believe you have a case of mistaken identity.  Capt Frank asked about why it was being called a 92, not the original poster (me).

boomer wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 7:54pm:

Parashooter wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 6:58pm: Did you notice all your photo files are labelled "92Krag_. . . .JPG"? I suspect whoever took and named them knew what it is. I believe you have a case of mistaken identity.  Capt Frank asked about why it was being called a 92, not the original poster (me).

Sorry, wrong word. Should be "all of the photo files".

boomer wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 6:47pm:

Knute1 wrote on Sep 26th, 2018 at 12:55am: ....I would also get a book on gun restoration and study up on it some taking my good sweet time. Enjoy. Do you have any recommendations?  I've got a 'passel' of books on a variety of military surplus arms (including the Krag) that address the history, collecting of, yadda yadda yadda about each of them - but I don't have any geared to restoration.

I've looked myself and really haven't come up with one I'd recommend. I guess sometimes I only think I know what I'm talking about. If I come across something I'll let you know, unless somebody else comes up with it first.

Knute1 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2018 at 11:59pm:

I've looked myself and really haven't come up with one I'd recommend. I guess sometimes I only think I know what I'm talking about. If I come across something I'll let you know, unless somebody else comes up with it first.

Thanks for checking - I thought I might have missed it.  I've gotten great tips from this and other forums for handling specific problems, but have never seen anything (like a book) that has all the great info consolidated. 

Google the internet and you can find books about refinishing firearms, Yada yada...

My recommendation would be, if you already haven't done so, is to do a KCA topic search concerning refinishing, staining, rifle care, etc.

IMHO: I would...

1. Disassemble as far down as you feel comfortable.

2. Separate the metal from wood - separating the metal from the wood is a fairly simple task.  Just remember to remove the rear sight and slide the hand guard toward the front of the barrel to prevent the hand guard from cracking by trying to pop it off.

2a. On second thought, maybe you might want to treat the  hand guard before removing.  If the hand guard wood is super dry, than, it might be more prone to cracking due to the attached hand guard clips.  You can place a quarter in the larger metal hand guard clip and a nickel in the smaller one to help alleviate the tension that the clips place on the wood after removing.

3. Clean the wood - I use denatured alcohol and a rag or very lightly use #0000 steel wool.

4. As recommended earlier, I would treat the wood with raw linseed oil or boiled linseed oil (BLO).  Raw linseed takes longer to dry than boiled.  Just follow the manufactures instructions. I've also used a 50/50 BLO and turpentine mixture with good results.  It seems to soak into the wood and dry faster.

5. Clean any rusty metal parts by gently rubbing the part with #0000 steel wool and gun oil.

6. After the wood drys and the metal cleaned I would use a firearm wax product like Renaissance Wax/Polish on both the wood and metal.

7. For leather I would recommend Pecard Antique Leather Dressing.  Great stuff that is easily absorbed by the leather with hardly, if any, change in the leather's color

Reassemble your Model 1892 and enjoy!!!

p.s. Or to keep things simple... you could just use the wax and leather dressing and call it good!

A few observations in examining your nice original Krag shows the flat muzzle seen on the original 1894 rifles as well as the nice checkered cocking piece on the rear of the bolt. The flat metal butt plate was talked about also. The cleaning rod (ramrod) looks like it has some aging patina to it so it may be original to this rifle also. Many of these are reproductions. The rear sight is an 1896 rifle sight but, if you want, many original 1894 sights are available on places like ebay for a reasonable price.

It is relatively easy to disassemble a Krag if you have any mechanical abilities. Just go slow and use sharp edged screw drivers that fit fully in the slot and turn carefully. It is a used rifle with lots of honest wear but take care and don't mess it up more. Nice honest wear shows years of use which adds to the personality of these treasures. Light cleaning as discussed is fine but avoid heavy abrasives and the typical habits of refinishers because that quickly devalues a great collectible.

It would be nice to examine and report back to us as to the condition of the bore. It probably has some pitting but hopefully will show some rifling. Don't worry about the bore too much because these are so rare that one in any reasonable condition is great. You probably don't want to risk firing it. Get another later Krag to shoot and enjoy on the range. I wouldn't dare risk shooting my 1894. Some of the older bolts have almost invisible cracks in the rear of the bolt that can worsen with even lightly loaded ammo. Low risk but why take the chance?

I would also get one of the references mentioned on this sight and look up each small detail about this rifle and take notes. Almost every part has its own history about development and change as the Krag evolved.

If you take off the side plated below the left side of the receiver, look to see if it has a serial number. The early ones were serialized on the inside.

Good luck and keep us in the loop!

Quick update, starting with my thanks to everybody that has provided input so far.

As noted in my initial post, everything about this rifle is extremely dry -the stock is by far the driest stock I've ever come across.  The wood is fairly clean.  Also, there isn't any dark discoloration around the action that you see on heavily used guns.  Based on the faintness of the cartouche and inspection marks, I suspect somebody sanded and refinished the stock in the distant past and it's pretty much sat since then.  I haven't seen any signs of 'dirt' in the stock - just age/oxidation, so at this point my plans are to 'revitalize' it, but not clean it.

I started applying raw linseed oil to the wood yesterday morning and have had to reapply several times.  The butt area is still pulling it in, but most of the rest has slowed down drinking it up.  Once the wood is finished drinking oil, I'll begin separating the wood from the metal.

In answer to a question from Whig - the bore looks good with strong rifling.  There is a lot of 'dirt' in it (I hope that's what I'm seeing) so I won't know about pitting until I clean it.  I'll be looking for help in identifying whether the cleaning rod is original or a repop.  You may also have noted it's missing the stacking swivel.  I know those are also readily available, but the early ones are slightly different and may be more difficult to find.

I have a very similar M92. I don't think your fine rifle needs "restoration". All it requires is removal of any rust by scraping with a flattened brass cartridge case and applying a good gun oil afterwards. The stock and hand guard needs a good lemon oil furniture polish applied vigorously with a soft cloth to remove accumulated dirt /grime. These procedures will not change the original condition. If you start adding finish to the wood, you have changed it.

98src wrote on Sep 27^th, 2018 at 1:28pm:

I have a very similar M92. I don't think your fine rifle needs "restoration". All it requires is removal of any rust by scraping with a flattened brass cartridge case and applying a good gun oil afterwards. The stock and hand guard needs a good lemon oil furniture polish applied vigorously with a soft cloth to remove accumulated dirt /grime. These procedures will not change the original condition. If you start adding finish to the wood, you have changed it.

Restoration means different things to different people.  To me, restoration is not the same thing as 'refinishing'.  If done properly refinishing can be part of a restoration, done improperly it can make a decent restoration impossible. 

As far as cleaning rust, I've been using 'Frontier Big 45' for years, and am a big fan.   It does a great job of removing rust (and other 'hard to remove grime' from metal) and have never had it affect any metal finish.

If the wood of needs cleaning, I first see if I can get the dirt off with elbow grease and the oil I plan on using on the wood.  You might be surprised how good oil (animal or vegetable based) is at lifting dirt.  If that doesn't do a sufficient job, I use dilute Murphy's Oil Soap to clean it.  Then the oil goes on.  The oil I use on the stock is what was used (to the best of my knowledge) when the firearm was originally made - in this case raw linseed oil.

Boomer,

Thanks for the education and tip about Frontier Big 45.

Most of the Krags I end up with are of the "Rusty POS" variety.

I agree, refinish, restore, refurbish, etc means different things to different people.

Just "Do no harm to the Krag" is what some members would say.

Good job!!!

Watching the last of the oil dry on the stock is right up there with watching paint dry.... so, I thought I post some pictures of the bolt assembly.   

When I got the rifle, the action was very hard to operate.  The problem turned out to be quite a bit of dried and very 'hard' oil/grease.  It seemed like a good place to start on the disassembly and cleanup.

Some of you referenced the book by Brophy.  Maybe I should have gotten that one, but instead I have Poyer's book on Krags.  The parts of this 'bolt' appear to match up with what he calls Type 1, Type 1A or 1B.  These appear to fall in the expected category based on serial #.  The only item he didn't have a photo or drawing of is the Type 1 Striker which he describes as having a squarish point.  Some day when I have more energy, I'll pull the bolt out of my 98 sporter and compare strikers.

---

More photo's

---

This morning I finally separated the stock from the barrel/receiver.  The interior wood on this stock is, by far, the cleanest I've ever owned on any military surplus rifle.

---

After removing a layer of dried oil from the cover plate, the rifle serial number was revealed on its back edge.

---

I finally got the 'gunk' cleaned out of the barrel.  I couldn't get a good photo, but just on the edge of the ability of these old eyes, there appears to be some minor pitting.  The rifling appears to be very strong throughout and has a pretty good muzzle reading.

---

Question - Are the mounting screws on this sight correct?

The head of the screw at the rear of the sight sits flush with the sight.  The head of the screw at the front sight sits proud of the sight base.  You can see from the attached photos that in addition to being a longer screw (necessary) the head of the front screw is also 'taller/thicker'.  Both screws engage the barrel by about the same amount.  The front screw is either the wrong screw, or there is an interesting reason it is used. 

---

I think the head of the front screw is a bearing surface that the sight pivots on for windage. I am fairly certain it is the same on my later Krag. Would have to go look at it to be 100%. Not sure if it is the same on all the iterations of Krag sights.
If I am correct, the screw driver slot should be higher that the base so that a buggered slot does not affect the bearing surface.

FredC wrote on Sep 28^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

I think the head of the front screw is a bearing surface that the sight pivots on for windage.

What prompts you to believe that the 1896 sight is windage-adjustable?

Whoops!
Me no expert, sometimes me have hard time with English. Both 98 sights I have had in my hands had windage.
Maybe the long screw was accidentally swapped during one of the rebuilds (Arsenal or kitchen table)? Or less likely windage was planned and the screws were made long on purpose in anticipation?

Boomer,
I looked at your photos again and scrolled sideways to get the whole picture. The bottom photo is from the front sight area, so the longer screw is showing less threads (3 for the front and 4 for the back). So the shorter screw has more threads engaged, was it designed that way or were parts swapped during a rebuild? Another possibility is the counterbore the screw head fits into is shallow, tolerance on the depth or a slight defect? The original drawings with tolerances for these parts are all gone. I have been machining since the early 70s and am used to modern tolerancing on drawings, I have no idea how tolerances were specified on these first guns with interchangeable parts. It was not too many years before the Krag that all parts were hand fitted.

On another note the sights that did have windage had screws with a lot longer head, so your front screw is not one of those.

Photos of all these sights with screws have been included on different places on KCA, maybe someone else can provide a link before Butlers Rangers gets back.

The screws shown in Boomer's photo are completely normal for the 96 sight. Here's a couple cuts from the official manual -

---

Parashooter wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 3:42pm:

The screws shown in Boomer's photo are completely normal for the 96 sight. Here's a couple cuts from the official manual -

Thanks for the info!!!!   I've gone out and found/acquired a copy of that manual.

FredC wrote on Oct 1^st, 2018 at 3:03pm:

Boomer, I looked at your photos again and scrolled sideways to get the whole picture. The bottom photo is from the front sight area, so the longer screw is showing less threads (3 for the front and 4 for the back). So the shorter screw has more threads engaged, was it designed that way or were parts swapped during a rebuild? Another possibility is the counterbore the screw head fits into is shallow, tolerance on the depth or a slight defect? The original drawings with tolerances for these parts are all gone. I have been machining since the early 70s and am used to modern tolerancing on drawings, I have no idea how tolerances were specified on these first guns with interchangeable parts. It was not too many years before the Krag that all parts were hand fitted. On another note the sights that did have windage had screws with a lot longer head, so your front screw is not one of those. Photos of all these sights with screws have been included on different places on KCA, maybe someone else can provide a link before Butlers Rangers gets back.

Thanks for keeping after this.  The counterbore on the front screw hole is very shallow.  For the rear screw it is relatively deep - just enough to bring the head of the screw flush with the mount.
Based on the manual info Parashooter provided, this is all correct for the 1896 sight.  The question that still remains is, why.  I'm sure there was a good reason.

I am with you, it does not look right. Parashooter has been most helpful with the drawings and reality checks.
The rebuilds done by the arsenal resulted in a lot of parts being mixed on these old Krags. There might have been slight changes in the details on the screws and sights over time and parts were taken out of bins on the rebuilds and assembled with next part picked up. There is a real possibility these were just made that way, the screw head sticking out is not in a place were it would hang on things or cut an operators hands on a mangled slot.
The drawings used in the manuals were not done on CAD but by hand, so the proportions of the manual drawing and you your actual screws being different may mean nothing as the drawing is done by hand. I make drawings in CAD for CNC programing, then wipe out the numerical tags and add tolerances for actual running production. I will take the same drawing and remove the numbers again and rescale to metric for a technical drawing for a customer, all proportion in the drawing will stay the same in all the incarnations. Not so in the old days.
Another possibility is someone ran a couple of days production on a machine with too thick a head. Human nature being what it is we hate throwing stuff away. One or 2 parts discrepant while setting up a machine and I will toss them instead of messing with them. A couple of days worth of production and you ask if it will hurt anything if we use them. I read an account where a operator at Ruger cut a 1000 barrels and inch short. They became the basis for a short run of specials that collectors look for now.

At the risk of being tedious, once again: those pictured screws and sight are completely normal. The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head. Further, as posited above, the front screw head is well protected by the folded leaf so there's no reason to set it flush anyway.

I totally agree with Parashooter!

FWIW:
In my experience, most Krags with model 1892 and model 1896 rear-sights will have a 'thick-headed' screw anchoring the front hole of the sight base. I believe this dates back to the 1892 sight. It is OK.

There is a model 1896 front screw with a thinner head. (This may have been intended for carbine sight use).

The model 1901 sight had a totally different front screw (with no flange), this allowed it to anchor the lower-base, while allowing the upper-base to pivot.

The model 1898 and 1902 rear-sights had identical screws, front and rear.

The 'short' Krag sight-screws can often be interchanged and will work OK. This probably caused them to be mixed and interchanged over the years.
(This probably happened at Springfield, at arsenals, with 'field armorers', as well as, by hobbyists). 

---

Parashooter wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 5:14pm:

At the risk of being tedious, once again: those pictured screws and sight are completely normal. The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head. Further, as posited above, the front screw head is well protected by the folded leaf so there's no reason to set it flush anyway.

Not tedious.  Nobody is challenging your info, or whether or not there is a problem with the way it was done, or whether it is correct or not.  My last question in fact assumes your info is correct.  The question had to do with understanding why Springfield saw fit to create a seemingly unique screw (the head of the front screw is almost twice as tall as the rear) for this application.  While there may have been no reason to set the screw flush, it seems there was likely a reason to not set it flush ... it may be as simple as easier removal, maybe it was easier to machine.  I don't know, but I was hoping somebody on the forum might know. 

It kind of goes back to the prototype. (I imagine the thicker screw heads might be a bit stronger and easier to make)?

---

Parashooter "The front counterbore is shallow because it is in the leaf spring, not the sight base - if deeper it would leave little or no thickness below the screw head."
That explains a lot. Never have seen one of these in person. I think the manual drawing adds to the confusion. It looks like the spring needs to be rotated and looking at Boomer's photo the spring is dove tailed and slides into the base from the front?
They may have had plus or minus .015" on the head thickness tolerance as no problem if it is thicker.

Maybe the thicker head is to help the one doing the assembly to keep them separate? Putting the short screw up front may have damaged the barrel and or screw, if it even engages.


Looked at Parashooter's drawings again, they are from 2 different pages correct? The front of the sight is on the left and the front of spring is on the right? If so a lot less confusing.

Lets beat this dead horse again...

Poyer states that the 1896 carbine base was reduced to 0.520 inch at the front to conform to the ballistics of the 22-inch barrel.

I'm guessing the taller screw enabled it's use for both the 1896 rifle (which sat higher) and carbine (which sat lower) rear sights.

Local  Boy, did the height of the spring above the barrel change?

ButlersRangers, would the elevated rear screw on the prototype make a pinch point? If so a good reason to recess and make a thin head on the rear.

On the Springfield Armory prototype Krag, the rear of the sight-base appears to clamp a flange on the fitting attached to the front of the hand-guard. That may explain the need for a more robust rear-screw.

That tall rear screw-head on the prototype does not interfere with the 'hump' on the sight-leaf. But, if the leaf is put 'up' in the vertical position, pinching of a thumb might occur.

A flush rear screw-head makes sense on the form finally adopted. It would eliminate a potential dangerous edge.

FredC wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:37pm:

. . . Looked at Parashooter's drawings again, they are from 2 different pages correct? The front of the sight is on the left and the front of spring is on the right? . . .

Yes, pages 27 and 28 - note they are figures 89 and 90.
Yes, fore and aft reversed between the two figures.
See Boomer's photo for a good end view of the spring and base showing relative thickness.   (You need to Login


Local Boy wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2018 at 8:48pm:

. . . Poyer states that the 1896 carbine base was reduced to 0.520 inch at the front to conform to the ballistics of the 22-inch barrel. I'm guessing the taller screw enabled it's use for both the 1896 rifle (which sat higher) and carbine (which sat lower) rear sights.

Not the base proper, but its ramp is lower on the carbine - not for ballistics, but rather because of shorter sight radius.

---

Parashooter you are correct sir!  Thank you for the explanation and illustrations!!!

After my last posting I took a look at my 1896 rifle and carbine sights and realized my error.

Just too busy getting the yard ready for winter before I could post my mistake. :-[

Here's some side-by-side pics.

Interesting note... The front of the carbine sight measured 0.23 of an inch while the front of the rifle sight measured 0.20 of an inch.

---

Great information about the rear sight!! Thanks to all of you.

Is there any way to determine if the cleaning rod in this rifle is an original or a repop?  I have not found markings of any kind on this rod.

There was an earlier post where dimensions for a Krag (I believe from an 1894 manual which I haven't yet gotten a copy of) were compared to an Argentine cleaning rod.  I've taken the 'Krag' measurements from that post, added a column that has measurements Joe Poyer has in his book, and a 3rd column with measurements from the cleaning rod I have.


                             Krag            Poyer's Book      This One

      Total Length      29 5/8            29.5 / 29.25      25 9/16
    Rod Diameter      0.196            .2" -> .189      .199 - .201*
   Head Diameter      0.259            .267               .266 - .268*
      Head Length      1.165            .95                  .95 to start of taper
Head Slot Length      0.430            .410               .430
  Head Slot Width      0.120            .110               .110
   Thread Rebate      0.181            .179                .175
              Thread      24TPI            26TPI               24TPI

* I found slight variations in the diameter along the length of the rod (or head) due to differences in corrosion, 'patina', etc.

Any thoughts on whether this is original or not?

---

Close-Up and clear photos of the rod 'head', (especially, where the color changes), and of the threads, may beget feedback and opinions.

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2018 at 6:53pm:

Close-Up and clear photos of the rod 'head', (especially, where the color changes), and of the threads, may beget feedback and opinions.

I don't know what I was thinking (or not thinking) with that one.  I'm surprised I forgot to take a closeup of something this easy to get to.  Let me know if you want some additional photos.

---

Here's another photo with the cleaning rod in place.

---

The threads and head shape of your Krag 'cleaning-rod' look vey good to me. The area, where the patina color suddenly changes, appears to be the point where the rod clears the front barrel-band. The patina color looks very consistent with that of the barrel and front band.

IMHO - It has been on that rifle for a long time and looks legitimate.

(Others, on the KCA Forum, know a lot more about the early Krags than I do).

Boomer - Your excellent photos have been very educational. Your Krag is a wonderful 'time capsule' with a complete and correct bolt, its original serial numbered side-plate, and great non-updated features.

I even like the 'chip' missing from the Toe of your stock. This shows why the later Krag butt-plate was a 'curved one.

Good advice has been given in terms of just putting Linseed Oil on the wood and just wiping the metal patina with a quality gun oil.

I would advise contacting Movieman630 - aka 'Grandpa's Gun Parts' and seeing if he has a suitable front Stacking-Swivel and screw for an early Krag. A loose model 1892 rear-sight would be nice item to keep with your "Gem", just to show 'evolution'. (But, leave your Krag with the parts it came with)!

Thanks for sharing.

Hey, what history came with it and how was it acquired??

p.s. I love this picture: it tells volumes!

---

Your rod looks like the rod on my 3140.  5MadFarmers has a good picture in his book.

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

... I would advise contacting Movieman630 - aka 'Grandpa's Gun Parts' and seeing if he has a suitable front Stacking-Swivel and screw for an early Krag.

I haven't reached out to Movieman630 directly, but I have checked 'Grandpa's Gun Parts' website.  They have a stacking swivel listed for an 1896, but not an 1892.  If I can't find an 1892 soon, I will put an 1896 on it for display until I find one that is correct.



butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

Hey, what history came with it and how was it acquired??

Sadly, I have no history whatsoever - acquired at Rock Island Auctions.  I suspect it was in an old collection they were liquidating.  I may have paid too much, but it went for less than I expected.  Part 2 of that statement keeps me happy regardless of part 1  :)


butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

p.s. I love this picture: it tells volumes!

My wife went with me when we picked the rifle up.  She was thrilled (ok, that's an exaggeration) with the rifle until she noticed the chunk of wood missing.  She wasn't happy about that until I explained how it told a story about the history of Krag rifles.

On another note, I will be taking some additional pictures later today that I will use to ask the next (final?) question I have about this rifle (correctness).  As a teaser, I will tell you the source of my question is visible in this photo.

Culpeper wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 2:52pm:

Your rod looks like the rod on my 3140.  5MadFarmers has a good picture in his book.

Thanks for the info.

I visited their website a few days back in hopes of ordering that book.  The site doesn't look like it's had any activity in a long time, and I'm a bit reluctant to send a money order to something that is no longer active.  Instead, I sent an email to their "contact us" address to find out if the book was still available.  Of course, that email may not receive a response even if they have books to sell. 

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 1:31pm:

...Boomer - Your excellent photos have been very educational....

Thanks for that.  I try to provide good photo's whenever I can... they say a lot more in less time than I can type, and most folks like them more.  That's one of the reasons I still can't believe I didn't give any decent closeups of the cleaning rod earlier.

I've read that Springfield went to a flat head butt plate screw from a rounded head screw specifically to have the screw head flush with the plate - for the same reason they went to an angled toe.  One of the things I noticed when I first got this rifle was that the large butt plate screw was not sitting flush with the butt plate. I hoped the screw just wasn't seated properly, maybe the screw is wrong, or the screw hole has something 'blocking' it.  The screw was seated tightly and is identical to the one in my Krag sporter (and there was nothing blocking the screw hole).  What I noticed when pulling the sporter screw to compare it was that the butt plate in that rifle has a counter bore (??) the thickness of the screw head on top of the counter sink.  That allows the head to be turned in flush with the plate.  There is no such counterbore in the butt plate screw hole on this rifle, resulting in the screw head sitting proud of the plate.  I suspect the butt plate is the problem but will defer to the experts. 

---

And since you've seen pretty much everything else on this rifle, here's the naked butt with no lightening holes.  There is a marking from a previous owner that appears to have been made with a sharpie or something similar.

---

How about an inside view of the butt-plate?

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:

How about an inside view of the butt-plate?

The butt plate is about .08" thick (it tapers at the edges), which matches the dimension Joe Poyer gives in his book. I haven't been able to find when they changed the screw type.  Did they change the screw being used when they changed to the toed butt plate?  Maybe this is right for originally issued with a round headed screw, which was then 'improved' to a flat screw. 

---

Per Franklin Mallory, "Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition, page 210, Appendix 9, the large screw, for the original type of model 1892 butt-plate, had a convex head.

It appears your current screw is of a later type and that a convex head screw would be a nice fit.

---

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 12:57am:

Per Franklin Mallory, "Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition, page 210, Appendix 9, the large screw, for the original type of model 1892 butt-plate, had a convex head. It appears your current screw is of a later type and that a convex head screw would be a nice fit.

Thanks for sharing that drawing.  It does look like that screw would fit.  Now, the challenge of finding one.  I will look for that book as well.

boomer wrote on Oct 4^th, 2018 at 4:17pm:

Culpeper wrote on Oct 4th, 2018 at 2:52pm: Your rod looks like the rod on my 3140.  5MadFarmers has a good picture in his book. Thanks for the info. I visited their website a few days back in hopes of ordering that book.  The site doesn't look like it's had any activity in a long time, and I'm a bit reluctant to send a money order to something that is no longer active.  Instead, I sent an email to their "contact us" address to find out if the book was still available.  Of course, that email may not receive a response even if they have books to sell.

Joe Farmer is one of the good guys as far as I am concerned.  You should not have fear.  He haunts Culver's  ( jouster2.com ) Krag forum.


Captain Culpeper of the KCA Irregulars

Culpeper wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 1:28am:

Joe Farmer is one of the good guys as far as I am concerned.  You should not have fear.  He haunts Culver's  ( jouster2.com ) Krag forum. Captain Culpeper of the KCA Irregulars

Thanks for the recommendation.  That is good enough for me.

Boomer - You should search around for a reprint of the 1894 Ordnance Department "Rules For The Management of the U.S. Magazine Rifle".

These reprints don't cost much and contain lots of neat period information.

The 1898 and 1917 Krag reprints are more common and interesting to have. But, the 1894 "Rules" is the one you most need.

---

Here is an online copy of the 1898 print. Unable to find the 1894. You can download it as a PDF. It may be helpful until you find an 1894 copy.

  (You need to Login

[quote author


Thanks for sharing that drawing.  It does look like that screw would fit.  Now, the challenge of finding one.  I will look for that book as well.
[/quote]

Since this first model was immediately following the Trapdoors which used a convex screw, you might try to find a later trapdoor from which you can "borrow" a screw to test the fit.  I imagine, that SA would try to use up old inventory wherever they could.  When I think about it, I think every butt plate that Springfield used from, at least the Model 1842 which is as far back as I can look at, had convex screws.  There should be some available at many shows.

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 2:25am:

Boomer - You should search around for a reprint of the 1894 Ordnance Department "Rules For The Management of the U.S. Magazine Rifle". These reprints don't cost much and contain lots of neat period information. The 1898 and 1917 Krag reprints are more common and interesting to have. But, the 1894 "Rules" is the one you most need.

Excellent advice -- so I ordered one this morning. 

[quote author=486D767766030 link=1537910028/65#65 date=1538708756]Here is an online copy of the 1898 print. Unable to find the 1894. You can download it as a PDF. It may be helpful until you find an 1894 copy.

  (You need to Login
Thanks!

olderthansome wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 11:53am:

Since this first model was immediately following the Trapdoors which used a convex screw, you might try to find a later trapdoor from which you can "borrow" a screw to test the fit.  I imagine, that SA would try to use up old inventory wherever they could.  When I think about it, I think every butt plate that Springfield used from, at least the Model 1842 which is as far back as I can look at, had convex screws.  There should be some available at many shows.

Great advice!  Thanks for the info/recommendation.

In case "Inquiring Minds Want To Know ... ":

'Olderthansome' hit the nail on the head.

I woke up this morning considering the same idea of using a 'Trapdoor' butt-plate screw, as a replacement large screw, on an early Krag stock with a 'flat' butt-plate.

I took a 'Trapdoor' Springfield and tried its butt-plate screws, (they are both the same), on a model 1898 Krag's butt-plate.
(I do not have a model 1892 Krag to try this with ... hint, hint)!

The 'counter-sink' on the 1898 Krag and '1873 Trapdoor' butt-plates is not quite identical. The 'oval-head' 1873 screws were a credible fit and might fit correctly on a model 1892 Krag 'magazine rifle'.

BTW - 1873 Springfield butt-plate screws are not hard to find on ebay. S&S Firearms has them for $12, a screw.

---

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 5^th, 2018 at 5:29pm:

In case "Inquiring Minds Want To Know ... ": 'Olderthansome' hit the nail on the head. I woke up this morning considering the same idea of using a 'Trapdoor' butt-plate screw, as a replacement large screw, on an early Krag stock with a 'flat' butt-plate. I took a 'Trapdoor' Springfield and tried its butt-plate screws, (they are both the same), on a model 1898 Krag's butt-plate. (I do not have a model 1892 Krag to try this with ... hint, hint)! The 'counter-sink' on the 1898 Krag and '1873 Trapdoor' butt-plates is not quite identical. The 'oval-head' 1873 screws were a credible fit and might fit correctly on a model 1892 Krag 'magazine rifle'. BTW - 1873 Springfield butt-plate screws are not hard to find on ebay. S&S Firearms has them for $12, a screw.

I agree that it is a great idea.  Thanks for taking the time to try that substitution and get photos of it - it looks like a much better fit than what I have now.  Right now I'm holding it as a 'Plan B'.

When I came up empty on all the likely websites - it struck me that there is a classified section on this forum - duhh!!  The very first classified 'sticky' (Dan Lowery) turned up a stacking swivel and screw that is correct for the rifle and he is currently checking to see if (and he thinks he does) he has one of the screws in question.  If he doesn't have it (I'll still get the stacking swivel and its screw), I'll check with the next person that lists parts for this rifle.  If none of those pan out, I'll move to 'Plan B' - hopefully as a temporary measure as I will keep looking.

Keep us posted - As 'olderthansome' surmised, the early Krag butt-plate screw may be, the same as, the one used on the 'Trapdoor'.

Just for a little edification, in The Ordnance Supply Manual dated 1904, the following was published:

    "Butt-plate screw, large:  Head made flat in model 1896."

Dan Lowery has the correct butt plate screw.  So it and a correct stacking swivel & screw have been ordered.  While waiting for those to come in, I'll be cleaning/polishing the chamber.  I like to test feed / eject empty cartridges before even thinking about live ammunition (which I'm still debating with this rifle).  The cartridges on this one get sticky for the last 1/16 inch of travel before the rim seats.  I believe the binding is occurring where the neck steps down.

Went to a local gun show yesterday - mostly because I wanted to visit Bill Ricca's table (he's usually at the gun shows I call local) and pick up some Garand items.  He also had this Krag 1892 Rear Sight that I relieved him of. 
I'm not sure that I'll put it on the rifle for any reason other than taking a couple of photo's.  Other than that it will be a display item to go along with the rifle. 

Had a side photo as well, but even after shrinking them, I appear to be at the limit you're allowed to upload.  It appears I'm done as far as adding photo's goes.

---

How about that - Sunday USPS delivery.  The new 'old' butt plate screw, stacking swivel and associated screw arrived.  All have been installed.  Butt plate screw fits perfectly - except for the little bump above the butt plate that resulted in the need for a new screw style with the new butt plate.

Now to figure out what to do with photo's.

I think maybe the KCA Forum is 'maxed out' on photo capacity, for now.

Maybe freeloaders, like me, need to send a membership donation to the administrators for the purchase of more capacity!

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 14^th, 2018 at 6:09pm:

I think maybe the KCA Forum is 'maxed out' on photo capacity, for now. Maybe freeloaders, like me, need to send a membership donation to the administrators for the purchase of more capacity!

Thanks for reminding me.  I belong to a number of forums like this one.  Most I'm just a ghost, watching and reading, occasionally contributing.  Some, like this one, provide me with a lot of personal value.  This forum, for example has given me help with two rifles -- and the cost of membership is a drop in the bucket compared to the value of that help.  So, I finally found the 'membership' info and check is 'in the mail'. 

As an aside, I don't find the contributors - the sources of info such as yourself to be 'freeloaders'.  The wealth of knowledge provided is what keeps a forum like this going. 

As noted in an earlier post, I received the order with an 1892 butt plate screw yesterday.  The first photo shows the screw that was in the rifle when I got it (top) and the early butt plate screw (bottom) that I just received.  The difference in the screw head is apparent. 

The second photo shows the screw installed in the rifle.  The edge of the screw is flush with the butt plate with the rounded head of the screw rising just slightly above the butt plate.

---

The fit on this last screw is what I would call perfect. The line where the angle and "oval" come together is flush on the surface of the butt plate.
The machinists solution with the original screw would have been to countersink the butt plate deeper to match the screw, but that would have altered what appears to be an original and rare butt plate which would have been sacrilege in this case.
Well done on finding the right screw!

Tis a beautiful thing when appropriate parts come together!

It is fun how we all learn from such a project.

As a point of interest, here is an 'approximate' contrast between "boomer's" replacement model 1892 butt-plate screw (top) and a trap-door butt-plate screw (bottom).

They are similar, but, a bit different.

---

butlersrangers wrote on Oct 15^th, 2018 at 2:59pm:

Tis a beautiful thing when appropriate parts come together! It is fun how we all learn from such a project. As a point of interest, here is an 'approximate' contrast between "boomer's" replacement model 1892 butt-plate screw and a trap-door butt-plate screw. They are similar, but, a bit different.

Thanks for sharing that photo - it explains quite a bit.

At first I thought it fascinating that Springfield would go to the effort of making a new screw style for the Krag, but given a few more seconds I realized it was a new and thinner butt plate that they went to - and the screw change was necessitated by that decision.  A quick check shows the later Krag butt plate thickness is thicker than the early by about the thickness of the 'fillister'(???) on the later screw.  Possibly the initial butt plate change was an attempt to save $$'s?

I don't have a trap door, but I expect if we compared later Krag butt plate with a trap door butt plate, we'd find they are close to the same thickness.

I suspect the "trap-door" butt-plates were cast or forged.

They appear 'thick', but, the inside surface has hollow areas and support ribs, to lighten the weight. The screw counter-sinks are deep.

p.s. - I am glad one of our vendors provided you with the correct model 1892 Krag part.

This is the stacking swivel he sent.  As best I can tell, based on written description and a drawing, this appears to be correct for the rifle.

---

Nice looking parts. Good to see the 'old girl' complete! Now enjoy.