Altogether possible. Just not done in the fashion claimed above. How sure am I of that? "Real sure."
Originally Posted by GeorgeG
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.
Keep what's there in a bag if you do. Doesn't hurt and explains much.
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?
Appreciate it. They're interesting and incredibly well made. Excessively so.
At any rate, added value isn't a concern as it probably won't go until the estate sale.
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.
---------- 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.
Thank You to 5MadFarmers For This Useful Post:
03-19-2017 05:08 PM
Friends and Sponsors
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!
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.
Thank You to 5MadFarmers For This Useful Post:
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,
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.
Rivet no pin. That's a rare item.
Might as well sew it up.
FY95-96 report includes:
Model 1892 rifles
Model 1896 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.
The Following 2 Members Say Thank You to 5MadFarmers For This Useful Post: