Most of the rifle variants.

[Danny]

So a long time back I shared my model 1892 2nd version and thought it would be a chance to come back and show off the whole lot of them. The title refers to the fact that I am missing an 1892 first version, Board of Ordnance & Fortifications, and a Stevens-Pope .22. What are shown is an 1892 2nd version, a 92/96, 1896, an 1898 that I rebuilt from a sporter, and a .22 Gallery rifle.

I have yet to get a carbine, and pretty much all of these I acquired by watching online sales, mostly gunbroker. On the one I restored from a sporter, All the parts are original Krag parts except for the barrel, and forearm. If you have questions or I missed something or got it wrong let me know!

[Ned Butts]

Very nice!

[butlersrangers]

Nice Rifles and nice Photography! Thanks for sharing.

[Danny]

Thanks for the compliments.

[madsenshooter]

Not often one sees a 96 in an Italian walnut stock. But then, I don't get out often! What year is the cartouche?

[Dick Hosmer]

You have a VERY nice grouping there! By 1st pattern M1892, I'm guessing you mean one having the solid upper band?

I have been lucky enough to find two BoOFs and will ultimately trim that to one, unless I find a third (yes, I still look) to make a stack!!!!

388786 came to me in a carbine stock with a 1902C sight. I have made a '5-footer' BoOF sight from the parts bin, but have not as yet addressed the stock issue. Interestingly, the specimen at SA is also in a carbine stock, and they do not know why.

389182 came to me 100% correct and complete, except for a shortened stock.

The former is in a bit nicer condition, but the latter is obviously way more original. I'll never find a stock, so it will have to be a stretch job, thus qualifying as a restoration, not a made-up piece.

At some time in the not too distant future, I will be disposing of one of them. The price will be much closer to the $xxx I "stole" it for than the $xxxx that such a great rarity is actually worth.

It may well take a couple of years but stay tuned.

[Danny]

@madsenshooter, The 96 has a 98 dated stock.

@Dick Hosmer, Thank You! I am probably wrong here, but I was refering to rifles under s/n 1500, where I think a few changes were implemented, along with a change from brass tipped to steel cleaning rods. Both my 92 and 92/96 have solid upper bands. Feel free to educate me on the correct distinction!

I keep my eye out for the BoOF s/n range and features, but I haven't seen one yet. I would love to add one eventually and will stay tuned for sure.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, you are not "wrong" about the 1892, except that you may be misunderstanding the term "solid upper band". Along with the brass-tipped rod - of which no legitimate specimens are known to exist - the early upper bands lacked the top cutout and appear as simple, nearly cylindrical, tubes. Speaking of rods in general, VERY few are original - even advanced collectors frequently have to make do with repros.

Breaking the M1892 down into "types", since there were so many changes, is a frustrating effort - where do you draw the line? I don't like Joe Farmer's use of "magazine rifles", even though it was official, as it sounds (to me) too generic. However, it was an official term. If I were to split the M1892 into two collectible versions, that would be where I would do it.

Here (20197) is an example - not an 1892 and not an 1896, yet it has features of both. Even with the curved buttplate there is no trap. The muzzle is still flat. The bolt has the cutaway rib, but still no extractor pin. The rear sight is an M1896. Cartouche is 1896. The rod is not original, but the rounded head would be correct.

[Danny]

Thanks for the info. I was referring to the bands not having a slot on the bottom. I by no means consider myself an advanced collector, I feel more like a guy that knows just enough to get into trouble! What do you look for the in the rod to tell real vs repro?