Krag Collectors Association Forum

sounds for all the world like you have one of the many thousands of 1892 rifles that was upgraded to 1896 config. Your extractor has the hold-open pin, yes?

For an explanation and description of the "Magazine Rifle" visit 5madfarmers dot com

Yes, Mark, it has the hold-open pin. This gun was portrayed to me as a Model 1892 upgraded to 1896. I may have misinterpreted what Dick was saying.
So this gun apparently started out as a Model 1892.
The "1894" on the receiver means what?
The serial number shows the gun being built in October 1895?
The cartouche indicates it wasn't inspected until some time in 1896?
I don't have a cement head, but my skull is thick.

Yes your rifle probably started life as a model 1892. Production didn't start until 1894.
Early rifles were stamped with the year of production, 1894 is the year that the receiver was made. this ceased mid model 1896 production then the model was stamped on the receiver
Where did you get your serial number info?
Stock was probably switched during refurb. at some time in its life.
During production parts were placed in bins and pulled at random, "first one in last one out" nothing was done in perfect sequence. Slight over laps happen from time to time.

The serial number is 21015 on the receiver. I looked at Joe Poyer's book for date of mfg. It is admitted that this in not exact science and this is more of an approximation of mfg date. There may be a better way or no way to determine the date, but I don't know of it.

Joe Farmer has thrown the collecting world a bit of a curve with his "magazine rifle" nomenclature/theory/whatever. For eons we had pure '92s, pure '96s, and anything in between was thrown into the "'92/'96 conversion" sack. This was tidy enough for most folks, but Joe, brilliant micro-researcher that he is, found another path - which may well be the correct one.

The middle ground is VERY difficult to get a firm handle on, due to a lack of consistancy, and the fact that the guns themselves have been through so many hands. All sorts of configurations are possible.

In this case, because of the high serial number, I believe the arm was originally built as a "magazine rifle" (which still had a very '92 appearance - and a lot of '92 parts) but has had the 1896 conversion performed.

Knute1, there are some very bad sites out there regarding Krag (and certainly other older firearms)information. Bowers is the first that comes to mind and I wanted to be sure it was not them!

Looking at my copy of Bill Mook's 'Krag Crap' notes, #21015, would have likely been assembled around September, 1895.

I think Ned's point about 're-building' is well taken. Knute's Krag was taken apart to perform model 1896 updates so its present stock is not the one it was born with.

FWIW - The term "magazine-rifle" seems to me to lack any specific meaning. All Krags, (except .22 cal. 'gallery rifles'), as well as most bolt action rifles, have a magazine and are thus magazine rifles.

Although 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official documents, it is kind of like calling a rifle a 'repeater'.

The term 'Magazine Rifle' is used in official Ordnance Manuals in conjunction with specific Krag models.

It is not exclusive to the rifles that deviate from 'standard models' and show a 'hybrid' mixture of transitional features - IMHO.

There is another one on gunbroker, item# 766391947. Guy took a ton of photos of an 1892 disassembled.

It would make sense to me that before the Model 1896 was released for production, that "built-in" conversions were made when producing rifles with some existing '92 parts instead of throwing them away or using for repairs. I have no basis for this "transition" theory. But why not use these parts up when production needs seemed to be somewhat great at the time? Makes financial sense. Perhaps some future evidence will cement this concept. For now, I'm keeping an open mind.

Pictures if it works.