In researching the "Expenditure at the Springfield Armory " reports, the following was found:
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1897 (as seen in the post above),
3,508 magazine rifles altered to model of 1896 with model of 1892 extractors.
2,800 magazine rifles, model of 1892, altered to model of 1892, second pattern.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1898,
No mention of model of 1892 alterations.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1899,
Report could not be found.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1900,
1,588 altered to model of 1896.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1901 (as found in Chief of Ordnance Report),
6,123 altered to model of 1896.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1902,
5,420 altered to model of 1896.
Fiscal year ending 6/30/1903,
No alterations of model of 1892 shown.
This is only an opinion, and I know the horse has been beat to where there isn't even any pulp left, but:
What I can gather reading the various reports, once a model of 1892 was converted to model of 1896 it was then considered a model of 1896 and no longer a model of 1892 as far as the military was concerned. Somewhere I found a list in one of the reports showing what consisted of a conversion and I will post it if found again. Others likely already have this info.
I am quite confident that my particular rifle was converted in the 1897 fiscal year, but there does not appear to be any solid evidence.
Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Guys i am new here and think i need some help and i dont know where to post it. I think i have an unaltered 1892 but am not sure. I have pictures.
-
butlersrangers
- Posts: 9856
- Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 11:35 pm
- Location: Below the Bridge, Michigan
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Jon - Welcome to the KCA Forum!
You may want to start a new thread and post your Krag pictures. Each attachment needs to be less than 769 KB.
You may want to start a new thread and post your Krag pictures. Each attachment needs to be less than 769 KB.
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Ok thank you!
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
For kicks and giggles, I added up all the Model 1892 altered to Model 1896 and came up with the following. I have not been able to find anything for the fiscal year ending 6/30/1899, but I don't believe any alterations were done that year anyway.
3,508(1897) + 1,588(1900) + 6,123(1901) + 5,420(1902) = 16,639
Poyer's book shows the Model 1892 production ending in December 1895 with serial number 24,919. This may also include some Model 1896. For the sake of argument, I am using the 24,919 as the rough total of 1892's built. So the very rough total of 1892's not altered to 1896 would be:
24,919 - 16,639 = 8,280
Then consider those lost, destroyed, somewhere in another country, sporterized, etc. Can't be too many left in original configuration. Of course, we already knew that.
Also in Poyer's book he mentions that the 1892 altered stocks with the rounded cleaning rod channel filler (as mine is) was done to "new, unissued rifles" (pg. 39) in 1897. I'm not sure where he found this information. For now, I am going with that. Still there is some conflicting information to sort out. If anybody has some better info I'd like to hear from them.
3,508(1897) + 1,588(1900) + 6,123(1901) + 5,420(1902) = 16,639
Poyer's book shows the Model 1892 production ending in December 1895 with serial number 24,919. This may also include some Model 1896. For the sake of argument, I am using the 24,919 as the rough total of 1892's built. So the very rough total of 1892's not altered to 1896 would be:
24,919 - 16,639 = 8,280
Then consider those lost, destroyed, somewhere in another country, sporterized, etc. Can't be too many left in original configuration. Of course, we already knew that.
Also in Poyer's book he mentions that the 1892 altered stocks with the rounded cleaning rod channel filler (as mine is) was done to "new, unissued rifles" (pg. 39) in 1897. I'm not sure where he found this information. For now, I am going with that. Still there is some conflicting information to sort out. If anybody has some better info I'd like to hear from them.
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
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.
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.
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Receivers went into a bin in no special order.
Receivers were pulled out again for assembly in no special order.
Receivers were pulled out again for assembly in no special order.
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
Wisdom is but a mouse click away.
http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1424543733
This is the wisdom.
>>>>> http://www.5madfarmers.com/phpBB3_5mf/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=96 <<<<<<
http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1424543733
This is the wisdom.
>>>>> http://www.5madfarmers.com/phpBB3_5mf/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=96 <<<<<<
Deacon in the Church of the Mighty Krag. Member of PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals). Liberty Works Radio
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
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.
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.
Re: Model 1892 to 1896 Krag Jorgensen
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.
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.