M1903 USMC Sights?

Rhetorical Question
I would wonder if the stringent definition of the M1903 “service” rifle in the 20’s and 30’s caused the demise of the M1903 USMC sights.
The Individual Rifle Match and the Team Rifle Match was a matter of pride and was the subject of fierce competitiveness among the services (the Army, The USMC, the Navy and the Coast Guard) and among the various army teams (Infantry, Cavalry and Engineers). Competition between the USMC and the Infantry was always a very hard fought battle. Regulations required that these be fired with the “service” rifle. There was also at one time a 300 yard rapid fire match that required use of the battle sight. It would seem to me that the Marines would have difficulty establishing a winning Class A team while switching back and forth between the USMC sight and the service sight. As I remember reading the regulation, a Class A team required that 30% of the team members be “new” shooters. “New” shooters were defined as those who had not previously fired in the National Matches. Experienced shooters could probably accommodate the switch but new shooters may find it a bit more difficult.
How stringent were the regulations? Let me cite a couple of examples.
When the headless cocking piece and the reverse safety were discontinued, a notice appeared in the American Rifleman from the DCM which authorized their continued use in the National Matches on the “service” rifle.
In the middle 1930’s a notice was published in the American Rifleman where the DCM authorized rifles that were “drilled and tapped” for the Lyman 48 (with the Lyman 48 removed) were to be considered to be in the service rifle configuration .
The NB style NM rifle was not authorized for use as a service rifle even though it was NM except for the Style B stock, even after the Type C Stock had been authorized. Also the Special Target NM was not authorized for use as a “service “rifle.
Just wondering?

I do not know of a demise of the USMC sights. Clark Campbell, in his book, "The '03 Era....", page 60, indicates that "the Marines (to include their usually very successful rifles teams) continued to use "the No. 10 sights right into World War II" I take this to mean that the USMC used these sights in competition.
If these sights were restricted to a certain match type I do not know.
Nice speculation though.
regards,
Chief

Here are a couple of pages from the 1935 Rulebook:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...arms1935-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...935rules-1.jpg

Rule 3-12 would seem to disallow the USMC sights, as they were not an "Ordnance-provided" item. Ordnance-provided sights would include a range of aperture sizes up to No. 9, and slide caps with offset sighting notches.

My sources, which are admittedly annecdotal, would indicate that the special USMC sights had been discarded long before this. A friend from a previous club enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1924; Bananna Wars, WW II, Korea, Retired in 1954. He had a few years on the USMC Team in the 30's and told me that he had heard about, but had never seen the "USMC sights" for the 03. I have seen somewhere a HQ, USMC memo from the late 20's (I think) that directed removal of the Special No. 10 sights, because they were "detrimental to marksmanship training"; quite a switch from the thinking when they were first adopted.

Rapid fire at 200 and 300 yards had to be fired with the battle sight. The 500 yard rapid fire stage (yes, there was one) could be fired with the ladder up.

Resp'y,
Bob S.

Director, Division of Operations and Training memo AO- 214, dated 17 Oct '35 covered the narrowing of the .10 inch front sight to .06 and the use of the Army's .06 drift slide. There was no mention of a change in height of the front sight or the remarking of the .06 drift to accommodate the higher front sight.
There were, at the time, 63,000 sets of No. 10 sights on hand at the Philadelphia Depot of Supplies to facilitate modification and general issue. Major General Commandant approval memo #5489 indicates a directive to make the change specified in AO-214 butthis seems to not have been completed.
regards,
Chief