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.

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.

Close up of rear sight

overall view

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.

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.

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!

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.