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.