1895/96 Magazine Carbine?

[pappypete@aol.com]

In reply to Jeremy the lowest observed number by Dick Hosmer is 24685 and I think they just found one with a slightly lower number. Mallory's book reports a 96C with a serial number of 21451 used in sight calibration. Do not no anything about the weight.

[pappypete@aol.com]

In reply to butlersrangers the scratches are only scratches I am afraid. Sorry you noticed because it makes me mad every time I look at them. Sorry to say they happened some time on my watch.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thank you for telling us that the stock was modified for the oiler. That is odd, because one would think that the thin wrist stocks - which were failing in service - would have been replaced, not modified (upgraded) for continued use.

But, once again, how many rod holes?

To another set of comments - there were exactly two M1892 Carbines. They had 4-digit numbers and were full-stocked. Both are accounted for. A few "sight test guns" occur in the 10K-20K range, but their characteristics are not known.

At one time, 24685, which I once owned, was recognized as the earliest production carbine known. That has subsequently been 'beaten' by about 200 numbers, IIRC.

The presence of an M1892R sight on the piece not a good omen, but certainly a puzzle.

[pappypete@aol.com]

Dick, agree with all you have said. I am afraid I do not know how many holes and will have to get back to you next week when I return home. The sight and oiler hole have always bothered me. Old gun sometimes never seem to be straight forward. The carbine is in very nice shape and was not used much. Sort of doubt it was reworked by Springfield or it would have been in a much different configuration.

[butlersrangers]

'pappypete' - You have given us all 'a puzzle to ponder'.

My theory is:

In 1895 a distracted Springfield Armory workman failed to machine the newly introduced 'notch' on receiver #24432 and it went on to be heat treated.

It was assembled into an otherwise respectable early model 1896 carbine with a model 1896 bolt and rear sight. The pin on the 1896 extractor caused a bit of wear and brightening where it rubbed on the top of the 'un-notched' receiver.

In a later era, a 'collector' or Dealer, (noticing the carbine's receiver lacked the hold-open notch), attempted to make it "more Arsenal Correct". He put the 1892 bolt and rear-sight on the carbine, thinking these parts went with an un-notched receiver. He 'created a carbine that never was' - IMHO.

(This is much like some Present Day M1 carbine collectors do in rearranging parts to make 'correct guns').

Today, we ponder, scratch our heads, and wonder?????

[pappypete@aol.com]

In answer to questions there are 3 rod holes and on close examination does not appear the hold open notch has been filled in.

[Dick Hosmer]

Thanks for clearing up the rod hole issue. The stock is then not one of the earliest ones, which only had two rod holes, one above the other. My 24893 has such a stock, which, according to the late Bill Mook, is extremely rare today - in a lifetime of Krag collecting he had only seen/heard of seven. The oiler slot is definitely a later addition, and I'm still surprised that the modification was performed.

You have an interesting piece, and, while I think it is "wrong" I do not believe that anyone can be 100% sure. One other possibility would be that it could be a Bannerman, or Stokes-Kirk assembly of some flavor. Their mission was profit, not orthodoxy, and, for better or worse, all sorts of misfits can be assembled, and look awfully "real" after 100 years of patinizing.

[madsenshooter]

The pin on the 1896 extractor caused a bit of wear and brightening where it rubbed on the top of the 'un-notched' receiver.

Yep, they do that. My 92/96 22018 doesn't have a notch. In time the receiver or the pin will wear enough that the bolt will no longer be held open.

The serial # is close to those of the 1896 Cadet rifles. It would be possible that one or more of them was converted to carbine rather than a full length rifle.

[olderthansome]

I guess I'm a bit confused about the rear sight on this carbine. There are a couple of mentions of the 1892 rear sight, but the only photo shows an 1892 Rifle, rear sight on the table - not on the carbine. The sight on the carbine seems to be, at least, an 1896 base, but there is no detail from a top view or from the other side. Is this, perhaps a correct 1896 Carbine sight?

[butlersrangers]

'olderthansome' - I believe the O.P. said he ... "replaced the model 1892 sight that came on his carbine (pictured) with a model 1896 carbine sight".