1892 Krag Question

I just purchased an 1892 Krag rifle, serial 17799, that appears to be substantially original. It has the thin wrist stock with the cleaning rod channel and 1895 date, a front band with the rod guide, a flat butt plate with no holes underneath, the short handguard and an un-crowned muzzle. There is no notch in the receiver for the extractor pin. It does have an 1898 bolt that is certainly incorrect. What I'm not sure about is the rear sight, which in an early 1896, and the cutoff, which is also an early 1896 that interrupts cartridge feed when in the up position. Wear on these parts is consistent with the rest of the gun. Is it possible that these parts are original to a later 1892 like this? Thanks for any opinions.

George - Those are pretty advanced Krag questions. I suggest you post your questions and some photos on the Krag Collector's Association site or Culver's Pages. It will stimulate some good interest and discussion.

No disrespect intended to this Forum. There are just some guys, who know the early Krags and participate on those other sites, that will never see your questions here.

We would however like to see the rifle in pics and once it's ironed out come back and share. Does sound like a couple parts have been changed. The wear is over a period of over a hundred years...even back 70 years will make parts match now.

Sounds like good advice on the Krag forum. Will have to get a friend to do the pictures though, as posting them is a little beyond my skill set. I did come up with a book by Poyer and Reisch that indicated that the cut off is OK, but the sight is likely wrong. Thanks for responding!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeG

Will have to get a friend to do the pictures though, as posting them is a little beyond my skill set.

---

I can also do that for you here if you like, PM me and I'll send you an email address to send them to, and I'll post them.

George - FWIW - The model 1896 sight was considered an improvement over the model 1892 sight.

The 1896 sight could use the original '92 hand-guard and mounting screws. The switching of sights required mere moments and no skill or other alteration to the rifle. (Except, maybe the front-sight blade). These changes could easily be done 'in the field'.

There are so many loose model 1892 sights around, that IMHO, the sight must have been viewed as deficient in holding its elevation setting or not being properly calibrated. They must have been taken off and made 'surplus'.

Probably, the most important photos to take are clear close-ups of: the wood/rod channel area in front of the rear barrel-band, the contour or shape of the rod channel, and detailed ones showing the fit of the front 'nose cap'/barrel-band.

George:

William S. Brophy, "The Krag Rifle", page 95, wrote: .... "This Model 1896 sight was adopted November 26, 1895 when the Model 1892 sight became obsolete.
The first issue of this sight replaced the Model 1892 sight on Model 1892 Rifles in the field. It was also the standard sight on the Model 1896 Rifle."

Franklin B. Mallory, "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition, page 125, wrote: "The Model 1896 sight ..... was retrofitted to Model 1892 service rifles in June 1896 ....."

Jim - thanks for the offer. My brother came over and is more literate than me. Let's see if this works.

Isn't that nice? I'd like to have that rifle, just because I'm greedy. I also have brass and dies...

Looks just like my 1892 and mine had a M1896 sight on it when I bought it. Maybe I should take the M1892 sight off and put the M1896 back on. Mine is earlier then yours with a 1894 stock cartouche.

'George' - From what I know and can see in your photos, you have a pretty righteous looking model 1892 Krag rifle!

You should definitely search out a correct model 1892 bolt and replace the model 1898 bolt and extractor.

If it were mine, I would leave the model 1896 rear sight and magazine cut-off in place. (I believe them to be legitimate updates).

A model 1892 rear-sight and earlier style of magazine cut-off, kept detached in a display box, would make nice companion pieces to show the evolution of the model 1892 rifle.

You've got a good one. Thanks for sharing!

I was going to pick up a rear sight as they're pretty common. The bolt on the other hand seems to be tough to find and very pricey. From my research it also looks like there are several variants and I'd want to get the right one. I have a bolt body with the wide guide rib - maybe that would work? Might be time to ask the guys on the Krag Collectors forum. I appreciate everyone's thoughts on this rifle.

George

'George' - 'movieman630' (on ebay), AKA - 'Granpa's Gun Parts' (DBS3@GRANPASGUNPARTS.COM) is best source I know of for correct early Krag parts. He is Grandson of the Late Joe DeChristopher. They are not cheap, but, he is reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

They are not cheap, but, he is reasonable.

---

That's the best you can hope for these days. We don't even have that resource here in Canada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeG

I have a bolt body with the wide guide rib - maybe that would work?

---

If it isn't the right one, it still isn't the right one.

Neat rifle. Yea, Do obtain the early sight and the early bolt body. You might have to remove and stone off the pin on the extractor since original 1892 extractors are tougher to find than the bolt body. The Cocking piece you can make by welding up the bevel on a later cocking piece and filing and stoning it to shape. I did that and although the safety notch is different, it's not noticeable.

I have a few parts lying around that'd go well with it. An early cutoff and an early boltsleeve. The boltsleeve has the long barrel, stud on the side of the barrel that fits the widerib model 92 bolt, pinned safety, grasping grooves. Might have a short firing pin spring too. That's required with the early bolt sleeve because of the longer barrel. I only have one wide rib bolt, and it's staying the way it is. You'd still need an original extractor and extractor screw.

Now that I took a look at Poyer, seems neither of my parts would be right for that serial # rifle. They'd already gone to the coil spring cutoff and done away with the stud on the barrel of the bolt sleeve, and the grasping grooves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeG

I just purchased an 1892 Krag rifle, serial 17799, that appears to be substantially original. It has the thin wrist stock with the cleaning rod channel and 1895 date, a front band with the rod guide, a flat butt plate with no holes underneath, the short handguard and an un-crowned muzzle. There is no notch in the receiver for the extractor pin. It does have an 1898 bolt that is certainly incorrect. What I'm not sure about is the rear sight, which in an early 1896, and the cutoff, which is also an early 1896 that interrupts cartridge feed when in the up position. Wear on these parts is consistent with the rest of the gun. Is it possible that these parts are original to a later 1892 like this? Thanks for any opinions.

---

The rear sight isn't an early 1896.

I'll give you some unsolicited advice. Due to suggestions and the direction the thread it taking. You really have three options, one of which is "bad" and two "better."

1) Start "restoring" it. This is the bad option. How so? Because the restoration parts are going to be "wrong" in a way that some can detect. That'll call the entire thing into question.
2) Leave it be. It is what it is. Right now it's not "wrong," it's "honest." Attempts to make it "right" are going to make it "wrong" in a way that is going to ... well, I covered that.
3) Find the parts that you'd like to see on it. Retain the parts that exist now. Put them into a bag. With a note on why they're in the bag and where they came from. If somebody that knows them reviews it and sees the "corrected" parts you've put on they're going to start asking questions. Out comes the bag. "Aw, that makes sense."

#1 is the bummer option.

Interesting rifle. Nice rifle. Congrats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by butlersrangers

George:

William S. Brophy, "The Krag Rifle", page 95, wrote: .... "This Model 1896 sight was adopted November 26, 1895 when the Model 1892 sight became obsolete.
The first issue of this sight replaced the Model 1892 sight on Model 1892 Rifles in the field. It was also the standard sight on the Model 1896 Rifle."

Franklin B. Mallory, "The Krag Rifle Story", 2nd edition, page 125, wrote: "The Model 1896 sight ..... was retrofitted to Model 1892 service rifles in June 1896 ....."

---

Both of the above statements are incorrect. Page 262 in the good book should make one immediately suspicious of the above statements.

Both of the above statements have a kernel of truth. Which is what makes that an involved topic.

Was the rear sight on the rifle pictures here installed as a retrofit along the lines of the two statements above?

No.

Three posts in a row. I'm a post bot. It's an interesting gun though. More of post number #1 expanded.

I have #230. That one is so early that it has the maximum of numbered parts. Reasons in the book. Some of the parts would not be expected to be on that rifle. Thus it's "mainly unaltered with a few parts replaced." Now it could honestly be said that "correcting" those parts would be impossible as they are numbered but, to me, that's really a non-issue anyway.

Do I know what parts one would expect to find on your rifle? Sure. I'll be obnoxious and arrogant enough to say I'm unaware of anyone who would have a better idea. Do I have those parts? Sure. If I had that gun would I put those parts on that gun? No. That would make the gun a "restore" and a "restore" isn't worth as much, or as honest as, an honest gun. It'd also decrease value. A "true collector," whatever that is, wouldn't pay as much for a restored gun. Given the collection I have I guess I can say that and be pretty much on the money.

1) Gun as sits. Value is as a "substantially correct with honest issues."
2) Gun "restored" with the parts I have. Value is "as restored." Less to a serious collector than #1.
The rub is #2 has the cost of the gun plus the cost of the parts which decrease the value.

It's your gun, knock yourself out. That is the golden rule of property. That said the gun is not going to increase in value based on any work you do on it and it will most likely decrease.

Appreciate it. Of all the Krags the M-1892s are the finest.

If you have more questions you'd probably have to email me as I'm going on vacation tomorrow and when that's over I likely won't even remember this.

Cheers.

5MadFarmers - I understand your point on restorations and tend to agree for the most part. The cutoff and rear sight seem likely to have been installed during the rifles period of service and will stay. I may pick up the correct replacements just to have as they're easy to get and cheap. On the other hand, I suspect that the bolt was added after the piece was retired, so I'm a little less hesitant about getting rid of it. My reasoning is that had it been done in the late '90's by a military armorer, they would have used an 1892 style extractor without the hold open pin, as there is no hold open notch in the receiver. Who knows for sure though - maybe it was done in the field by a soldier? At any rate, added value isn't a concern as it probably won't go until the estate sale. Appreciate your opinions.

George

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GeorgeG

The cutoff and rear sight seem likely to have been installed during the rifles period of service and will stay.

---

Altogether possible. Just not done in the fashion claimed above. How sure am I of that? "Real sure."

Do the two seem at odds? No. Mind if I digress into the M-1892s for a moment?

Made at SA. Sent to RIA. Issued. Returned. Stored. Sent to SA for rework to M-1896.

The army guns. The army owned guns. So what explains the M-1892s that weren't updated? The army didn't own them all. Of the unaltered M-1892s that I've reviewed, that have a known history, an unusually high percentage were "in army service" but "not army owned." No different from the M-1911A1 in my safe. "Officers weren't issued arms. They were permitted to purchase them." Second group? Other government agencies. Third group? Private sales. Ammo companies and such. Send them money and they send you a gun. Once they've decided you're not an anarchist or whatever.

It's that first group. Did officers have access to parts? Certainly. Did their privately owned guns go to SA for update to M-1896? No.

Quote:

---

I may pick up the correct replacements just to have as they're easy to get and cheap.

---

Keep what's there in a bag if you do. Doesn't hurt and explains much.

Quote:

---

On the other hand, I suspect that the bolt was added after the piece was retired, so I'm a little less hesitant about getting rid of it. My reasoning is that had it been done in the late '90's by a military armorer, they would have used an 1892 style extractor without the hold open pin, as there is no hold open notch in the receiver. Who knows for sure though - maybe it was done in the field by a soldier?

---

See above.

Quote:

---

At any rate, added value isn't a concern as it probably won't go until the estate sale.

---

Appreciate it. They're interesting and incredibly well made. Excessively so.

Your sight?

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../sights1-1.jpg

Middle one right? What of that one I have on the left?

---------- Post added at 05:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

One image per post apparently.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../sights2-1.jpg

Clear?

---------- Post added at 05:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:06 PM ----------

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../sights3-1.jpg

Which ones are those three?

---------- Post added at 05:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:07 PM ----------

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../03/rods-1.jpg

Three M-1892s. Bottom rifle isn't. I cover that in the book. I have another now that makes it even clearer. Your rifle is an M-1892.

Cheers.

5MadFarmers - Wow, now I'm really learning what I don't know. There appear to be more variants of 1896 sight than I was aware of, so you can imagine how much trouble I'll have with that bolt. I would have thought that the bottom rifle was a late 1892. Back to researching!

Thanks

George

No problem. Mind if I break out the crystal ball and fabricate a history for your rifle? A real crystal ball isn't clear glass - it's more yellow/green. Fireflies inside. Little liquid tray for booze. Don't like the patterns you see? Change the booze.

In 1895 a Lieutenant decided to buy himself a rifle. The army rifles were priced lower than the cost to make them. Good deal that. He bought one. Your rifle.
In 1897 he decided to get one of them new sights. Ordered it. Springfield put out a price list.
In 1899 he decided to make his cut-off match the new ones. Cheap part.
In 1902, now a Captain, he was out at the range and that safety finally annoyed him enough where he decided to do something about it. The M-1892 safety tended to wiggle. Then it reached the flopping stage. Rather than figure out how to change out the safety and whatnot he just did the simple thing - rammed a complete 1898 bolt in the gun. That did leave the hold-open pin as something of a small problem. Two choices presented themselves: ignore it or get an angle grinder and take care of that. Being a Captain he realized that an angle grinder in his hands would likely result in half the extractor joining that pin so he just left well enough alone. Besides, the army was supposed to be getting new Mauser type guns and he'd likely buy one.

When the factory stereo in my car quit I guess I could have bought a replacement from eBay or a junkyard. I didn't like the CD thing. I bought an aftermarket one. Which gave me USB ability and that's nice. That did leave the problem of the steering wheel controls. They don't work. Two choices presented themselves: ignore them or take my angle grinder after them. Understanding that the angle grinder solution would likely result in half my steering wheel disappearing I decided to leave well enough alone. Besides, it was really time to buy a new car with all those fancy new things they have. Like charger clips. Higher velocity cartridges. Shorter barrel. Bigger tires. LED display.

Stupid fireflies. Once they're fully tanked the patterns tend to merge and get weird. Maybe beer works better than rum.

I like a good story and that's certainly a good and even plausible one. It doesn't have the new fangled cutoff though, the magazine is off with the lever up. Guess we'll have to change that 1899 date. In doing more research, it looks like I'm not going to like the price of an 1892 bolt anyway as the cocking piece is about half what I paid for the whole gun. Just in case I stumble over an interesting and cheap sporter, can you tell me specifically what I should look for? Thanks.

M-1892 safeties. High and low pin. Then we get to the devil's in the details. "Chamfer rear or no chamfer?" "Chamfer front or no chamfer?"

Warning that there are multiple parts in the bolt, and most have differences that you won't find in the books, the following is provided. Keep the originals in the bag.

Bolt change on the full length guide rib and securing stud was in June. 17th and 29th respectively. Your gun should have the newer one.
Striker. 1892. Square.
Extractor. No pin for screw. No pin for rivet is later. No fillet.
Cocking piece spring. 30 coil.
If you find a sleeve you're going to have to go with the safety in it. Right or wrong it'll stay.

All of which is to say if you're going to change that bolt to an 1892 for appearance sake cost will dictate "M-1892, generation doesn't matter as it's not right anyway." Any harm in that? Not really. Stick a full length guide rib bolt in and and very few people will bat an eye.

If you are going to do that, drop an M-1892 rear sight on it. That is the one it should have. Butt plate dictates that.

Great information. Now I know that the dates in Col. Brophy's book are when the changes were implemented, not ordered. Will have to keep an eye out at the gun shows. Sometimes it's amazing what you can find on the cheap. Best regards,

George

Caveat they didn't throw parts in flight away. Unless it was a safety issue. Caveat they didn't stay in order in flight. Imagine making bolt bodies. Dump them in a cart. Wheel it over to the next worker. First in, last out.

The cutting of metal from the bolt rib didn't "improve the bolt" enough to toss the solid ones. It also didn't affect interchangeability and that was key to so much. 1901 sight? "affects hand guard." Barrel band? "no problem."

So when the changes are listed as "gradually" that means they finished up and used the older ones as the improvement, while an improvement, wasn't major.

"Be safe, be frugal." That.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rivetpng-1.jpg

Rivet no pin. That's a rare item.

Might as well sew it up.

FY95-96 report includes:
Model 1892 rifles
Model 1896 rifles
Magazine Rifles.

What is a "Magazine Rifle?"
FY96-97 report mentions 3K "Magazine Rifles" were altered to M-1896 with M-1892 Extractors.
What they're not is M-1892s. Those are in the report on their own. What they are not is M-1896s. Those are in the report.

How did Brophy ignore those? He saw the reports.

So what are they?
The M-1892s are a model. Any part that affects interchangeability is not changed. No different from the brakes on your car. To maintain a fleet it must be predictable.

They needed to change from M-1892 to M1896 production. This is before Henry Ford right? They couldn't snap their fingers and go "tada." Fall of 1895. "M-1892 production stops." They need to make guns. Making M-1896s? Not ready. "From this point forward the guns are not M-1892 as we're breaking interchangeability by morphing them to M-1896s." That is a Magazine Rifle.

What is a "Magazine Rifle?" A Krag from about 19K to 24K. Basically an M-1892 with ever increasing M-1896 features. See the butt plate picture in my book for a vivid example.

Were M-1896 sights retrofitted to earlier guns? M-1892s? No. Magazine Rifles? Yes. If one cannot identify the Magazine Rifle for what it is, one then puts out a book claiming M-1896 sights were retrofitted to M-1892 rifles *cough Brophy cough*. No. Can I prove it? Sure.

I have the reports.
I own #21XXX. Not hiding numbers, gun is in the safe. In any event the fourth gun down in that picture is the Magazine Rifle.
I own #23XXX. In safe so XXX. That is one of the Magazine Rifles altered to M-1896 format with the M-1892 extractor. "Pinned extractor with rivet?" Check. That picture.

Most of the Magazine Rifles were later updated to standard M-1896 format. Which makes #23XXX very rare.

"Butt plate determines sight."

Yup. If it's curved toe it's a Magazine Rifle. Manufactured with the M-1892 sight and then retrofitted with the M-1896. Later those were fully updated. 21K was missed.

OP's rifle has the flat butt plate. "M-1892." Rear sight? "M-1892." Why? "It's an M-1892." If that toe was curved it'd be in Magazine Rifle territory. Then it could have the M-1892 (as made) or M-1896 (retrofitted).

If only I was to write a book on this stuff....

Going to bed. Then vacation.

Nice rifle. M-1892. M-1892 sight as made. Not a Magazine Rifle. When the M-1892s were altered to M-1896 format they changed the sights. Added the hold open notch to the receiver. No notch. Not updated. Not the sight it was made with. "Changed by somebody?" Clearly.