Just curious on your thoughts.  I see it as a nice looking rifle but way out of my price range.    (You need to Login
Vic

Saw same rifle on "Gunboards" thought the same.

I'm not going to pick it apart except that it is a M1892 and is no longer in original configuration that would bring in even more bucks then this specimen would.
But here are some observations. The cleaning rod channel is squared off vs. rounded, indicating a later stock alteration to M1896. The inspector's cartouche and the "P" proofing mark behind the trigger guard are still crisp. The top forearm guard covers the receiver (like M1896 and later), but the rivets appear to be flush with the wood and not inset (to protect the user from hot rivets after multiple shots). Appears to still be wearing a M1892 rear sight. I haven't gotten my mind wrapped around the sight saga yet, but I am sure the M1892 didn't come back after the M1896 and later sights were out. Or did they?

The handguard appears to be a correct, 1894 iteration.  It is definitely shorter than the '96 and still shows the cove molded breech end.  I've always thought that guard was a little special.

That’s an interesting Krag.

I took another look and, yes, the handguard doesn't go over the receiver enough to be a M1896 type. It appears to fit the Circular below as being an altered M1892 rifle.

  (You need to Login

"stamp marks on the receiver "Model 1892""?????

H.C. Corbin must have been mistaken. This circular went out some years after the Krag came out. Could have been the person typing the circular misinterpreted it and Corbin didn't proof read it very well leaving the verbiage "Model 1892" stamping in. I have no other explanation. Unless he "assumed" that there were "MODEL 1892" stampings and those reading it may not have given it another thought. They weren't going to find anything that didn't exist anyway. Perhaps this is the most scrutiny this circular has ever gotten, over a hundred years later.