Information Sought Re: 1907 Vintage Springfield

[Deacon]

Good afternoon/evening,

I recently purchased a 1903 Springfield manufactured in 1907 (serial #272,487, with barrel date of 1-07), which I believe has all the correct major features (worn blued finish, no-bolt stock, no-relief-cut handguard, grooved sight knobs) for this vintage of rifle, other than a Rock Island rear sight leaf (straight "legs" on the 7's).

If I may, my questions are as follows:

Considering the early features that would have been changed during an overhaul, is there any likely circumstance, other than having gone through an arsenal overhaul, that this rifle would have a Rock Island sight leaf? And, how daunting of a task would it be to find an earlier Springfield leaf?

Thanks so much for your time and input.


Deacon

[Southron]

The rifle's original rear sight could be have been damaged and turned into the armory to be repaired, that could have been when a new rear sight made at RI was installed.

[Rick the Librarian]

...or it could have been replaced by a unit armorer or a former civilian owner. A lot of things could have happened in 108 years!

A matching earlier sight wouldn't be that hard unless it is a REALLY early sight and is missing the top "rib" on the leaf. Matching the finish might also cause problems.

All in all, I think I'd just leave it.

[John Beard]

I will make you aware that Springfield Armory made two different styles of rear sight leaves prior to WWI. You need the earlier style if you choose to make correction. There's also a third style even earlier without the rib that Rick the Librarian made reference to. But that would not be a correct leaf for your rifle.

Hope this helps.

J.B.

[Deacon]

Thank you all for your responses, but one more thing.

Assuming, for arguments sake, that all other parts and components are correct, how much does having an improper sight assembly detract from the value or collectability of the rifle? The reason I ask is that I purchased it from a dealer who has been fair to me in the past, but given the passage of time, will unlikely allow me to return the rifle for a refund. (This is my fault, because prior to purchase I'd asked about most everything else but the sights - I guess I got over exited about what I thought was an original rifle and didn't take the time to go over every last detail, which obviously I should have done.)

Thanks again,



Deacon

[Rick the Librarian]

IMHO the difference would be small, but, since I don't know how much you paid for it, I can't give you a "dollar" amount.

[Deacon]

Hi Rick. My use of the term "value" was a poor word choice on my part. I was really trying to get at how much having the wrong sight would detract from its worth from a collector's or aficionado's standpoint in comparison to a completely original rifle. But as far as what I paid, the amount was 2,500.00.



Deacon

[Deacon]

Just a quick follow up. In light of the replacement sight, would you gentlemen keep this rifle, though it is not completely original, or sell it in order to obtain the necessary funds to purchase one that is indeed a completely original/correct example, in the off chance that such an example comes along? I'm bit torn in would I should do, at this point, though I have a chance to send it back to the dealer for a consignment sale.

Thanks,


Deacon

[Fred]

I would think that the sight on that particular rifle wouldn't be a detraction. One could easily enough find a correct replacement and switch it. Or just leave it alone. It's a small thing.