Early M1903 with .30-03 rear sight leaf

[Chuck Russell]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=387240749

This auction is not mine. There are lots of good pictures and extensive description. Of interest to me is the rear sight leaf. If this rifle is an alteration to .30-06 why would it retain this sight which was for the .30-03 cartridge? Would this rifle have been issued? Wouldn't targeting with this sight and .30-06 ammo be off?

[RCS]

Joe De Christopher use to sell the 2400 yard leaf in his list of parts, not difficult to install but it is for the 30-03 cartridge. You would think that the rifle in the auction would have a no-bolt stock too.

[John Beard]

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=387240749

This auction is not mine. There are lots of good pictures and extensive description. Of interest to me is the rear sight leaf. If this rifle is an alteration to .30-06 why would it retain this sight which was for the .30-03 cartridge? Would this rifle have been issued? Wouldn't targeting with this sight and .30-06 ammo be off?

The rifle has a 2400-yard leaf because somebody put it on there, perhaps from the belief that the leaf would enhance the rifle's value. The seller's suggestion that the rifle was issued with that leaf is unsupportable.

J.B.

[rcmkhm]

John,
I'm actually the seller of the rifle mentioned above. If the new rear sight for the .30-06 round wasn't even designed until late 1907 and production of the new sights did not catch up with 1903 production and modification of earlier rifles until the late summer of 1908, wouldn't that be support that some number of rifles of this vintage continued to be built/modified prior to late summer 1908 (even post- rear stock bolt addition) with the older .30-03 rear sight? Best, Chip

[Promo]

The same seller is offering aswell rifles which were originally for sale in the Amoskeag auction last year. He's trying to get a real premium compared the the prices he paid at auction. Maybe this rifle was aswell part of the auction.

€dir: thought I had sent the message, but obviously forgot to press the Post Button.. In the meantime the seller also showed up. If you don't mind me asking directly, is this aswell a rifle from the Amoskeag auction?

[RCS]

Some years ago, I found a Rock Island 1903 that had been in the back room of a hardware store with some 22 rim fire rifles and some old shotguns. The serial number of this rifle is 64145 and has a RIA 3-07 barrel. The rear sight leaf is for the 2850 yard range but is without the top rib (photo) and the slide has the square end on the left side which is very close to the design of the early 2400 yard 30-03 leaf - only this leaf is 2850 yards for the 30-06. I believe this sight left is original to this rifle. I have since found another rear sight leaf just like this one.

Besides the 2850 yard leaf there is also this early variation of the 2850 yard leaf too

[rcmkhm]

Promo, I think you veered a good bit off topic but, to answer your question, no this did not come from Amoskeag Auction. Best, Chip

[rcmkhm]

RCS, The early 1903 sight for 2850 yards like you have seems to be much rarer to find that the earlier .30-03 sight leafs. My understanding of the timeline for the .30-06 alterations seems to indicate that a particular rifle could have left either Rock Island or Springfield in 1908 with either sight, depending upon where the rifle was in line and when and how many of the then new .30-06 sights were available for installation.

[Fred]

John,
I'm actually the seller of the rifle mentioned above. If the new rear sight for the .30-06 round wasn't even designed until late 1907 and production of the new sights did not catch up with 1903 production and modification of earlier rifles until the late summer of 1908, wouldn't that be support that some number of rifles of this vintage continued to be built/modified prior to late summer 1908 (even post- rear stock bolt addition) with the older .30-03 rear sight? Best, Chip


Is the rifle chambered for 30-03 or 30-06?
By the way, that's a nice original appearing 1903 Mark I you're selling!

[rcmkhm]

Fred, It's in .30-06. I wish I could find some old .30-03 rounds to help figure out a quick way of telling the difference but I'm stuck with the barrel measurement method, which is imprecise for me because the tape measure bounces around the rear sight base, front sight, etc. I'd love to know a quick way to tell the difference.

[RCS]

This SA rifle s/n 160963 with a SA 2-07 dated barrel still has the open bottom rear sight base
plus the no-bolt stock is still inletted for the open bottom rear sight base. The stock was not converted and there is only one front band screw hole. The rear sight has the 2850 yard range plus the back of the peep is stamped 5 (hole size) which is early.

[Dick Hosmer]

Fred, It's in .30-06. I wish I could find some old .30-03 rounds to help figure out a quick way of telling the difference but I'm stuck with the barrel measurement method, which is imprecise for me because the tape measure bounces around the rear sight base, front sight, etc. I'd love to know a quick way to tell the difference.

When seeking to detect only a 1/4" difference, I would NEVER try and "bounce around" the outside of a rifle anyhow. For home use, mark a 30" 0.25" dowel at 24" and 24.25". For gun-shows, if you don't want to carry the dowel as a swagger stick, find a small tape (might have to check out sewing notions at a fabric store, if you cannot swipe - er, borrow - something from the little woman) that will fit the bore.

[Rick the Librarian]

Is the action mounted on a stock or just the bare barreled action?

[John Beard]

John,
I'm actually the seller of the rifle mentioned above. If the new rear sight for the .30-06 round wasn't even designed until late 1907 and production of the new sights did not catch up with 1903 production and modification of earlier rifles until the late summer of 1908, wouldn't that be support that some number of rifles of this vintage continued to be built/modified prior to late summer 1908 (even post- rear stock bolt addition) with the older .30-03 rear sight? Best, Chip

Certainly the chronology of events might imply that some rifles were issued as you suggest. But I do not believe the Army would knowingly issue combat rifles with improper sight graduations. And I do not recall any statements in Ordnance reports that would indicate the rifles were issued in that manner. The rifles were issued as correct sight leafs became available. And as I recall, Springfield Armory went into a great rush to catch-up sight leaf production with rifle production and alteration. If old leafs had been acceptable, then no rush would have been necessary.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[rcmkhm]

John, Was the process at Springfield during the alteration to the .30-06 cartridge to rebarrel the actions and then simply put the altered rifles (or new production rifles with new .30-06 barrels) into storage at the Armory until the new sights came online? If the alteration order came down in the fall of 1906 to start changing barrels to .30-06 and the new .30-06 rear sight didn't even get produced until November 1907 (with backlog until late summer of 1908), my question is did they simply keep the rifles returned for alteration and all new production for 12-18 months? It was that scenario that led me to believe that the alteration to .30-06 was made and rifles were fielded before the new sight came out. I cannot imagine the Army halting fielding of rifles while they waited on the new rear sight but I also agree with you and cannot imagine the Army knowingly issuing rifles with the wrong type sight knowing that it was not going to be accurate at longer ranges. Chip

[John Beard]

John, Was the process at Springfield during the alteration to the .30-06 cartridge to rebarrel the actions and then simply put the altered rifles (or new production rifles with new .30-06 barrels) into storage at the Armory until the new sights came online? If the alteration order came down in the fall of 1906 to start changing barrels to .30-06 and the new .30-06 rear sight didn't even get produced until November 1907 (with backlog until late summer of 1908), my question is did they simply keep the rifles returned for alteration and all new production for 12-18 months? It was that scenario that led me to believe that the alteration to .30-06 was made and rifles were fielded before the new sight came out. I cannot imagine the Army halting fielding of rifles while they waited on the new rear sight but I also agree with you and cannot imagine the Army knowingly issuing rifles with the wrong type sight knowing that it was not going to be accurate at longer ranges. Chip

The Springfield Armory annual reports for 1907 and 1908 are abundantly clear. All altered and new production .30-'06 caliber rifles were turned into Ordnance Stores without sight leafs. The first new sight leafs were made on November 4, 1907, and, by April 10, 1908, 150,000 new sight leafs had been manufactured and fitted to rifles in Ordnance Stores. The April 10, 1908, date was a deadline for having new rifles in .30-'06 caliber ready for first issue.

Bear in mind that about 60,000 rod bayonet and knife bayonet rifles in .30-'03 caliber had been issued for service in calendar year 1906. Those rifles could not be recalled for alteration until new rifles in .30-'06 caliber were available to replace them. So, the Army waited until April, 1908, when enough .30-'06 caliber rifles with correct sight leafs were available to do a mass exchange.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[rcmkhm]

Thanks, John. You were spot on. I have to imagine that Springfield Armory was a crazy place during the years of the early alterations!

[PhillipM]

When seeking to detect only a 1/4" difference, I would NEVER try and "bounce around" the outside of a rifle anyhow. For home use, mark a 30" 0.25" dowel at 24" and 24.25". For gun-shows, if you don't want to carry the dowel as a swagger stick, find a small tape (might have to check out sewing notions at a fabric store, if you cannot swipe - er, borrow - something from the little woman) that will fit the bore.

I think y'all are making this too complicated. Why not compare the distances from the stock tip to the muzzle?

[John Beard]

I think y'all are making this too complicated. Why not compare the distances from the stock tip to the muzzle?

The distance from the stock tip to the muzzle is the same regardless of caliber. The same knife bayonet had to fit both rifles! :icon_scratch:

J.B. :hello:

[PhillipM]

I've been whiffing Rick's borecleaner!

[rcmkhm]

Just to follow up on this rifle I had listed. I've removed it so I can correct the sight deficiency. John Beard was exactly correct about Springfield building these to 1906 configuration (with the altered barrels or new .30-06 barrels) and then simply kept in storage until the new .30-06 graduated rear sight was ready. Took a little while for them to do this but as JB pointed out, the Armory was not about to issue rifles knowingly with the wrong rear sight. I'm going to try and get the correct sight to put on this old girl to make her right and will then list her again. Thanks again, John.