1892 Krags - discussion starter?

U.S. Military Krags
Post Reply
Lead Snowstorm
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:20 am

1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Lead Snowstorm » Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:25 am

Curious to get y’all’s thoughts on these *just ended* GB auctions. I was a little leery of a couple of things on these rifles but was considering throwing down a bid if one or the other had stayed under 2 grand.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/886640804

Terrible crack at the wrist, but it did look like a straight buttplate, nice 1894 cartouche. The rear barrel band finish stuck out like a sore thumb. The screws on the rear sight don’t match each other, either.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/886622895

This one...was either a steal or someone’s collection of interesting parts. What’s going on here, Krag experts? Buttplate doesn’t look flat, but has a ramrod channel? 1896 sight? Bolt updated? Is this one some totally correct transitional piece or...?

Whig
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:53 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Whig » Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:42 am

I looked at 5763 and I think someone got a good deal, although there are problems. I can't see if the ram rod is original or not. But, the entire piece looks really nice as a rare piece. The metal patina is varied and not consistent (says refinished). The description says pieces have been lacquered. The bore is described as crap.

But, the pieces are correct, as far as I can see, the rifle is not altered from original design- muzzle, butt plate, bolt, extractor, ram rod, etc. The cartouche is great!

Overall, it was a good price, it appears. Lock, Stock and Barrel is a reputable company, from what I have seen.

I would have paid this price a few years ago before I got my original M1892s.

But, I would want better pictures and personal inspection to make sure nothing is faked.

Thanks for the posting. I'll check the other link out soon.

Lead Snowstorm
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:20 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Lead Snowstorm » Mon Dec 28, 2020 11:28 pm

Yep, the first one was the one I had my eye on the closest. I was kind of hoping the wrist crack might keep it lower. Ah well, the (very low key) hunt continues.

User avatar
Dick Hosmer
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:11 pm

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Dick Hosmer » Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:07 am

Number two was the real sleeper - nothing "wrong" with it at all, other than the likelihood that the rod is - like 95% of those found - NG. If the rod's good, it was a STEAL.

That is what Joe Farmer calls the "Magazine Rifle" without reference to any model date. I do not like that term and much prefer "Model 1892 Rifle, Second Pattern".

It is the spitting image, not surprisingly, of my 20197. The butt-plate is curved, and thick, but has no trap.

I went back and looked again to make SURE there was no band spring fill-in, which would have indicated an overhauled Cadet (for which the proper serial range has yet to be established with ironclad certainty).

Lead Snowstorm
Posts: 34
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2019 3:20 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Lead Snowstorm » Tue Dec 29, 2020 12:46 am

Yes, it worried me but I did recall a long-dead thread over on milsurps (I think) about a similar rifle, where 5madfarmers strenuously advised against “correcting” a similar late 1892 by adding the “proper” rear sight. I just couldn’t find that thread and didn’t know if the serial was late enough/if I should have been expecting an 1895 date receiver, etc.

But...I have to admit once it went higher I tuned out a bit. Not because it wasn’t a (potentially) great piece, but because - hard to explain - at this stage of collecting I’m trying to get the broadest coverage of features/parts, so to speak. I want to fill the bigger gap rather than the narrower, as it were. Dunno if that makes sense outside my own skull, lol.

Knute1
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:22 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Knute1 » Tue Dec 29, 2020 3:38 am

This Springfield Armory report from fiscal year ending 6/30/1897 shows that 2,800 Model 1892 rifles were altered to 2nd Pattern. This second specimen likely is part of the the 2,800.
SecondPattern.jpg
SecondPattern.jpg (154.34 KiB) Viewed 410 times

Whig
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 12:53 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Whig » Tue Dec 29, 2020 11:56 am

The whole "magazine rifle, never stuck with me, although I have read Joe's discussions on the topic numerous times. I guess I'm just dense.

Does the "magazine rifle, change include an upgraded bolt, also?

I would have a strong desire to change the rear sight and the bolt on the second rifle to make it correct. But, that doesn't mean I would do it if the preponderance of evidence was explained to me that it should remain intact, as is, for historic preservation.

Fascinating discussion on two great pieces! We just don't see these very often. Only a few dozen original, early and (mostly) correct M1892 rifles, and even fewer original ram rods, as Dick mentioned! I did a post a couple years ago on comparison of an original and repro ram rod side by side. I don't know how to search this new site for historic posts like that.

Knute1
Posts: 852
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:22 am

Re: 1892 Krags - discussion starter?

Post by Knute1 » Wed Dec 30, 2020 1:33 am

In the expenditures report above, you will see circled in blue a description of rifles altered. The 3,508 rifles were only described as "magazine rifles" and not given a model, except they were altered to Model 1896.
Then there were the "2,800 magazine rifles, model 1892, altered to model 1892, second pattern." Even after being altered they were still considered as model 1892.
Whereas the 3,508 were like inbetweeners and not even considered in this report as any particular model. They were never issued as model 1892, but were altered prior to being issued and upgraded to some model 1896 standards. I think these are considered the "magazine rifles" by Joe Farmer that started life as having some 1892 features and the upgraded 1896 features. An issue of previous discussion and debate in a post from 2018.

Post Reply