I kind of feel like I would be destroying the historical value of it. Any opinions on this? I would also be open to getting it parkerized or blued.
Its your rifle, and your money, but ANY refinish destroys the collector value.
Judging from that single picture, it appears complete, original and in pretty good condition. You even have the bayonet!
IF you do ANYTHING to that rifle, be prepared for people to line up and tell you exactly what kind of idiot you are.
Usually I'm one of the first folks fed up with people telling me how I "ruined valuable milsurps" by sporterizing Mausers, Springfields, Arisakas, etc. back in the day (40+ years ago). They fail to realize that back then, those rifles were cheap, and nearly as common as dirt, in their GI configuration.
Today, that is NOT the case. Rifles in the issue configuration, and in as good condition as the one you have are RARE, and getting rarer.
Refinishing that rifle destroys its visual history. Sure, its always going to be a 1917 Enfield, but the appearance is what gives it the most value. Refinishing it will reduce its market value by half, maybe 3/4 or maybe even more.
Some people would even consider refinishing it an insult to the rifle, and its history. IF that rifle had been altered already, or previously refinished, the damage would be done, but that's not the case here.
In short, a good way to turn an $800 collector piece into a (maybe) $300 "bubba" job (even if done well) is to refinish it.
Even a refinish from a certified restoration service lowers the collector value of the gun, while adding to its cost to you. I wouldn't do it, and I won't recommend it, but its your gun, and your choice.
There are people out there who would be overjoyed to get their hands on it, just the way it is, and who wouldn't give it a second look, if it was refinished, or altered in any way.
If you're interested, I'll trade you a ratty looking Kar 98k you can refinish to your hearts content.