I have a 1895 dated receiver serial # 24423. It is a carbine with a 22 inch barrel. It has an unaltered M1892 style receiver with an original unaltered 92 bolt, safety, cutoff and so on. The stock is an early type with a thin wrist and a sharp 1895 JSA cartouche. The carbine is in very good condition with considerable finish remaining. Just want to know if this gun is for real or a nice recreation. 

BTW - Krag #24423, is listed in Mallory's, "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd. edition, as a model 1896 Rifle, issued in 1898, to Co. 'C', 4th Ohio Volunteer Infantry.

It would be interesting to see more photos of this 'carbine'. Especially, the front-sight & muzzle crown, rear-sight, and stock.

That would be a VERY low number for an original carbine.

How many cleaning rod holes in the butt trap - 2 or 3?

'pappypete' :

In your first post, you incorrectly reported your Krag's serial number, as #24423. That number was documented by Franklin Mallory, as a model 1896 rifle.

Your actual number, #24432, is not in the appendix tables in "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd., edition.

Your Krag 'carbine' is beyond my area of experience and study. However, I am skeptical of a model 1896 carbine with a 'model 1892 action'.

To my eye, your photo seems to show a shiny spot on the right top of the receiver, where the 'hold-open notch' would be on a model 1896 carbine. (This could be reflection and illusion or a skillfully filled notch). Maybe it is a rub mark from a different bolt that had  a 'hold-open pin'.

Definitely, your Krag is one that has to be viewed directly by a collector knowledgeable with model 1892 and model 1896 Krags. It 'breaks a few rules'.

'pappypete' - There is a deep scratch or 'seam' on the left receiver wall just behind the serial number. Can you comment on this?

(I hope someone didn't join two receiver sections together).

In reply to Jeremy the lowest observed number by Dick Hosmer is 24685 and I think they just found one with a slightly lower number. Mallory's book reports a 96C with a serial number of 21451 used in sight calibration. Do not no anything about the weight.

Thank you for telling us that the stock was modified for the oiler. That is odd, because one would think that the thin wrist stocks - which were failing in service - would have been replaced, not modified (upgraded) for continued use.

But, once again, how many rod holes?

To another set of comments - there were exactly two M1892 Carbines. They had 4-digit numbers and were full-stocked. Both are accounted for. A few "sight test guns" occur in the 10K-20K range, but their characteristics are not known.

At one time, 24685, which I once owned, was recognized as the earliest production carbine known. That has subsequently been 'beaten' by about 200 numbers, IIRC.

The presence of an M1892R sight on the piece not a good omen, but certainly a puzzle.

'pappypete' - You have given us all 'a puzzle to ponder'.

My theory is:

In 1895 a distracted Springfield Armory workman failed to machine the newly introduced 'notch' on receiver #24432 and it went on to be heat treated.

It was assembled into an otherwise respectable early model 1896 carbine with a model 1896 bolt and rear sight. The pin on the 1896 extractor caused a bit of wear and brightening where it rubbed on the top of the 'un-notched' receiver.

In a later era, a 'collector' or Dealer, (noticing the carbine's receiver lacked the hold-open notch), attempted to make it "more Arsenal Correct". He put the 1892 bolt and rear-sight on the carbine, thinking these parts went with an un-notched receiver. He 'created a carbine that never was' - IMHO.

(This is much like some Present Day M1 carbine collectors do in rearranging parts to make 'correct guns').

Today, we ponder, scratch our heads, and wonder?????