I'd not consider the O/P's Model 1894 specimen as genuine. Not the expert some of you here nor Bret over at WCA is, but that Carbine butt as I see it being, wasn't intro'd until 1932 and only lasted five or six years. The wrap-over stock heel, as appears, is distinctive! Much of the problem with any analysis is the singular pix. That noted, hat I can see, probably such several or more pix, would only further establish a case for non-originality! Also just the notion to me in collector context, "mostly original" is like "mostly pregnant!" I can and do truly appreciate many guns for 'what they are'. Just not "collector specimens".
Also the point as confirming Bert over at WCA is a true "expert's expert", his documenting 'like configured rifles" doesn't make them "Factory as documented." Such only speaks to "commonness" qne in sufficient numbers, the 'stats' may begin to suggest "production". If you have one documented specimen, then a basis for "suggesting" greater likelihood of Factory production. Otherwise, no "absolutes proven"! Were such statistical rules of originality the case, one helluva lot of fifties era mauser specimens such as "G33/50" creative reworks could be assumed "rare originals."
Last, simply my belief that early 20th Century era rifle usage didn't favour minimal capacity magazines. Bearing a rifle around, the slight dimensional & weight larger magazines were small price for optional increased firepower option as desired!. Just an 'opine'!
Best!
John
