1892 Krag Question

[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

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

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.

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.

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?



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.



Clear?

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



Which ones are those three?

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



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.

[GeorgeG]

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