Are you sure Mook didn't have 11236?
WOW...That's pretty close. Mine is 11236! I believe Mook owned this one as well. I believe you had some records on mine as we exchanged messages some time ago about it.
Isn't there some examples where a 3 looks like an 8?
Aw, yes. 2/2011. The gun went to Mook via Frank Luczak. I note that Mook also had 11231.
Originally Posted by DaveM96
Disassembly would be required to really detail it but if you want to take pictures I'll go over them.
In fact, regards Trapdoors, that's the cause of an entirely new model....
Originally Posted by psteinmayer
Yes, numbers are difficult to read and the stamps they used aren't helpful in that regard.
Thoughts on "unaltered Model of 1892 rifles:"
1) They ain't as scarce as legend has it. Survival rate is maybe even higher than 1898 carbines.
2) There are so many unique, and hard to replicate, parts that they really do self-identify.
3) They were in service. Parts were swapped.
4) They're collectable. Parts get swapped. As an example Duff and Canfield "corrected" one.
5) They've been collectable long enough, and people with some knowledge of them have had them long enough, where "original" should only be used in regards to Werther's candy and not these rifles.
6) It doesn't really matter anyway. If the gun is "unaltered" it'll self-identify and only the deluded will be hoping for "original" as that, more often than not, is a pipe dream. "Unaltered" is all you get. Even the guns in museums show this problem.
Are there "originals" out there? Probably. Again it doesn't really matter from what I can see as "unaltered" is the key. 95% of people wouldn't be able to tell "unaltered" from "original" anyway. Maybe that's 100%.
They do make for an interesting study.
I'm knowingly "time" and "date" challenged. As in I've had to Google what year it is. More than once. I messed up on what weekend Julia's auction was on and didn't get a bid in on #44. So it goes. More will be along eventually.
Last edited by 5MadFarmers; 03-23-2012 at 07:03.
Not checking these for accuracy - just "back of the hand" numbers:
Originally Posted by 5MadFarmers
1892 rifle marked 1894: 23,800
1892 rifle marked 1895: 1,000
1896 carbine marked 1895: 6,000
1896 carbine marked 1896: 5,000
1896 rifle marked 1896: 1,000
1896 carbine marked "Model 1896": 12,000
1896 rifle marked "Model 1896": 70,000
1898 carbines made: 5,000
1892s left unaltered: 3,000
I'll could tighten those up considerably but for this purpose it isn't worth the effort.
Model 1892 rifles marked "1895" and model 1896 rifles marked "1896" are scarce. Ignoring oddities (board, GP, etc) those are the two rarest of markings. Given the Cadets are most likely "1895" marked receivers that cuts the number of Model 1892 rifles marked 1895 even lower.
If you find a rifle marked "1895" you've either found a "scarce" Model 1892 or a Cadet. Either way they're scarce. Not "valuable" but scarce nonetheless.
I'd say much more scarce than an unaltered 1892.
In regard to rifle 11236 I can confirm that Bill Mook did own the rifle. I sold it to him in 2007. It was purchased by a friend of mine on a farm auction in S.D. some years ago, and I purchased it from him i 2007 and resold it to Bill. He thought it had some interesting features regarding his research into production modifications.
I have always looked at Krags from the standpoint of "is it correct?" not "is it original". I kind of got that same feeling from Bill Mook when visiting with him. The real question then becomes are all the "parts" original. I had a solid top front band for a 92 that took Bill 2-3 weeks to identify as a "reproduction". It was good, and God only knows who built it. It cost me a nice early thin wrist 96 carbine stock. At least it wasn't cash. I could tell a lot of stories about Krags. Some stories are better left untold.
It's great to hear some of the background on this rifle. Thanks.
I'll send some pictures similar to those taken by 5MF.
Here's a link to some pics of my 1892. Hope this works, I haven't tried this before and I couldn't figure out the picture posting info...