Thanks for clearing up the rod hole issue. The stock is then not one of the earliest ones, which only had two rod holes, one above the other. My 24893 has such a stock, which, according to the late Bill Mook, is extremely rare today - in a lifetime of Krag collecting he had only seen/heard of seven. The oiler slot is definitely a later addition, and I'm still surprised that the modification was performed.

You have an interesting piece, and, while I think it is "wrong" I do not believe that anyone can be 100% sure. One other possibility would be that it could be a Bannerman, or Stokes-Kirk assembly of some flavor. Their mission was profit, not orthodoxy, and, for better or worse, all sorts of misfits can be assembled, and look awfully "real" after 100 years of patinizing.

I guess I'm a bit confused about the rear sight on this carbine.  There are a couple of mentions of the 1892 rear sight, but the only photo shows an 1892 Rifle, rear sight on the table - not on the carbine.  The sight on the carbine seems to be, at least, an 1896 base, but there is no detail from a top view or from the other side.  Is this, perhaps a correct 1896 Carbine sight? 

I guess it's time to increase the font size on my screen.  My nome  de screen is getting to be more descriptive every day.  Thanks for the clarification.