At the risk of everybody thinking I'm a freak, I have a hypothesis to try.

As Poyer lists the last of serial numbers in December 1895 to be 24919 and stating that the Model 1892 ended that month, I believe that 24919 would be the maximum number of Model 1892's built. Again, if anybody has a better substantiated number I'd like to know it. There was mention of some Model 1896's having been built in 12/95, also. This would of course decrease the number of 1892's having been built.

The Senate report of fiscal year ending 6/30/1897 shows 3,508 Model 1892's having been altered to 1896. If Poyer was again correct that only "new, unissued" rifles were altered, then I would suppose that these would be some of the last 1892's having been built. Applying some mathematics again:
    24,919 - 3,508 = 21,411
This gets it close to my serial number 21,015 (a difference of 396). As my rifle does  have the resemblance of the alterations, I am thinking my rifle is part of the 3,508. Dick Hosmer's gun serial #20,197 was not altered and built 6-10 days before mine (120 rifles per day during this time period). So to end my hypothesis, I believe that somewhere between his serial number and mine would be the beginning of the Model 1892's grabbed for the alteration in the fiscal year 7/1/1896 to 6/30/1897.

Wisdom is but a mouse click away.

(You need to Login to view media files and links)

This is the wisdom.
>>>>>    (You need to Login to view media files and links);  <<<<<<

Although I have not received a book from 5MadFarmers as of yet, I did find another forum where he had many replies dealing with "Magazine Rifles". I humbly apologize to all those that tried pointing me in the right direction, but I stubbornly tried to find my own way. Although I did stumble into a few things that 5MadFarmers had researched, I could have taken a shortcut directly to his findings. It was still fun for me to find what I could, just unnecessary.
First off, I now understand why the simple term of "magazine rifle" was used. It was meant for those rifles that didn't have totally all M1892 parts or all M1896 parts making them neither models. And not all "magazine rifles" had the same combination of M1892 and M1896 components. I won't go into detail on this for 5MadFarmers gets all the credit and I don't want to usurp what he has rightfully found and published.
Second, I was trying to find why my particular rifle had all the discrepancies of dates and the hodge podge of parts. Appears that most, if not all, could be explained by 5MadFarmers information. Using his serial number ranges and changes made, it appears that my particular rifle was built with some 1896 components, but not the sight, which would have been with a 1892 sight or built without a sight at all. When it was altered to 1896 it would still not have had the 1892 receiver modified for the bolt hold open. This would have been due to not having the expertise and/or equipment to perform the required grinding for the notch in the hardened receiver. It would have been returned at a later date (if it actually was issued during this time) for the modification including a new extractor. So I believe that I found most of the answers I'll be able to find. There are some subtleties that may never be explained due to the time that has passed and the hands that this rifle has passed through, as somebody earlier has pointed out.
Fred G, forgive me for my miscalculated response to your reply.