Call me slow. As we say here in Maine "wicked slow". Is this thread about the existence of a specific model of Krag called a "Magazine Rifle", no more, no less? If so, why the reluctance to accept it? If that is not what this thread is about stop reading here.

I totally get the fact that there are a pile of Krags with the words "Magazine Rifle" appended to the model, that has been clearly shown but that only obfuscates the fact that, tucked in there, between the 1892 and the 1896 is a rifle that is termed a "Magazine Rifle", no more, no less just "Magazine Rifle".

If someone digs into the pyramids or a tomb and finds a hitherto unknown gem or artifact we all rejoice, right?

Am I the only one that has gone over to Joe's site and seen the evidence of the "Magazine Rifle"? It appears irrefutable to me.

Seems to me like someone has dug into the tomb and found a pretty cool artifact and we need to update our database.

Those transitional rifles were indeed transitional rifles and by god, they had a model designation and it was "Magazine Rifle".

Is a U.S. .30 cal. (Krag-Jorgensen) carbine marked simply "1895 Springfield Armory", plus serial number, or marked simply "1896 Springfield Armory", plus serial number, a U.S. model 1896 carbine or just a "magazine carbine"?

If it is not accompanied in official records (not a magazine article or a book) by a year of manufacture or a model number then it is a "magazine rifle". the only place so far that this has  been found is between US Magazine Rifle Model 1892 and US Magazine rifle Model 1896. If you don't like it then find SOLID evidence to disprove it or suck it up and live with it.

I seem to have played a role in irritating three individuals, Mark, Ned, and Dick, who I like, enjoy their contributions, and have no desire to irritate or piss off.

I am a student of the U.S. Krag-Jorgensen magazine rifle and carbine and I am trying to learn more everyday.

I don't have any of the early stuff. I am trying to get a better grasp of changes and evolution. Nomenclature is tricky and apparently has been a hot button at times. (I have not been involved in 'earlier' discussions or arguments on this subject).

I started this thread 'Re: Magazine Rifle' with good intentions. I wanted to better understand the transition in U.S. rifles prior to the model 1896. I wanted to better understand rifles "updated" to model 1896 features.
I asked the question about the nomenclature for earlier carbines as an honest inquiry.

I am truly sorry if I have offended someone or have been dense.

Knute's mention of the "Report of the Secretary of War ..... 1895" has been helpful to me.

FWIW - How (Krag) rifles and carbines are labeled in the 1895 Report is varied:

MAGAZINE RIFLE AND CARBINE, CALIBER .30
The magazine rifle, model 1892
Magazine carbine, caliber .30
improved rifle

The 1895 report, (Report of action taken year ended June 30, 1895), lists and describes fifteen minor changes in the rifle. Also mentioned is a 16th change, replacing the long wiping rod with one in three sections. (At the time of the report, only the first four changes had been made in rifles issued).

Also, a description of earliest carbines.

We all have things to learn from these discussions. I recall (a little foggy now though) a dispute a number of years ago between Bill Mook and other Krag collectors, Scott Duff for one at the Baltimore show about blueing of early bayonet blades. There it is in the 1895 report:
"(4) The blueing of parts of the bayonet discontinued, as the heat of the niter bath was found to injure the temper of the blade"
Good solid information many thanks

Appears all is well, great! I have another document to share. Perhaps "butlersrangers" can use his superior computer skills (mine are rudimentary) and post some info from the following. Don't mean to put you on the spot and forgive me if I have. It mentions the changes of Model 1892 rifles on hand at the armory with Model 1896 upgrades where practicable. Again, it is from Google Books and is free in its entirety:
Annual Reports of the War Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1897. Report of the Chief of Ordnance. Washington: Government Printing Office. 1897.
If anybody here views this document there is an index at the very end that can take you to the pages of interest with a click.

I wish to thank 'Knute1' for locating and mentioning the "1895 Report" as being viewable online.

IMHO - Some possible conclusions from the material in the 1895 Report:

By June 30, 1895, 14,491 new magazine rifles had been manufactured. Some of these rifles had been issued, (to the Engineer Battalion, and all the U.S. Infantry and Artillery Regiments).

The jealous Cavalry were waiting.

The rifles were, likely considered, "U.S. magazine rifle, model 1892", with up to four minor changes (involving a change to the safety lever and its pin location, magazine cut-off lever construction, change to a straight ejector pin, and discontinuing the 'bluing' of parts of the bayonet). Minor stuff that had little impact on interchangeability.

Twelve more changes had been decided upon and "were to be gradually introduced". These were regarded "improvements" to correct flaws and weaknesses. (At some point in the change process, the improved rifles are best called "Magazine Rifles". Some changes would become pretty significant and might compromise interchangeability).

A Magazine Carbine, Caliber .30, was accepted and about to be manufactured. (This would be a good logical term or nomenclature for carbines made prior to the "U.S. model 1896" marking).

(Significantly, in the "decided changes", there is no mention of the bolt 'hold open' pin and receiver 'notch' that would be part of the future U.S. model 1896, magazine rifle. Also, 'change #10', reversing the function of the magazine cut-off lever, would not take place for years)!

That would be great! If you can make the information "postable" I will start a view only thread for the information.