How many were made (with the 28" barrel), I can't find info. Help!

Please correct as needed.-

8200 total 1895'w made

a % were military muskets

a % were privately sporterized

a % were sent back to the factory for conversion to sporting rifles

Results- damn few survive in original condition

I believe Roe Clark found 100 in the ledgers, only two are known to exist and one has a crescent buttplate.

But only 5000 1895’s were made.

I know of 3

So there’s hope of more!

The letter says it is #5029. That rings anyone's bell?

It would ring my bell...

It don't have tits or tires ya know!

If I can't drink it, eat it, shoot it, or smooch it, I don't want it.

Smooch?

That's a magic number for a musket, yes.

Cody gun is #5025.

If it's for sale you better jump on it or let me have a shot at it.

I've got my meager $ invested with my gun dealer friend but I don't know if he has enough of it available to buy it. Same guy that found me the MHG. We are trying to work through it. I doubt I will end up with it but too soon to tell.

I'd go in hock to have a chance at one.. well, to a degree.

How about we all pitch $10 and share the rifle?

I'm in for $30 if I can fire three rounds...

What kind of money are we talking about here?

$10 a share at this point.

We don't have a price or even a solid offer to sell, it's just a lead at this point. But it was on a sale table all weekend so there's something going on. Either the seller is undecided what to do, is displaying on his sale table, is fishing for bids, or some damn thing. He talked about donating it to a museum too so he sounds unsure what he wants to do.

Like I said, it's a lead. Like hearing about a 71 Cuda parked in a barn and you go hunting for it.

28" barrel, or 30" barrel?

I'm in for $20 if i get to hold it

Letter says 28".

Only 5000 1895s? Cool, I am glad that I have one in decent condition for 1896.

Interesting. Heard back from Fug, and his and the Cody gun are both 30".

The 1895 catalog did offer them in 26",28", 30". But 30" was standard.

In the 1897 catalog it showed 28" as the only offering.

I'd suggest getting a picture of the barrel address, just to rule out that it's not an 1899 musket barrel. I don't know if that would even matter on that gun though.

Having an 1899 barrel would sure discourage me from buying it but then if it is priced reasonably with the wrong barrel that would help sway me to buy it. Are you guys thinking it may be an 1899 barrel because it's 28"?
I have the other four cataloged models of 1895 plus a special order short rifle. I need a musket to complete my 1895 collection. Hint, hint.

I don't think it's an 1899 barrel, but it doesn't hurt to ask and be sure since it's not the standard length.

OK, I have photos but they show some paperwork which I don't want to publicize due to names and addresses. Let me see what I can find. The barrel is included and looks like it's shorter than photos in the books. Look at the front sight location. Is something wrong?

Bottom musket here is an 1895 musket.




Here's the other 1895 musket.

Undoubtedly, in my mind, the front sight was set back to allow for the bayonet.

That makes sense. It still looks funny and vulnerable to damage.

I blew that photo up, and it looks to me as if the barrel band is just barely covering the front edge of the wood and should be farther back on the rifle. Note the line where the wood looks to be indented. Also it looks to me as if the sight is attached to the top of the barrel band rather than being dovetailed into the barrel. And, the barrel definitely does not extend nearly as far beyond the wood as the two muskets in the other photos. I wonder if the barrel was cut for some reason at about the front sight dovetail. That could explain the 28" vs. 30" barrel.

The other two muskets have the barrel band right on the end of the forearm, there shouldn't be any wood extending past the barrel band. Don't know what those marks are.

You have a point on the front sight in relation to the barrel band, but it might just be the angle and the sight is actually right in front of the barrel band. Hopefully we'll eventually see a better picture of it.

Yeah, thanks for pointing that out. I think you're right, although it could be too that the top band was loose and slid forward. The barrel could well have been shortened- hard to tell from the camera angle. It would appear also that perhaps the sight boss (which in order to do double duty as a bayonet lug would be silver soldered, brazed, to the barrel, or machined integrally) may be missing and someone made a sight and attached it to the band. The half-moon sight pictured doesn't jibe with the pics of the other front sights. Again, a better pic would tell the tale.

Here, Fug's on the left from the 2007 Fest, the Canadian one on the right.

Sights are definitely different.

Wonder if the marks on the Canadian musket are from trying to wriggle the barrel band off the forearm with the sight sitting right in front of it?

I have never seen front sight attached to a barrel band. my guess the barrel has been cut back.

Attaching front sight to upper bands wasn't unheard of on military rifles/muskets of the 19th century.

It letters as a 28" barrel rather than 30" so it had to come off of somewhere if standard is 30".

*Wouldn't the barrel bands necessitate the barrel remain in it's manufactured position to maintain the correct diameter at the barrel bands, therefore requiring a shorter 28" barrel to have it removed on the muzzle end, rather than set back at the breech end?

Roy, the letter clinches it. if you don't want it I sure am interested.

I want it but I'm out of the loop. My friend is working on it. When this shakes out if I can't do it and the man is willing to sell, I will make sure you get a chance. Send me your contact info David so I have it on hand.

There’s a factory letter showing it’s a 28” barrel? Clark or Callahan?

Letter is dated from August 2018, Savage Arms Historical Services, and is not signed.

Just doesn’t look right (although I have never seen an 1895 Military Musket).

I have seen and photographed two, Doug's and Cody's. It looks kind of crude, but all three of them are very early 1895 production. Remember production started at serial # 5000. Things being a little rough at the beginning of production of a new gun seems reasonable. We also established some time ago that the bayonets pictured in the 1895 catalogs wouldn't attach to the muskets. It looks like they were just throwing out some muskets to get orders and would refine things later.
Maybe rough isn't the right word, not thought out fully might be a better term.

I'm pretty sure the 1895 catalog was created before the 1895's were in production - so there was almost surely some guesswork putting it together. Like the listings for military rifles and carbines in 30 US (30-40 Krag), and carbines which have ordering codes but no pictures.

Is an unsigned factory letter significant?

It's "signed" in type "Savage Arms Historical Services" but no personal signature.

Going to throw out that I've seen a photocopy of the ledger page this rifle is on.

That ledger page does not record barrel lengths for any of these 1895 muskets. Doug's, Cody's, or this one.

If the Savage historical services wrote down 28", I don't know where they got that information from. The 1900 catalog maybe?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Roy, it would look good beside the MHG. Just saying.

On second thought, since it would seem to have been altered a little maybe, perhaps a full sporterization would be in order? Gold cerakote, hmmm?

Well isn't that interesting.

The 1895 catalog was the only one showing 30" barrels. If the historical services was getting standard musket barrel lengths from any other catalog it would show 28". I'm pretty sure that's what happened, it's not like there's many 1895 catalogs floating around out there.

If the historical services says that the ledgers show it was a 28" barrel, then I can't think of where they got that info. I even pinged Rick last night and he agreed that the 1895 ledgers rarely if ever recorded barrel lengths from the pages he's seen.

I think it was originally a 30" brl.

Savage needs to only state what is listed in the Log. Comments are fine if so stated.

Yep, early model or not, it’s hard to believe that Savage would let something like that out of the factory.

You could order a 28" barreled 1895 musket at that time. It wasn't the standard offering, but it was a catalogued offering.

Telegraph code Dab - 26" military musket
Telegraph code Dace - 28" military musket
Telegraph code Dame - 30" military musket

So while I agree with Rick and others that it was probably originally a 30" barrel, until I see better pics that's just a guess. I'm still open to it being a correct 28".

Another look at the end of Fug's 1899 and 1895 muskets. I'm glad I looked this picture up. It's obvious there's a metal endcap on the stock as part of the barrel band in this one.

That ammo in back is killer condition also. Wow.

Late to the party....

The 1897 repro/Ohio Fest catalog says 28" barrel. No other option listed unless I missed it. ??
The 1895 muskets would be Marlin rifles right? JM stamp on barrel underside??

Letter says "It was built in caliber 303 with a 28" barrel."

So now we have three 1895 "Military" rifles, all probably assembled in the same week, one appears to be totally correct, one has a rifle butt plate that we don't know if it is original to the rifle and one that "letters" as a 28" brl when we know the log sheets does not state a length for the "Military" rifle and has a brl that appears to cut off.

Don't you just love the mystery?

I'm totally ignorant on these. I understand what the Canadian MHGs are. Are the 3 referred to here the "1899D" in Murray's book, or are these a third variant? Just trying to learn. thx, Keith

They are not the 1899D. Earlier 1895 version.

They would be known as 1895D. Or the 1895 military rifle. Or the 1895 military musket.

I like 1895D.

At some point I will post a photo of the letter, but this has to shake out first. Just want you fellas to have the facts w/o me in the middle but can't do it yet.

Not sure if this helps guys but mine is serial 325X and lettered as being shipped to Shoverling, Daly and Gales of NYC on Sept 1 1898, not sure why it sat so long.

Then on 9/3/98 another entry shows as "return, "R" special, Chas E Lisdall". It's been sporterised so I'm guessing this is what an "R" special is all about. Shortened to 22" bbl and regular crescent butt but nothing fancy about it, just a plain old shooter now.

May be just a plain old shooter now, Joe, but what a plain old shooter!!

An R is logged in the ledger for any round barreled sporting rifle, so probably indicates yours was converted to an 1895A. Special might indicate the 22" barrel.

Chas E Lisdall sounds familiar.

MD...

Am I correct that it had the same pin in the front of the trigger guard and indication of a military type rear sight...same as the two that RLG had? I'm not sure what barrel length or butt plate RLG's had. I was thinking that the three were the same.

Rick, yes it has the pin and the notch for the rear sight. It was the rear sight notch that put me onto it being a military rifle originally.