This may be an often asked question, but since I'm new to the forum, here goes.  How many 1896 carbines that were issued to the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry (Rough Riders) have actually turned up after all these years?  I was curious because I have one according to the serial number of my carbine, which is listed in The Springfield Research Service book.  I'm not sure of what volume, It is at home and I'm at my office.

I'm not looking at the books right now, but I think something over a hundred or so are listed, but of those how many actually exist, I do not know. If yours is specifically listed (not just "close"), you have a VERY desirable gun.

I don't have an RR carbine, but do have something almost as good - an 1896 carbine from the China Relief Expedition - the Boxer Rebellion ("55 Days at Peking").

Well here it is Mr. Hosmer.  Serial # 27786.  (I think I listed in an earlier post 28xxx (again trying to go from memory without the gun in front of me. I will try to attach my photos with this post.  By the way, the China Relief Expedition Rifle is VERY cool indeed.

---

I'm unable to attach more than one file at a time.  It is probably me.

---

Close up of rear sight

---

And original cleaning rods still inside the butt trap.  I purchased this carbine back in 1988 from a pawn shop in Talladega, AL for $150.  Did I get a good buy or what?

---

overall view

---

I just noticed comparing my rear sight picture with the photos on the main page, my elevation ladder is backwards.  someone in the past must have removed it, and then forgot which way it went back on.  I will very carefully correct this. Fortunately, I have a Brownells screwdriver set.  Another thing I noticed is that the sight is graduated to only 1800 yards, but has the C stamp in the correct place.  Could this be a very early carbine sight, or an arsenal replacement?

So much for my remembering how many USV Krags were listed - it's closer to 200; and I see your number DOES appear. I think you made a great buy! There cannot be too many left around. Very nice!

Having said that, a couple of things "disturb" me. The receiver shows heavy wear - possibly even a welded repair - yet other parts (barrel band, sight slide, rods, and magazine box, to name a few) are almost as crisp and new as the day they were made. Can you shed any light on that?

I further suspect the rear sight - in this case, I think the "C" is the "condemned" stamp. It is not quite in the right place, and carbine sights were graduated to "20" from the git-go. It is hard to see, turned over, but I THINK the slide is from a rifle as well. The area around the sighting notch should be depressed by about 1/32", and that one LOOKS like it runs straight across.

The stock appears to be the early thin-wrist style, which would be correct, but it is odd to think that the carbine would have been rebuilt (as appears to be the case) without changing the stock, which was a well-known problem.

As they say, "if only they could talk!"

I realize that I have offered opinions that were not asked for, and I ask your forgiveness for my frankness - after 72 years of life - and 40+ years of collecting Krags, I tend to call things as I see them. No personal malice intended.

No malice at all taken.  The receiver photo doesn't show it well, but there is faint outline of a thumbprint right over the worn area on the receiver.  I had a gunsmith go over it when I bought it all those years ago and he declared it safe to shoot.  He thought initially what you did, but there was no heat discoloration or indications of welding inside the receiver.  Could the thumbprint be corrosion from heavy use, with either sweaty or bloody hands?  My own left thumb falls right into that area if I was loading the carbine.  I do have a photo of the cartouche, but it is very faint. I will include it anyway to see if you can make anything out.  It looked like 1897 to me.

---

I have some more information about my 1896 carbine #27786.  5madfarmers on another forum stated that on p.195 of Mallory's book my serial number appears.  It shows it was issued to Thomas O'Neill, a wagoner in G troop 1st US Volunteer Cavalry.  Other research shows that O' Neill was from Springer, NM.  One thing that troubled me was that 5madfarmers stated that since my carbine had an 1897 cartouche, it was an was a 2nd block carbine stock on a first block carbine, which would make it incorrect.  He discounts what I have listed in the Springfield Research Service book that states that rifles and carbines did not get their stocks installed until right before they shipped from the arsenal.  By this criteria, a first block carbine could have been shipped with a second block stock, or at least I think so.  In the matter of the incorrect rear sight 5madfarmers also stated that the government did not condemn parts on krags by placing a "c" stamp on them.   One final question.  Now knowing who the carbine belonged to, what kind of value does it have and would it be increased if I could locate an original 1896 rear sight?  Thanks as always for your help and opinions.

Nucmedman wrote on Nov 11^th, 2010 at 11:18am:

I have some more information about my 1896 carbine #27786.  5madfarmers on another forum stated that on p.195 of Mallory's book my serial number appears.  It shows it was issued to Thomas O'Neill, a wagoner in G troop 1st US Volunteer Cavalry.  Other research shows that O' Neill was from Springer, NM.

Yup.


Quote:

One thing that troubled me was that 5madfarmers stated that since my carbine had an 1897 cartouche, it was an was a 2nd block carbine stock on a first block carbine, which would make it incorrect.

Yup.


Quote:

He discounts what I have listed in the Springfield Research Service book that states that rifles and carbines did not get their stocks installed until right before they shipped from the arsenal.

He also discounts accounts of M1 carbines turning the tide at Gettysburg and M16 suppression fire at Edson's Ridge.  With reason.


Quote:

By this criteria, a first block carbine could have been shipped with a second block stock, or at least I think so.

Really?


Quote:

In the matter of the incorrect rear sight 5madfarmers also stated that the government did not condemn parts on krags by placing a "c" stamp on them.

Go ahead and find me another Krag part, marked with a "C," which isn't carbine.  In the case of that sight I'd say the "C" stands for "Counterfeit."  That is clearly a rifle sight and rifle slide.  Not only do the parts not match the receiver but the slide doesn't match the sight.


Quote:

One final question.  Now knowing who the carbine belonged to, what kind of value does it have and would it be increased if I could locate an original 1896 rear sight?  Thanks as always for your help and opinions.

The additional pictures, and reflection, leave me asking the famous Mook question.

5madfarmers, if I wanted smart alec comments, I would have asked for them.  By the way, the comment about the stocking of rifles and carbines in the Springfield Research Service book, Vol. 1 was a note written by Mr. Mallory himself.  I don't know if you are a published author with credentials, like Mr. Mallory or Mr. Hosmer.  If you are, I apologize.  But it upsets me when I am looking for honest opinions about a potentially valuable carbine I have (and I do appreciate the added information you gave me), not contrite and condescending remarks.  I am 47 years old, not some pimple faced kid!

Quote:

"By Mar. 14, 1896, Col. Mordecai stated that 10,000 carbines were "in hand" and manufacture of the necessary Model 1896 carbine sights was well underway.  This statement conflicts with the official production figures, which show that only 7,111 carbines were produced during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896." Mallory and Olson, "The Krag Rifle Story," Page 65

The 7,111 were immediately followed by just under 3,000 more which show up in the next fiscal year's report.  The serials from all 10,000 are more or less a solid block.  They didn't make parts for 7,000 and then 3,000 -  "10,000 carbines were "in hand"' as Mordecai stated. 

So Mallory wasn't infallible.  Somehow I don't think that would have surprised him.


Quote:

But it upsets me when I am looking for honest opinions

In my considered opinion you are not.   

The serial in question makes it a notable piece.  It'll receive additional scrutiny over a run of the mill gun.  Why that would surprise you is a mystery.

Note that, upon seeing the serial, the first thing I did was advise you that the serial was listed in Mallory's book.  I then gave a valid view of the parts I could observe from the few pictures.  From my perspective you received valid advice.  Given that you were the one asking it's not surprising that my response to your questioning of the bits you do not like isn't something that'll please you.  Keep asking until you get an answer you like.  You will not get that from me.

Cheers.

Its not that I didn't like your answer, but it is somewhat different from other answers I have received (all of which differed from the other by the way).  I was not questioning or slamming you by nay means.  I merely wanted to post what opinion you gave, along with what Mr. Hosmer had given earlier, and see if anyone else in the forum had an opinion or idea that either agreed or differed
        Here is another scenario that I thought of for all the conflicting parts on my carbine.  Could the carbine have been sent surplus to Bannermans and the stock was replaced and a rifle rear sight was added with a "C" stamp added for good measure (although I don't think the Bannerman people were that detail oriented).  If I upset you, I aplologize, no offense intended.

Where to start - where to start?

Firstly, 5MF and I are friends. I've been a guest in his home. Having said that, even though his responses ARE 110% correct, his manner, and often flippant-sounding sarcasm, at times annoy even me. But, look past that - he HAS the facts!

I've been collecting longer, and published the first half of a guidebook on trapdoors, but he is doing REAL research on an unprecedented scale. His work, when published in about ten years, will DWARF Mallory and Brophy. He has already found much they missed. I'm not kidding.

Back to your carbine:

Is it real? Yes, mostly - the stock cannot be faked (but it well could have been swapped. Has the arm always been as we see it? NO. Who scrambled the parts? We'll never know. What does the "C" mean on the rifle sight leaf? Certainly NOT "carbine". Based on earlier arms, I THINK it means condemned - note the apparent damage at around the midpoint. What's it worth? What you can get for it. The receiver was issued to O'Neill - but the MANY incompatible finish and wear issues will degrade the price greatly. The bit about the stocks being installed immediately prior to shipment is, I believe, an "uncle Charlie" story, NOT based on fact. That certainly is not how the trapdoors were handled. Could it be a Bannerman? Yes.

Hope that helps. Please feel free to continue the discussion! :-)

Thin wrist with 1897 cartouche isn't valid.  Either we're not seeing the wrist correctly, not surprising given the angle, or he's misreading that cartouche. 

Nucmedman, if you really want to know the details of that gun you're going to have to grin and bear it as I act in the role of prosecutor.  My role is to discount it.  Your role is to toe the line and provide the evidence to refute my allegations.  I'm going to be very annoying.  If that gun survives the scrutiny you'll be able to print this thread and keep it with the gun.  It'll be a record of the questions raised and the responses thereto.  If you do not provide the information requested I will stop and move on.  You will have lost given that the gun is significant.  Either way you'll know what it is if you cooperate to the end.  Consider it a test of fire for the gun.  I'll repeat - it's in your interest to complete the examination.  If it survives you'll have some useful information on it.  I'll repeat, lose your temper and I'll stop.  I will lose nothing by stopping but you will.  Get mad, call me names, that I don't care about.  Stop providing the information needed - that'll get me to stop.

Firstly, let's cover that "weld" looking bit.  It's disquieting.  That bit doesn't bother me as much as the other problem.  The other problem leaves me with a very unsettled feeling.

The receivers were roll stamped.  Your gun is very weak in the center of the stamp.

  (You need to Login   (You need to Login

Your receiver and its nearby neighbor.  The "ield" on 27782 is also very weak.  The weakness of the markings on your receiver in that area catch attention but it's not, as far as I can see, a big deal.  That chip looking thing above Armory just makes the weak stamping more suspicious.  So on that part I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.  Weak stamping on 27782 is consistent with your 27786.

Out of characters per post.  Next post is your first test.

First thing that needs to be cleared up.  That last character in the serial appears to be an '8' overstamped with the '6'.  Your image is scaled to 640x480 and too grainy to be useful.  We'll either need an unscaled copy of that photo or a better copy taken with a quality camera; no cell phone will generate what is needed. 

  (You need to Login   (You need to Login

This is the biggest problem.  We really do need a better photo.

I said he was good, didn't I?

You see, IF the carbine WERE O'Neill's "as issued" piece, the value would be - who knows? $500K?  More?

Well, it isn't - But, what DO we have? At the very best, McNeill's receiver and a bunch of parts. At the worst, an attempted fake/fraud/whatever. NOT saying you did it. It's a puzzle - the potential gain is WELL worth doing a MUCH MUCH "better" fake, IF that was the assembler's game. Certainly does appear to be a thin-wrist stock - correct for number, but not date.

There is nothing "faint" about the stamping on either side of the "weld". Your gun is in fact better (deeper) stamped than the other, so, what's wrong in the middle? Are there any other signs of possible welding inside or out? Odd location for any sort of sight holes, so perhaps a repair?

Interesting thread - ball is in NMM's court, I guess.

Dick Hosmer wrote on Nov 12^th, 2010 at 8:31pm:

I've been collecting longer, and published the first half of a guidebook on trapdoors, but he is doing REAL research on an unprecedented scale.

Dick, 40 years of collecting is real research.  How many people can, off the top of their heads, reel off the serial blocks and variations on those?  Very very few.  That wasn't a "guidebook" either and I hope the next one is also that good.  There is a reason I'm ignoring trapdoors....

I guess the real test is I have never seen anyone harsh your book.  Ever.  Which is a sign.

Thank you - I take that as high praise from a researcher as thorough as yourself.

The book filled a need - no one had yet combined the many different SA-produced early cartridge models into one compact reference source.

The second one will be a bit more esoteric, and, a somewhat greater percentage of the subject (the rare .45-70 TDs and their cousins) has been covered elsewhere, but I'll have a price-point advantage.

North Cape has suggested marketing a three-part set, with my two wrapping (so to speak) his basic .45-70 work, which really started the ball rolling a number of years ago. I think that has some appeal.

Thank you gentlemen both for your replies and inputs.  I will try to take a higher resolution photo of the serial numbers to ascertain if it has been restamped or not.  The stock cartouche is veryfaint, so I will try to photograph the cartouche using under different colors of light to see if anything can be brought out (this was suggested to me by a police officer that does forensics).  As for the receiver, the inside looks perfectly uniform and has no discoloring that would be indicitive of a weld.  I even had a licensed gunsmith look at this also and he verified. 
     I know I keep putting theories in the mix (sorry but it is in my nature being in medicine) but a history professor friend of mine at the local community college had an idea since that O'Neill was a wagoner, some of those guys carried their weapons lying across their laps as they drove their wagons.  The receiver could rub against their belt buckle and with the corrosion associated with the tropical conditions, could make it this way.  Also, there is a faint thumbprint that the picture does not bring out that is etched into the metal.  I will try to take a better picture of this as well.  You have both helped alot and I am grateful.