I have just acquired a second 1894 Krag rifle that has me curious. This was bought at an auction and I knew it just looked too good to pass up. Got it for under $1400! The details of this piece are fascinating. All of the parts are original and in great shape for an 1894 unmolested rifle except for two things. The ramrod is new and the stock is a fantastic reproduction, almost exactly, of an original 1894 stock.

I disassembled the rifle and examined everything carefully. And you can see in many of the pictures, there is a nice even patina on the metal consistent with an early 1894 Krag, serial number 1631. Everything is as it should be for an 1894 rifle including all of the serial numbers matching on the receiver, side plate and magazine cover. The bolt, front barrel band, rear sight, hand guard, butt plate, muzzle and extractor are all correct and look like they have been together for a long time. I don’t think that this is a rebuild from a pile of correct parts.

But, someone has fabricated an almost exact copy of a M92 stock that has such perfect lines and tolerances, it looks like it was an arsenal fabrication. It definitely is a retro because it is in like new condition and has no proof mark or cartouche. There are only two very small differences I have found. One is, there is no cross pin through the stock in front of the rear barrel band and second is that there is no metal insert inside the stock that the threaded end of the ramrod screws into. The inside of the stock is even correct by having cut outs for the hand guard clips but no lightening cuts. There is even the nice “Tulip” cut out for the muzzle end of the ramrod and the beveled end in front of the rear barrel band. Someone knew what they were doing. The hand guard is slightly darker and original. It is not new.

(Continued on next post...)

Pictures

Pictures

That is a very nice reconstruction of an early U. S. Krag!

I don't think it is but I just am at a loss to understand where it came from and who made it. If the proof mark was on it, It could convincingly be seen as original.

I'm hoping one of the seasoned collectors has some helpful info as to the origin of this kind of reproduction.

I'd also like to know where a value would be for this. I'm sure it's more than the sum of the parts.

Thanks for the feedback. I need it on this.

I wasn't real sure about the front band either. It looks newly done but it is a real band and the patina inside was convincing. I don't know. It may be a welded ramrod channel but very well done. I'm thinking, though, since all of the other parts are authentic and from a real 1894 (not ramrod) that they probably would have had the front band to use as well.

Just don't know for sure. But the stock is new. It looks better after layers of soaked-in linseed oil. I love it!

Whig's forearm tip contrasted with an original early stock tip, (subtle differences):

I had a rod Bayonet 1903 that had been put together with original parts using an original and unused Field Replacement stock on it. The stock had never been used on a rifle. It Did have a band retaining spring, but no bushing for a rear trigger guard screw. Maybe the company armoror was supposed to add these, I don’t know. The stock had no Inspectors or Proof stamps, but it did have three small ones on the wrist by the stock inspector.
What I’m saying is that it’s possible somebody got ahold of an unused, field replacement original 92 stock and used it.