Looking at my copy of Bill Mook's 'Krag Crap' notes, #21015, would have likely been assembled around September, 1895.

I think Ned's point about 're-building' is well taken. Knute's Krag was taken apart to perform model 1896 updates so its present stock is not the one it was born with.

FWIW - The term "magazine-rifle" seems to me to lack any specific meaning. All Krags, (except .22 cal. 'gallery rifles'), as well as most bolt action rifles, have a magazine and are thus magazine rifles.

Although 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official documents, it is kind of like calling a rifle a 'repeater'.

The term 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official Ordnance Manuals in conjunction with specific Krag models.

It is not exclusive to the rifles that deviate from 'standard models' and show a 'hybrid' mixture of transitional features - IMHO.

It would make sense to me that before the Model 1896 was released for production, that "built-in" conversions were made when producing rifles with some existing '92 parts instead of throwing them away or using for repairs. I have no basis for this "transition" theory. But why not use these parts up when production needs seemed to be somewhat great at the time? Makes financial sense. Perhaps some future evidence will cement this concept. For now, I'm keeping an open mind.

Here is the rest.
(You need to Login to view media files and links)
(You need to Login to view media files and links)
(You need to Login to view media files and links)
(You need to Login to view media files and links)
(You need to Login to view media files and links)

I'm not sure why the "P" has a ghost double. Did the hammer bounce? Was it applied twice?"
I am not sure what is above the "P".
The indention in the cleaning rod filler end looks just like it does in the picture. Doesn't appear to be a character I am familiar with if it is intentional.
The barrel has some good bluing on it, making me suspect that a previous owner may have fooled with it. The bore is good. Also, the buttplate screws are nicely blued and may be replacements. I have a 1896 sporter with the original screws. Do I dare swap them out?

I'm with you on everything you said, butlersranger. That would explain the double "P".

I purposely shown the end of the forestock to show that the cleaning rod fill was round bottom versus the later square bottom fill-in.

So what I'm trying to figure out is why the cartouche is dated 1896 (in the the right light it does end with 6). The serial number indicates it was built in September/October of 1895. Would it be possible as Dick suggests (if I understand one of his earlier posts) that before the gun was issued from the armory that it was held to perform the updates? When did this inspector's initials start showing up in 1896?

Thanks for everyone's responses.

So if I got this right (within reason):
This is a Model 1892 Magazine Rifle.
The receiver was made in 1894 and is so marked.
It was built in September/October 1895.
It was possibly held up for a Model 1896 rear sight.
After the sight installation it would have then received the 1896 cartouche and then issued.
It would have then returned later to the Springfield Armory for other Model 1896 updates including the buttplate with trapdoor, filling in of the cleaning rod channel, replacement of the ejector for the hold open on the bolt, crowned the barrel, installation of a longer upper fore end, etc.
After the updates were performed it would have been proof-tested and stamped for a second time with the "P".

Perhaps you are right, I don't know if there is clear evidence. I was just going off what Dick Hosmer replied about his rifle having the 1896 sight and cartouche, but no other 1896 updates. His rifle serial number is 118 less than mine. At that time they were making about 120 rifles per day. So it is likely his was made a day or two ahead of mine. I'm just trying to just figure out why the cartouche is 1896. It may be a completely made up, altered gun with no significance of whatever dates are on it. But I am not going to challenge Dick Hosmer.