No problem.
It always boils down to the dogs. The honest guns. The ones nobody wants. Those tell the story. Nobody corrects dogs. Nobody spent money on dogs.
Two last points before I close this thread down for me.
1) "Of the pattern as made at Springfield." Muskets. The ways they specified the gun tells the model. It's in the book. That last one never had model listed. Why? "Current." When reviewing the manufacturing reports if no model is listed they are likely referencing the latest. So "1,260 rear sights" will likely be what's current. Else they'll typically specify.
2) "Good enough prevents the purchase of what's wanted." If somebody doesn't have a hammer you can probably talk them into a nice Estwing. If they have a crappy wooden handle Chinese hammer it's harder. "I already have a hammer. That one is nicer but not nicer enough to spend money." So when somebody has something they're a lot less likely to spend coin on new. If they have nothing then they will. New boat? "The one I have sucks but it does the job." A sight which is slightly off is better than no sight at all. Why bother upgrading? Value to that is low. 1898 bases aren't perfect but they existed. Spend for new when you have one which is close? "Don't bother." This also affects the dogs. If somebody buys a crappy military rifle out of a barrel they're unlikely to upgrade from one barrel mounted sight to another - even if it's "better." A receiver mounted one maybe but not a different barrel mounted one. Unless it's free anyway. Frugal 101 right? Make due.