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 to view media files and links)

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.

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.

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.