I have a Model 1896 carbine with a Model 1892 receiver (stamped 1894, serial number 16720), and two JSA cartouches (1896 & 1898). Is there an explanation which would make it a correct, as issued carbine, or is it just a Frankenkrag? I couldn't load the other pictures at this time, the files are too large.

Here are more pictures, I'll attach as many as I can. It does have the notch on the receiver, and three holes for the cleaning rod in the stock. The rear sight only goes to 1,800 yards, and the front sight has a "c" on the right side instead of left. Seems to be one of the Model 1892 receivers which was modified to the 1896 as most were. Having it in a carbine, and with two JSA cartouches, I'm hoping it was legitimately done at the Springfield Armory.

---

Welcome to the forum!
Additional pics will be necessary before the experts can advise.  Closeups of the sights, muzzle, and receiver would be a good start.
Vic

'Jwagar' - Welcome to the KCA Forum. It sounds like your Krag is a real interesting puzzle!

FWIW - It seems to me, your receiver, #16720, is unlikely to have been used by Springfield Armory on a model 1896 carbine.

Your Receiver was likely manufactured around June or July of 1895. (It is real strange to me that it is dated "1894")!

BTW - Manufacture of model 1896 carbines began late in 1895, at around serial number, 24709.

Your stock and hand-guard appear to be correct model 1896 carbine components. I don't recall ever seeing a Krag stock with two J.S.A. 19th century 'cartouche' stamps; that's a new one for me!

Please take and post some clear/close-up pictures of sights, muzzle crown, and markings.

Is your receiver 'notched' for the extractor 'hold-open pin'?
How many cleaning rod holes are in the stock's butt-trap?

I am delaying judgement. The facts you have stated create an enigma.

Here's a post from a Milsurps thread concerning another  double stamped Krag:

  (You need to Login

No real answers but I guess their out there?

My appologies if I'm a bit choppy with the posts, I'm new to this. Here are a couple of more pictures. The stock photo shows the circle P. I can make out the circle faintly, but not the P so much.

---

Wow, that is a bit of a head-scratcher. My hunch is that someone (not Springfield) built a "carbine".

Your stock is a very nice later type of model 1896 carbine stock with two 'cartouche' stamps, which is a bit unusual, (and to me, seemingly unnecessary).

Your barrel is a carbine barrel. The front-sight blade may be correct, but, usually the small "C" is out of view on the 1896 carbine blade.

Your rear-sight is a model 1896 rifle-sight.

Your bolt is a model 1898 bolt.

Your 1894 dated receiver has been 'notched' for the bolt 'hold-open pin'. This alteration to early (Rifle) actions was done at Springfield Armory in the late 1890's and early 1900's.

IMHO - The mixture of rifle rear-sight, 1898 bolt, later 1896 carbine stock, and 1894 marked action - updated with 'notch', makes it very likely your Krag is a 'parts gun'. (I'd be happy to hear different).

I appreciate the feedback. I'll see if the Sprinfield Research Service can do anything to help keep my hopes alive. With the two cartouches (1896 & 1898) and the components being within the 1898 date, they might have an explaination. Maybe they used available parts on hand to meet the demand for carbines in 1898. I hate to give up until I've exhausted the possibilities. Thanks again for taking the time to help me figure this thing out!

You will never KNOW, but the evidence would strongly suggest that you have a very nice "parts" gun. I'm guessing that the double cartouches occur on the stock for ANOTHER reason than currently presents, and are thus adding to the puzzle as opposed to solving/supporting it. There are some things that, in my opinion, SA would not have done: 98 bolt in "96" receiver, rifle sight on a carbine, etc. Sorry, but that's my take.

I am on board with Dick's evaluation

'jwagar' - Perhaps another KCA member will be kind enough to check if your serial number, 16720, appears in the SRS data.

Likely, a better source of information (than contacting Springfield Research Services) would be for you to purchase Joe Farmer's Book (listed in KCA 'classifieds'). This will open access to his site.

Contacting 5MadFarmers (Joe Farmer) would be a good step. He may have an 'outside the box' explanation for your questionable "carbine".

p.s. Don't mention my name, it will impede having a good relationship with Mr. Farmer.

Thanks for the advice Dick. I'll go ahead and do that (and won't mention your name!). I'm learning quite a bit from the books I've gotten and from the seasoned collectors here. If it winds-up being a parts gun, lesson learned, I'll be able to make a more informed decision the next time.

John

Serial number 16720 does not appear specifically in the SRS list of known serial numbers.  It began life as an 1892 rifle.   There were only possibly 2 (or maybe 0) 1892 carbines produced by Springfield Armory.

You have a nice looking gun there, but I would say that it has been put together after leaving the arsenal.

Thank you for checking. Seems like the puzzle is mostly complete, just a couple of pieces missing. I've lowered my expectations of having an authentic, as issued carbine, but I'm not quite ready to throw-in the towel. I'll continue to chase down the last couple of pieces before closing the book. I really do appreciate everyone taking the time to help!

John, it was I that gave the advice to get Joe Farmer's book and not mention my name, should you contact him.

Mr. Farmer likes Dick Hosmer.

(We all like Dick Hosmer, a fine Gentleman).

My appologies to 'butlersranger' for the mix-up.

I'm waiting on a couple of reference books to come in, which may hold the keys to solving my puzzle. I've come across general information which gave me hope and spurred me on. I believe the books I'm expecting will have more definate proof. I'll organize the information and post it as soon as I can. 

Another observation on the serial number. Based on the information at hand (I don't have access to all of my references) that serial number is almost 8,000 out of the known range for the first run of carbines which would make the "first in last out" "nonlinear" assembly explanation an extreme, extreme reach.

I've found some great information in the book "Arsenal of Freedom", page 75, from the fiscal year 1896 report. Six carbines were used to test sights, the serial numbers listed in the results table are: 11803, 11804, 15787, 15903, 15969, and 21451. When I inquired through the Springfield Research Service for information on my carbine with serial number 16720, they responded that they had no information on my particular serial number, the closest they had records for was a carbine with serial number 16968. I've read that the Springfield Armory would have stockpiles of parts, which they would draw from to assemble rifles & carbines, so that would explain how the serial numbers could jump around. The 1898 cartouche would make sense for when they upgraded it with the 1898 bolt.

You mind if I add your rifle to the KCA serial number database?

I don't mind at all if you add my carbine serial number to the KCA data base, thank you.

It's been a while since I've checked-in. I'm hitting the books again and compiling as much detail as I can to, at the very least, prove that it's possible that this carbine is authentic, and not a parts gun. If along the way, I wind up proving that it is a parts gun, I'll have learned a great deal from the research effort.

As far as I know, the two 1892s, and the six carbines listed by Brophy as sight test guns were the ONLY carbines made up before production started, in 1895, at around 24600. I have never seen documented evidence as to how the six receivers were marked (my guess would be "1894") nor their whereabouts, if any of them still exist.

As to 16720, I'd have to assume it began life as a rifle, and was later modified by some previous owner. The SRS reference to 16968 is puzzling, as Frank tried his level best to only include "real" specimens in his listings - thus he must have felt it had some validity.

The presence of an 1898 bolt in an early receiver, while it certainly would fit, is not indicative of usual SA practice.

I just re-read the earlier posts in this thread and nothing seems to have changed - very nice-looking piece, but highly unlikely to be "as made by SA".

Dick Hosmer wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 2:22pm:

There are some things that, in my opinion, SA would not have done: 98 bolt in "96" receiver, rifle sight on a carbine, etc. Sorry, but that's my take.

  When you find your copy of Mallory 2, check page 78, right column under topic of Major Variations:  "Most Model 1896 carbines will be found with a Model 1896 rifle sight, rather than a carbine sight; and although there is a good supply of Krag spare parts, Model 1896 carbine rear sights are practically unobtainable.  No reason has been found in the Ordnance records for this situation."   Then check Brophy, page 54: "It is likely, though, that during the late years of the Krag, the Model 1898 and Model 1901 carbine rear sights were used as replacements.  Records do not indicate that rifle sights were ever used on carbines."  This would agree with you and some of us as well.

I don't have access to Mr. Farmer's work, but I would be interested to see if the above two statements are referencing the same record or if there is yet another possible explanation. 

Springfield Armory was so anal about ballistics and trajectory graphs developed for their sights that I can't imagine they would ever sanction a rifle rear sight on a carbine. They would have just manufactured more carbine ladders or sights altogether if they were running out, I'd think!