Joe Poyer's Sniper Book

[lonewoolf]

I know that the book written by Joe Poyer on the "Model 1903 Springfield Rifle" had numerous errors throughout the book. Can anyone offer an opinion on the accurrecy of his Sniper rifle book...specifically, the details on the 1903A4 ? My #34124xx shows several descrepencys according to the book. It has a 2 groove barrel dated 7-43, the TG has the 'pad', and the scope is the 330 with 73B1 & serial No. stenciled below the plate. These 3 facts do not agree with the book. Thanks for any input.

[jgaynor]

Lw i haven't seen this book yet. One thing to remember the very best list of barrel dates and serial numbers was expertly calculated about 10 years ago. There is no, and never was, some 'secret file' of serial numbers and barrel dates for the simple reason that Remington was under no obligation to make or keep one. All they were really interested in was getting paid for the rifles delivered to the government. The list i refer to was published by the Remington Society and correlates very nicely with known examples of actual rifles. It has as I mentioned stood the test of time for 10 years and is a better list than any I have seen elsewhere - including the Springfield Arsenal website which contains major errors.

A quick calculation suggests your rifle would have been in the first 9 or 10 thousand made. Personally I believe the commercial 330's with nomenclature electropenciled on the side go up to just under 10,000 (on the scope serial numbers).

The barrel may be more problematic. Your rifle may be a bit early for a 2 groove. Is there a punch mark on the underside of the barrel about an inch back from the muzzle?

Likewise I believe the magazine box assembly with the pad behind the forward guard screw came a little later in 43.

However all this being said I would not be overly concerned at this point. I have catalogued varying degrees of detail on about 700 A4's. The more data i accumulate the less positive I am.:icon_scratch:

Hope this helps!:icon_salut:

[Bigbuckeye]

I just bought this book, looks fascinating, but I can't speak to the accuracy.

[lonewoolf]

Thank you Mr. Gaynor for the info. There is indeed a punch mark about 1 inch back from the muzzle, on the underside of the barrel. What is the significance of this mark ? I have seen the barrel list that you mention, and my 7-43 does fit within the number groups. Thanks again for sharing your expertise.

[jgaynor]

Thank you Mr. Gaynor for the info. There is indeed a punch mark about 1 inch back from the muzzle, on the underside of the barrel. What is the significance of this mark ? I have seen the barrel list that you mention, and my 7-43 does fit within the number groups. Thanks again for sharing your expertise.

LW as to the meaning of the punch mark I don't know with absolute certainty. The only researcher who seems to have made reference to the mark per se is the much maligned J.C. Harrison. However, we do know that the specs called the rifles to be selected for "accuracy and smoothness of action". We know that basically A4 barrels were drawn from A3 barrel production. We also know that Phil Sharpe, writing in his encyclopedic 1947 edition of "The Rifle In America", stated that Remington met part of these accuracy requirements by maintaining extremely tight tolerance on the final ream diameter of the barrel. Remington evidently inspected each proposed A4 barrel with an air gauge. This was akin to the "star gauging" performed at government arsenals for match 03 rifles.

Marking the inspected barrels in some fashion would offer proof to the ordnance inspectors that the barrel had been inspected and was approved for use on an A4. In any case original, non-rebuilt A4's seem to have the mark while A3's and rebuilt (barrel replaced) A4's do not.

Perhaps one day some one will come across a document that confirms al this with certainty but for now I hope this helps.

Regards,

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Write a book on the A4, Jim. I would buy it. Your knowledge on the subject coupled with your data is very impressive.

Jim Tarleton

[Art]

Write a book on the A4, Jim. I would buy it. Your knowledge on the subject coupled with your data is very impressive.

Jim Tarleton

I would buy it too. I would also love for jt to publish his extensive research on Marine Corps Model 1903 rifles which I think would be and indispensable resource for anyone wanting to really do in depth research on the '03. A book by Grif Murphy would be good to have too!

[jgaynor]

Write a book on the A4, Jim. I would buy it. Your knowledge on the subject coupled with your data is very impressive.

Jim Tarleton

Jim, I don't know if I have a book in me but i appreciate the thought. If i know anything I have learned it from participating in these forums. Lot of knowledgeable people like yourself who have been willing to share their expertise.

Regards,
Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I would buy it too. I would also love for jt to publish his extensive research on Marine Corps Model 1903 rifles which I think would be and indispensable resource for anyone wanting to really do in depth research on the '03. A book by Grif Murphy would be good to have too!

My problem with publishing my research is volume and connections. I originally started out looking for 120 rifles, and it turned into a WWI Marine Corps Sniper Project. I currently owe Major Jim Land (yep, the sniper man himself), Secretary of the NRA, a paper on the WWI USMC OSD Sniper School curriculum. It has been a trip. One highlight was identifying Periscope, author of Scout Sniper, one of the books used at the OSD school, which graduated 475 WWI snipers. Trying to connect all the data into a coherent test is an awesome task. I never found all the SN's of the 125 rifles, but I have identified some of them. The one thing I did do is learn to positively identify the various varieties of the WWI USMC sniper rifles. In the process, I discovered most of the existing samples I have seen are fakes without doubt. Some people have spent enormous sums of money on these faked rifles. One fake sold for over $16,000 dollars.

Jim

[jgaynor]

Poyer's sniper book arrived in the mail. I have skimmed it - noticed a few things that give me gas pains but there is also some useful information. I can really only address the A4 section in detail. There is information on the USMC sniper rifles but others will have to address those.
This volume covers 1900 to 1945 and in the middle of the text the author states a second volume is coming which will cover the postwar period up to 1990.
I got my copy through Amazon for less than $18.00 shipped. He included a bibliography which is a nice touch. No index however.

Regards,
Jim

[habu1]

I have used this book for several years and it has been most useful, however the detail can be lacking and leave you hanging. Vll would be appreciated.

[jgaynor]

i have looked at Mr. Poyer's American Sniper book in more detail. mainly i have concentrated on the M1903A4 section. Hopefully others will weigh in on the WW1 and USMC snipers. I have to say most interested people will probably benefit from the purchase of this book with a couple of provisos. It is quite reasonably priced, It contains a number of tables and a lot of dimensional data

One he makes a number of flat assertions that he does not support with backup. In the bibliography he cites the works of Clark Campbell and Bill Hansen to name but two. However I find it curious that in the case of Mr. Campbell for instance he does not use Mr. Campbell's latest (and final edition). Likewise in the case of Mr. Hansen whose extensive article on A4 production for the Remington Society is the gold standard Mr. Poyer comes to some different conclusions regarding fundamentals like serial numbers. I have to say that with data on close to 900 A4 rifles in my personal file Mr. Hansen's analysis of serial numbers is the most comprehensive and most aligns with the real world universe of known A4 rifles. So if you have that information why publish some thing different and make a jerk of of yourself?

There are some similar issues regarding the Weaver Scopes. Mr. Poyer claims the Weaver "330 Scope-M.8" is a Korean War replacement, again without any support. This directly contradicts the only information written about this scope (Peter Senich, Clark Campbell).

There are a few real gaffs in the editing. At the top of one table Mr. Poyer is describing A4 receiver markings but he:
1. Gets the nomenclature wrong. " MODEL M1903-A3" when it is actually " MODEL 03-A3"
2. Gets the location of the space for the scope base in the wrong spot.

The people who already dislike Mr. Poyer's style will find that he still uses his personal catalog of component "TYPES" for stocks, bolts, barrels etc. He does add a disclaimer to the effect that the TYPES he uses are his personal shorthand and not official. In this case it might have been helpful if he had included a brief appendix cross referencing his TYPES with pictures, drawings and even government drawing numbers.

Bottom line I think its a worthwhile addition to a library in the sense that it gets a lot of data into compact, organized, easily accesed format. Just be a little careful when he asserts that ALL rifles had this or that feature, markingand so on.

Regards,

Jim

[lonewoolf]

Thank you Mr. Gaynor. What is your opinion of his claim that no more than 200 Weaver 330C scopes were used on the early 03A4 rifles ?

[jgaynor]

Thank you Mr. Gaynor. What is your opinion of his claim that no more than 200 Weaver 330C scopes were used on the early 03A4 rifles ?

I believe it is incorrect because he appears to be including all of the commercial scopes which also have the electro-penciled "Telescope M73B1" nomenclature and "Serial No. XXXX" on the side of the tube.
According to the Remington production records included in Campbell, 2003 (pp. 338) Two (2) A4s were shipped in Feb 43 out of 100 produced. In March 43 1405 A4s' shipped after an additional 1403 were produced.

I could accept that perhaps 200 (Maybe more) straight, commercial 330C's were used in February And March just so Remington could begin to meet their badly delayed A4 delivery schedule. However despite the possibility that some of the electro-penciled scopes are fakes from what i see of the scope serial numbers The electro-penciled models run up to around 8000 or 9000 when the next version of the of the M73B1 with roll stamped nomenclature is introduced.

Another thing to keep in mind is that we (or at least I ) don't really know when the nomenclature "M73B1" was created. It was probably created around March of 43 so that the scopes could be marked. However, the first A4 Technical Manual TM 9-270, was signed off by the authority of General Marshall in early July 43 and not finally published until Sept 28, 1943. That manual makes no mention of "M73B1". It simply refers to the scope being the "Weaver 330C" and makes an offhand reference to the effect that the Lyman Alaskan may also be used but that no details on that scope are available. So the really early scopes would necessarily have been commercial models probably without military markings.

While we are on the subject Mr. Poyer states that Remington applied the electro penciled nomenclature. I had raised this point with a source I consider to be highly reliable several years ago and was advised that Remington did not have marking the scopes in their contract. Ordnance had contracted directly with Weaver to provided the scopes. Weaver, in turn. had to scramble to round up unsold scopes from wholesalers and retailers; apply the military markings and send them on to Remington. So this is another area where Mr. Poyer needs to support his assertion. BTW a few late production M73B1's survived the war still in their original, dated factory packaging. Those scopes were numbered at the factory where the number was also applied to the outside of the package.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Jim

[lonewoolf]

Great info, much appreciated, Thank you

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

A well worded and excellent analysis, Jim.

jt

[TomWatts]

@ Jim Gaynor,

Adding to your facts, I have an A4 I recently bought from CMP, it also has a 2 groove barrel dated 8-43 with the punch under the barrel. The SN is 34230XX.
Regards,
Tom

[jgaynor]

Thanks Tom! Coincidentally I have 3423505. A little unique in that it saw service with the Thais and has their marks on the receiver and stock.

Jim

[joepoyer]

Dear Lone Wolf, if you know of errors in my book, I would appreciate it if you would let me know what they are. The book is now in the 4th edition. My email is on the back cover of the book. ncape@ix.netcom.com.
Joe Poyer

[jgaynor]

Mr. Poyer, is your second volume on US snipers coming out anytime soon?

Regards,

Jim Gaynor