Can we stop calling them USMC Sight covers?

Alright, I'm being sarcastic (let's get that out of the way now).

I was looking around in Archives in College Park and came across some interesting files that I was processing for my website. Thought I'd throw a few pictures up here.

I would have guessed that the Springfield Armory (most likely) or a contractor like Sedgley or even the USMC themselves produced the No. 10 sight covers. But apparently, the Navy's Bureau of Ordnance were the makers of the No. 10 sight covers for the Marines.



Also, the Infantry Board also conducted a test of the No. 10 sights in 1919 which concluded in 1920. The purpose of the test was to either refute or validate that the "Marine type sight" claims that "better results can be obtained with rapid fire at ranges within 600 yards, also gives better results for rifles equipped with telescopic rifle sights or intended for long range fire. A decrease in glare of light on front sight is also claimed.

30 men were involved in the test, 15 fired their rifles with standard sights and 15 with the Marine type sights and then switched back. Then they were asked which they preferred. 5 of the 30 preferred the USMC type sights, the rest preferred the standard sights.

Here are some pictures from the Infantry Board Report.

What is interesting is the rifle pictured sports a flat top handguard and a single bolt (possibly a no-bolt stock).





Among the conclusions from the report were that the Marine type sights provide no superiority over the standard sights. And the better results claimed could not be obtained.

And sorry gents, no serial numbers in the report.

The earliest I can find on the USMC sights are 10,000 (rear drifts) being ordered September 1918.

Anyways enjoy the pics. Happy Sunday!

This is a BB repo I keep on a shooter rifle.
I have made sight blades for other rifles that mimic the USMC type but not quite as wide. I think they work a little better with the 05 sight when its sunny out.
The hoods are made to be left on the rifle, (as you already know) spring tension is significantly more than the types that are meant to be discarded.

If you move about or transport your rifle a lot, these are the ones to have. You can actually shoot with them.
There was one for sale the other day on another forum included in a parts lot, should have bought it!
Thanks for posting the information from your research efforts.

Doco Overboard said:

View attachment 238550 This is a BB repo I keep on a shooter rifle.
I have made sight blades for other rifles that mimic the USMC type but not quite as wide. I think they work a little better with the 05 sight when its sunny out.
The hoods are made to be left on the rifle, (as you already know) spring tension is significantly more than the types that are meant to be discarded.

If you move about or transport your rifle a lot, these are the ones to have. You can actually shoot with them.
There was one for sale the other day on another forum included in a parts lot, should have bought it!
Thanks for posting the information from your research efforts.

Click to expand...

Very nice, thanks for sharing the pic! I haven't done much shooting lately, hard to get to the range with young kids around and not old enough to shoot.

If you like this, more exciting stuff in the works. Documentation on M1903 SN 1 as well as "trench gun" stuff that's sure to break a lot of hearts.

I don't understand the "Can we stop calling them USMC Sight covers?" Unless you mean we should call them Haitian Gendarmerie covers. I thought Marines wore their covers on their heads, anyway.


I do have one of these sight covers, by the way, as well as the wider front sight blade. That narrow blade doesn't work for my eyes.

Threeband said:

I don't understand the "Can we stop calling them USMC Sight covers?" Unless you mean we should call them Haitian Gendarmerie covers. I thought Marines wore their covers on their heads, anyway.


I do have one of these sight covers, by the way, as well as the wider front sight blade. That narrow blade doesn't work for my eyes.

Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic (why I put the disclaimer at the top), with regards the Navy made them.

But the US Water Army is part of the Navy, isn’t it?