Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4]  Send TopicPrint
 25 Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen (Read 4706 times)
Knute1
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 175
Location: Illinois
Joined: Sep 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #45 - Sep 28th, 2018 at 11:57pm
Print Post  
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.
« Last Edit: Sep 29th, 2018 at 1:14am by Knute1 »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fred G.
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 80
Location: Nebraska
Joined: Sep 21st, 2009
Gender: Male
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #46 - Sep 29th, 2018 at 6:04pm
Print Post  
Receivers went into a bin in no special order.
Receivers were pulled out again for assembly in no special order.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Culpeper
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline



Posts: 415
Joined: Mar 30th, 2005
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #47 - Sep 29th, 2018 at 8:47pm
Print Post  
Wisdom is but a mouse click away.

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

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

Deacon in the Church of the Mighty Krag
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knute1
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 175
Location: Illinois
Joined: Sep 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #48 - Oct 1st, 2018 at 2:32am
Print Post  
As for the last in/first out for the bin scenario, how much production time did it take to fill up a bin? Hours? A day? Production at this time was 120 rifles per day. I doubt there would be 120 receivers in a given bin. But it's possible.

I need to get the 5MadFarmers book if it is still available. I did find a year old posting of his from another forum. In it he said:
"What is a magazine rifle? A Krag from about 19k to 24k. Basically a M-1892 with ever increasing M-1896 features."
In one of my earlier posts above, from the Expenditures at the Springfield Armory it lists some alterations done, fiscal year ending 6/30/1897:
3,508 magazine rifles altered to model 1896
2,800 magazine rifles, model 1892, altered to model 1892, second pattern
It is strange that in the first line the rifle is referred to only as a magazine rifle. I am starting to become a believer in 5MadFarmers theory of the "magazine rifle" to describe these in-betweeners. But once altered, I believe they would be recognized by the military as M1896.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Knute1
KCA Forum Member
*
Offline


Krag Enthusiast!

Posts: 175
Location: Illinois
Joined: Sep 10th, 2016
Gender: Male
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #49 - Oct 4th, 2018 at 1:37am
Print Post  
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ned Butts
KCA Forum Admin
KCA Official Member
*****
Offline


Krag enthusiast!

Posts: 391
Location: western catskills NY
Joined: Apr 1st, 2002
Gender: Male
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Reply #50 - Oct 4th, 2018 at 9:59am
Print Post  
I don't think you need to apologize This has been a good discussion with many interesting facts and information shared.
I wish I had the time and ability to dig up some of the things you have found
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 
Send TopicPrint
 
  « Board Index ‹ Board  ^Top