1892 Krag Question

[butlersrangers]

'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!

[GeorgeG]

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

[butlersrangers]

'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.

[browningautorifle]

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.

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.

[Fred G.]

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.

[andiarisaka]

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.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[GeorgeG]

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