Printable View
I recently purchased a 1903 Springfield rifle with a Star Gauged barrel; full "C" stock; NS marked bolt; parts numbers on the stock and handguard. The serial number is 1471591. The one issue is that it is fitted with a Redfield receiver sight. Is the receiver sight possibly original or is it an 'add-on'?
added on.
Lyman was the choice for NM rifles if rear target sight was installed, likely it was added or the Lyman was sold or lost, Redfield cost 30.00 to 50.00 , and a Lyman will fetch 75.00 to 150.00
I read that the hole pattern for the Redfield is slightly different than for the Lyman. If that is the case, one could not simply replace a Lyman with a Redfield. The hole pattern on my 1903 has not been modified.
The vast majority of National Match rifles cam with no "added on" Lyman rear sight. It is very likely that the receiver was drilled and tapped by a previous civilian owner and the Redfield installed "new". The NM rifle was almost certainly sold with just the original military rear sight.
Rick, Your comment about the receiver sights being 'add-ons' brings up many concerns about articles in books such as Brophy's book on Springfield Rifles and in many magazines. All of these picture many NM 1903 rifles with receiver sights. Certainly, there are also many 1903's pictured without these sights. Is there a 'primary source' such as an armorer who worked on the development of NM 1903's who has written a definitive paper/article on these guns.
I purchased my NM 1903 because I believed that some/many had been outfitted with receiver sights when they were owned by the US military. I would like to hear any comments that you and others may have on this issue.
The hole pattern on the Redfield 70 and 80 series sights is exactly the same as for the Lyman 48. I have traded the off at various times and can attest to this. The Model 70 and the Model 30 could be equipped with either the Redfield or the Lyman. They were not necessarily ordered D&T for one or the other. One could buy either a 70 or a 30S and later on add either sight. I do not believe tht the Redfield came into existance until the tail end of NM 1903 production.
As an aside, in the mid 1930's the question arose as to whether the M1903 which had been D&Tqualified as a "service rifle" for the National Matches. An item published in the AMERICAN RIFLEMAN in the late 30's confirmed that it was. I believe that thd NM M1903 could be ordered D&T for an extra charge, at least Crossman in his "Book of the Springfield" so indicated.
FWIW
The regular NM '03(1921-1940) did not have a receiver sight. Style B, NM Special, NRA and NBA sporters all did, and were fitted with Lymans. Sounds like a previous owner kinda bubba'd a NM.
The question is moot and probably not worth discussion, but I should like to quote directly from “The Book of the Springfield” by E.C Crossman published in 1932. On page 9 under the heading STYLE N. M. 1929:
‘On all NM Rifles made for sales, the receiver is drilled and tapped for the Lyman receiver but the stock is not cut and the Lyman sight is not furnished, unless specifically ordered.”
Further Clark Campbell in his book “The ’03 Springfields” on page 57 published in 1971 indicates:
“National Match Rifles made for sales were drilled and tapped for the Lyman 48 receiver sight, though the stocks were not cut for the sights unless it was specified by the purchaser that the Lyman 48 was to be fitted and sold with the rifle.”
I do not know whether Mr. Campbell was quoting/citing Crossman or had new and direct information on the matter.
From various DCM notes in the “American Rifleman” Magazine, in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s the Springfield armory could and would, for extra price, perform certain gunsmithing operations on M1903’s ordered through the DCM. In the late 30’s and early 40’s this practice was discontinued. Probably about the time the armory started tooling up for M1 production.
Crossman was a rifleman and was familiar with the M1903, being a retired army ordnance officer and a noted firearms writer of the period.
FWIW
Cosine26, Thank you for your inputs on this matter. I am very pleased that you read my question and took the time to respond. I cannot remember which reference indicated that the hole pattern for the Lyman and the Redfield were different, but being a collector of pre'64 Winchester M-70s', I know that (as you said) one can interchange the two different receiver sights because the hole pattern is the same for both (on that particular rifle). When I read about this hole pattern being different on the 1903, I wondered if that was a fact. You cleared that up for all who read this to better understand.
Also, your excellent discussion on these guns with references, is very important. As a practicing scientist who has written many technical papers, I very much value references. Certainly, it is good to listen to all opinions, but one has to put more faith in the referenced opinions.
My info above and the following is from Brophy.
"National Match rifles (sales or otherwise) were 'not'(italicized) drilled and tapped for the Lyman receiver sight. Also, the work would not be done by the Armory-the Style "B" NM rifle was, however, drilled and tapped for the Lyman sight. But the stock was not cut for the sight. An exception to remember is that National Match and Sporting rifle receivers that were drilled and tapped for receiver sights could be purchased through the DCM."
You can read more from Brophy via Kindle here - Amazon.com: The Springfield 1903 Rifles (9780811708722): William S. Brophy:
Pages 193-215
The information about NM rifles being drilled and tapped for a Lyman was not correct. As I recall, Lymen rear sights could be gotten as an "option". They were not "standard equipment" on NM M1903s.
Mike D, As I try to mesh your input (great reference!) with the input from Cosine26, I arrive at the following conclusion: The NM configuration 1903 that I have was possibly drilled for a receiver sight by some organization (unknown or Springfield Armory) who did this for the DCM or it could have been what you refer to as "kinda bubba'd" by a previous owner. Since my gun has the drawing numbers on the butt stock (C-style) and the hand guard as well as a star gauged barrel, I am assuming my gun came from the DCM, but I understand that it could also have been a gun that someone put together from parts and even drilled the receiver for a sight. If the latter happened, I find it strange that the person would have 'settled for' a Redfield sight instead of a Lyman, but I guess that is also a possibility.
Thanks for the great information. It has been very enlightening.
couple things..
Williams, Redfield, Lyman, Kings, all share the same dems for mounting holes. they were pushed at the market of the Winchester, Remingtons that were already drilled for a receiver sight.{left side} and all were that dem, the drilling fixtures made, were of that same dem as well, holes that are to wide or not wide enough, were likely done without a fixture.
the best way to tell if the holes were done by SA or military match armouror , is to look at the holes.
are they straight? crisp? threads nice, no damage or burrs left on the inside bolt rail? is there a slight grinding mark on each hole, even a large one? does the bolt have a spot ground out to clear the binding knob? is the stock cut crisp , sharp and fit the sight nice and tight?
a SA or Military done sight will have nice, crisp holes, no aneal or grinding marks, they will be straight, and the bolt will clear the binding knob easy.
the stock cut will be nice, straight, crisp,, and not done with a jack knife.
SOME, NM rifles were modified for the Lyman rear target sight, and most of those done that way, also came with the headless cocking rod and reverse safety, so that the shooter could get up close to the sight, iv seen them both with a C stock, and a crasping groove stock.
iv have not seen a 1903A1 that was drilled for the rear target sight by the military or SA...not that it didnt happen,..iv just not seen one.
most of the NM rifles iv seen were not drill for the rear target sight.
Keep in mind that M1903s were very common and relatively cheap in the 1950s and 1960s. They were often seen as "work guns", not as collector's items.
Also, the stock and drawing number was seen on ALL late 1930s stocks and handguards - it is not just seen on NM and DCM rifles.
All,
I am very pleased that I joined this website. The information that I have gotten from all has been outstanding. I sure know a lot more today than I did a few days ago. Unfortunately, one sometimes finds an interesting gun for sale and he can either go home and start researching it and risk someone else buying it, or he can make an executive decision and buy and learn later. I have previously owned several 1903's, 1903A3's and even a 1903A4. This 'supposedly' NM 1903 was one that was sold to a local gun shop by the daughter of an elderly gentleman who had recently passed away (like the "Little old Lady from Pasadena"). It certainly has all of the appearances of being 'proper' for the time-frame in which the gentleman lived.
From what I have learned on this website, I am happy that I purchased it.
Even if it has a few "warts", there's nothing wrong with owning it.
Saint - Whether a receiver sight is "correct" or not for your gun, a Lyman 48 would certainly "look" correct. Meaning, if it were me, I'd put a Lyman on there. JMO
Regardless of what receiver sight is on the rifle, I think I can speak for everyone here and say, "We would love to see some pics!" :D
Sounds like you have a fine rifle. ;)
ChuckinD is right. I have a original 1934 Price List from Dir. of Civilian Marksmanship to members of the NRA. The standard NM at 8 1/2# was $40.90. The Style T NM at 14# with a heavy barrel, Winchester hooded front and Lyman 48 rear sights was $85. Thats lots of bucks inQuote:
Originally Posted by chuckindenver
1934. Thats the only non mil. option they show, at least in 1934.
Uploaded pictures of the 1903 Springfield with Redfield receiver sight.
Sorry,
I had 10 neat pictures, but I could not get them to upload. I am having trouble determining how to do this.
Pictures
You have to upload to a picture "holding" site, like Fotoshop - then copy and paste the web addresses of the pictures.
Rick,
Thanks for the information. That is a lot of work. Sorry I could not get the pictures on more easily. I will pass on this.
If you want to email them to me, I'll be glad to post them for you. Send them to: rrsbls[at]msn.com (replace [at] with @) If they're very large (over @ 250 Kb), you might have to send a couple at a time.
Rick,
I sent three pictures to your e-mail address. If there are other views of interest, let me know. Thanks in advance for posting them.
You can upload pics directly, when you open the "go advanced" posting option. Click on the "paper clip" and it will open a menu to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by saint
Or go here.........How do I post pics? - A tutorial by Wally
HTH,
Emri
EMRI,
I checked out Wally's and his reference for how to 'dummy down' the file size on each picture sent me to a web site that works for Windows. I have a MAC so it did not work.
I will see if I can find a way to lower the resolution of my pictures. I may have to re-shoot them and have the camera reset for lower fidelity. Then I will probably lose the fine resolution I have in the present pictures. Oh Well. Thanks anyway.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...g?t=1283046228
Is this one of the sites?
http://www.netmechanic.com/GIFBot/optimize-graphic.htm
I use windows like most others. You should (I think) be able to do so (resize) on your own computer using the photo program for your camera, I could be wrong though.
Or for a specific area, just crop and edit . Pics on these forums show up great even if shot at "e-mail" size. I've included one here that was shot with an antique Cannon A10 1.2MP camera at email (640 x 480 resolution).
HTH,
Emri
P.S.- Rick wants one of these casehardened cutoffs, but it is on another rifle Rick!!
Here are some of the pictures that were sent me. I cut them down in size and cropped the pictures of all background that wasnt needed and you can see the detail is still acceptable.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-3.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-4.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-5.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...standard-6.jpg
sweet rifle, as you know, the target sight is not a SA or military install, as well as the holes drilled for it, they are set a little to far foward, safety sleeve is a replacement as well, not uncommon with a match rifle, parts wear out, parts are replaced.
rear sight was likely added long after the rifle was sold through the DCM..
First of all, thanks to Rick for posting the pictures. Rick also noted (correctly) that the slide on the rear sight (on the barrel) is missing. I had assumed that since the person was using the Redfield, he may have taken that off just to get it out of the way.
Also, to Chuckindenver, your observation about the Redfield sight being too far forward is very significant. That seems to verify that the sight was 'added later' as has been put forth in previous discussions on this 'running thread.'
As added info, the barrel is clearly marked "SA" and 2-36. It shows practically no blue wear and the rifling is in perfect condition.
Pardon me, if this has already been discussed - but you said there is no etched numbers on the bolt. Is the serial number on the bottom of the stock near the lower swivel?
couple other things, serial number is not a hit in my records of DCM sales, though its in a group of NMA1,s , also, had they had a target sight installed before sales, the stock would have been cut to fit the sight, even though Lyman made a sight that would clear the stock, iv not seen one installed on a SA installed rifle.
my advise, remove the redfield sight, install a couple nice plug screws, and fix the Miitary sight...i have a couple nice complete rear sights available.
First, to Rick: There is no rifle serial number on the stock but there is a drawing number, D1836, on the stock (near the rear) and another drawing number, D28179, on the handguard.
Second, to Chuck: I had another complete sight of the same vintage, so I removed the parts needed for this rifle and added them onto the rear sight. I am thinking about your comment of 'plugging the holes' and just using the rear sight on the barrel, but I like the receiver sight for shooting. I always refrain from changing a gun from what looks like it could have been some original configuration. With the exception of completing the rear barrel sight, I will leave the gun 'as is.' When and if I ever sell/trade it, the new owner can make such changes.
As I stated early on, this gun came from the collection of an elderly gentleman who passed away.
The stock and handguard are not from a National Match - they were used on many M1903s built or rebuilt in the late 1930s. I admit I'm not sure what to make of your rifle!
Rick,
In spite of the unknowns, I am certainly happy to have gotten so many inputs from you and the other contributors. I have certainly learned a lot more about my rifle.
I am logged in. My reply was lost. I am unhappy about this to say the least.
Again: I enjoyed reading posts on NM 03-A3 Redfield sight. I have a: U.S. Remington, MODEL 03-A3, 3926091. Exactly as stamped. Lyman peep sight site: Lyman 48S 03-A3. As stamped. I purchased it from a WWII Col. in 1968-9. He discribed it as a Camp Perry Match Model, specialy machined and star guaged, only 500 made. He was presented with it at end of his service, at end of WWII. I would like to know more of it's history. What resources might be recommended, anyone. Also, I may have to sell. That is hard to do. WAM
There were some 1903A3 National Match rifles made after WWII. What markings are on the bolt? (Should be on the top of the bolt handle)
Can you post some pictures? You might also think about starting a new "thread" with your question, as you might get sort of "lost" posting on the end of this one.
Thank you Rick: I do not know what a thread is. Seems like there is a tutorial some where on this site. My son stopped by and is informing me on how message boards work, though. I can send you some pictures, I will post them on the new thread, in a few days. There are no markings on the bolt handle. on top guide? of bolt there is a small marking "J5", on machined side.
A "thread" is the name for all the posts on a topic under discussion - for example, this one on the 1903 NM Redfield sight.
If you would click on "new topic" on the M1903 homepage and type in your question, you might get more response.