1892 Krag Question

[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.

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.

[butlersrangers]

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.

[browningautorifle]

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.

[GeorgeG]

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!

[browningautorifle]

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.

[butlersrangers]

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.

[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 ....."

[GeorgeG]

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

[browningautorifle]

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

[m1903rifle]

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.