Early M1903 with .30-03 rear sight leaf

[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!

J.B.

[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.