Probable WWII 1903 Marine Sniper w/A5 scope

[cplnorton]

Well I bought something interesting this weekend. The seller did not know much about what it was. It came from a old man who they thought had been a WWII Army vet, who they said they knew had it at least 30 years, but did not know where he had got it before that. When I asked if he might have been a Marine they were puzzled why. So I did not believe they had faked this.

First I have to thank John Beard, Jim Tarleton, Ed Byrns, and Chuch Moline. Each I have talked with personally on this and they were all nice enough to answer my questions and give me opinions on it. Thank you Gentlemen!

Now I'm curious what others think of it. As I know some of you have these rifles. I have almost a 150 pics of this rifle so I have photos of nearly every inch of it. So if someone needs to see a specific pic of something. I probably have it.

This is a description of the rifle. Thoughts and opinions are greatly appreciated! :icon_lol:


Serial: 1459600

Receiver: 1934 date, has had hatcher hole drilled, not a factory hatcher hole. Rails polished.

Barrel: 4-38 SA. Not Star guaged marked, but has C63934 on the sight base. Barrel has Marine Vice marks on it.

Bolt: blued NS bolt. It's an early NS bolt with the single gas hole enlarged. Serial number electropenciled on top.

Stock: No cartouches, area around sight base has been milled out. National Match buttplate

Follower is polished then has the word SERIAL electorpenciled on it with at least a 1 and 4 behind it. I cannot make out the rest.

There has been machining on the area where the trigger assembly matches up to the receiver. Where the front screw is attached.

Scope is a Winchester A5 scope with #2 mounts.

CV sear with B

Boyt 42 sling


Here are the pics:

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220001_zpsw0oo0x9m.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220008_zpsy2whyocj.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220003_zps3dpewcqr.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220006_zpsyhidcdbs.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210958_zpsagvwf8r3.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210954_zpsftn62xls.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210926_zpsxrbkvcyi.jpg

[cplnorton]

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210957_zpskxgdzzzw.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210942_zpspv8avpz1.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210929_zpsziwya2f8.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210915_zpstqdb8bk6.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210910_zpskyyikx4k.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210908_zpsfjnx1rke.jpg

[cplnorton]

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210873_zpsgn8bnhwc.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210875_zpstwiyvqld.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210843_zps2d6osccy.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210836_zpsagtgqmsm.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210812_zpslufjxgbl.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210733_zpsxwkmyvir.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210730_zpsdv6r2qvl.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210714_zpsmixjgzrq.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210713_zpshmqblunr.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210710_zpslmp3fjuq.jpg

[cplnorton]

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210696_zpsi21g9jyr.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210692_zps983ah0dz.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210682_zpsatocza8o.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210659_zps8vzxd9a4.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210656_zpsw1gvmh3y.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210641_zps1x3xebzs.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210636_zps0eigyjev.jpg

[cplnorton]

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210862_zpsmfw7593j.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210850_zps4pomgp35.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210848_zpsypjamici.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210817_zpsaeog8sez.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210760_zpsi3ssbcxf.jpg

[cplnorton]

When I first saw it I knew the Marines did have the Winchester A5/Lyman 5A at the beginning of WWII. But I don't know if they would have used #2 scope mounts.

The other thing I questioned was the straight stock, but I found many pics of the straight stock being used in the War.


The first pic is Guadalcanal, the second pic is Okinawa 1945, and the third is on Guam in 1944.

302453024630247

[Fred]

Oooooo... Nice rifle!

[chuckindenver]

wonderful find..
as we have talked...i believe the rifle is ok...the mounts and scope were added later..
nice handguard as well...
its missing some of the other markings iv seen...

[1563621]

Very Nice Find!!!!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I suspect that rifle originally had a Unertl on it. Note the Win A5 sniper in the picture has the Winchester modified mounts. I don't believe the Corps would have used hard to read #2 mounts when they had over 800 sets of the much better and easy to read Winchester modified mounts with elevation calibrated in inches. Either way, you found a real prize.

Congratulations.

jt

[cplnorton]

I tried not to post pics of anything that isn't already known on these, just in case. But if I did, let me know and I will take it off. I do not want to help the humpers but wanted to give enough to make a judgement on.

[pmclaine]

Beautiful rifle!

Id heard that the moustrap spring was a feature on civilian A5's not so much mil. Does your rifle show that is not always the case?

[cplnorton]

I did not recognize this marking on the sear. Is it just a drawing number? The other side is marked CV.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210739_zpsda2kykhq.jpg

[TDP0311]

I was with Cpl Norton when we came across this rifle on Saturday. Very glad to see it go to an owner that will give this old, salty piece of Corps history the proper home it deserves!

[chuckindenver]

post 1935 drawing numbers were found on some parts,.sear, trigger, rear sight base, follower, rear sight windage knob, stock, hangguard, rear sight, cocking rod, buttplat, buttplate trap door..
CV is a hardened sear..may have a CV marked cocking rod as well.

[Promo]

Are there any file markings below the scope bases? Otherwise I'd agree with Jim, it looks like it once had an Unertl on it. But let's wait for Johns opinion!

[cplnorton]

I did pull the rear off because I was sure I could put it back on exactly as it was. The front has shims that I'm not sure I could back straight, so I'm sort of scarred to try.

Here are the pics with the base off. The base on the bottom is filed one side and shimmed on the other. It is O marked.


http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220061_zpsj0qolosq.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220066_zpsbbhkc4tn.jpg
http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220067_zpsoou2lyor.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220068_zpsfuxobgi2.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220069_zpsryzfxumh.jpg

[cplnorton]

I have had people express concern over the shims on the front block. They say that wasn't done. I think I know why. And it was probably done by whoever put the scope on it. Whether it was a civilian or Marine.

The knob on the scope is very close to the handguard. So if the block wasn't shimmed up, there is no way that knob would have cleared the handguard. I also bet the screws in the front block are longer than normal ones, because of the shims.

I don't think the Winchester modified mounts have that same knob on the A5. And the Unertl one seems like it sticks out past the handguard and isn't so close, so shims were not needed either. But I'm going by pics online. I've seen neither in person, nor tried to put them on the rifle.

Here are some pics, that knob is very close to the wood. So whoever put the scope on there, I think shimmed that front block. What do you guys think?

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220071_zpstz0fzg4f.jpg

[cplnorton]

Another thing I had someone tell me, they say the Marine Match rifles had a punch mark on the area of the receiver that was polished. He said it was punched, then polished and sometimes they are hard to see.

If this is true, and it looks like it has a punch mark on the receiver in this area that I circled. Then that means this was one that was a USMC Match rifle at one time and then converted? I know the Marines used many of the shooting team rifles to build the snipers. But I also read they used other receivers as well as long as they could build them to match quality.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210651_zpszbtlquhz.jpg

[Kragrifle]

Anyway you'all could explain the difference in the #2 and modified Winchester mounts?

[cplnorton]

The other thing I noticed on this as well, and I initially wasn't going to post a pic of this because I wasn't sure if it was well known or not, but researching on google I found several mentions of it, including pics, so I guess it won't hurt anything to show it now. The top edges of the Magazine and front action screw box are filed down to allow the action to be more firmly pulled into stock. Even the spot of the bottom of the receiver is filed down as well.

Jack the Dog has a really good pic of his documented Marine sniper in this auction, and his trigger housing is filed down the exact same way. It also looks like it has the punch mark on the receiver rail that was polished over. But his is more towards the front of the receiver.

Here is a link to Jack the Dog's documented Sniper with pics to compare.

http://www.gunauction.com/buy/12918480

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210798_zpsyswgfes8.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210793_zpsq9knukck.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210721_zpsgrs3dyls.jpg

[Jim in Salt Lake]

I have had people express concern over the shims on the front block. They say that wasn't done. I think I know why. And it was probably done by whoever put the scope on it. Whether it was a civilian or Marine.

The knob on the scope is very close to the handguard. So if the block wasn't shimmed up, there is no way that knob would have cleared the handguard. I also bet the screws in the front block are longer than normal ones, because of the shims.

I don't think the Winchester modified mounts have that same knob on the A5. And the Unertl one seems like it sticks out past the handguard and isn't so close, so shims were not needed either. But I'm going by pics online. I've seen neither in person, nor tried to put them on the rifle.

Here are some pics, that knob is very close to the wood. So whoever put the scope on there, I think shimmed that front block. What do you guys think?

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220071_zpstz0fzg4f.jpg

I would think if they had a clearance problem with that knob, the person doing the job would just shave down the handguard as needed. I think they shimmed those blocks to change elevation but I have no idea if this was something commonly done. Does anyone know? This is one intriguing rilfle!

[cplnorton]

Very True and a good point Jim. I was thinking more along the lines that many of the Marine sniper rifles were sold without scopes to Marine officers, and it seems from researching it, this started in 1954. So I was thinking maybe someone bought this without a scope, then added the A5 and shimmed the front block up because they didn't want to cut up the handguard.

The only thing that makes me think that scope might possibly be original to the rifle is just the condition and overall look of the rifle. Most of the snipers I've seen that are considered real, look rebuilt multiple times. Finishes don't match, wear patterns are off. Most just look like parts and pieces assembled. But to me this one feels right. All the patinas match, wear patterns are consistent, it just looks like everything belongs.

[cplnorton]

And to add a little more intrigue, it looks like someone was keeping a count. I'm usually the first person to call BS on these. But looking at them with my loop, they are very old. They haven't been done anytime recent. Now whether Joe Bob was marking it for everytime he shot a deer in the 1950's, or some dealer did in the 50's to try to create a story, or Private Jones was helping win the war one at a time, I don't know.

But they look deliberately put on there and I'm counting either 5 or 6. I think it's six. It makes it sort of hard as there was a big dent put in the stock in this area and it crushed it a little bit and makes it hard to tell for sure.

So yeah no clue. Just interesting I guess. And maybe it's just all a coincidence and my eyes are playing tricks on me. My wife tells me I'm nuts all the time and I can't see crap. :)

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220077_zps7glkjizt.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Very True and a good point Jim. I was thinking more along the lines that many of the Marine sniper rifles were sold without scopes to Marine officers, and it seems from researching it, this started in 1954. So I was thinking maybe someone bought this without a scope, then added the A5 and shimmed the front block up because they didn't want to cut up the handguard.

The only thing that makes me think that scope might possibly be original to the rifle is just the condition and overall look of the rifle. Most of the snipers I've seen that are considered real, look rebuilt multiple times. Finishes don't match, wear patterns are off. Most just look like parts and pieces assembled. But to me this one feels right. All the patinas match, wear patterns are consistent, it just looks like everything belongs.

I will believe that scope is original to that rifle when you can show me any other authenticate USMC sniper rifle issued after WWI fitted with #2 mounts after WWI. When you have over 800 sets of the finest Win A5 mounts that exist, are you are going to go out and buy an inferior set to put on a sniper rifle you have worked on for hours to accurize? By the time this rifle was built as a sniper, Lyman had long bought the rights to the Winchester A5. The cozy relationship between the Corps and Winchester was no longer connected to the A5. If they bought a new scope, it would be a 5A, and if they had used one from storage, it would already have Winchester modified mounts.

jt

[cplnorton]

Yeah I can only find one picture from that whole early war timeframe. And that is the one from the Canal posted earlier. In fact I really can only find a handful of sniper rifles pics from the whole war. I think they started building the sniper rifles around 1939, and the Unertls didn't make it to the war till mid 43 timeframe. So you would think you would be able to find more pics of them, but you sure don't.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I thought the Unertl's were ordered in 1939.

Really nice find, CplNorton.

jt

[cplnorton]

I thought the Unertl's were ordered in 1939.

Really nice find, CplNorton.

jt


I have been trying to read as much info on these as I can and I just found this. It's from Grunt Gear by Alec Tulkoff. I'm not sure how accurate all this info is, but there is a lot of new info here I haven't found so far.

He states there were two orders for the Unertl scopes and blocks. The first being June 1942 for 1000. And the second order in Oct 1942 for 800 more. He states that by April 1945, 1750 scopes had been delivered and the contract had been cancelled on Feb 1944.

He says the total number of 1903's outfitted with the Unertl scopes would be approximately 775 as of April 20, 1945. He said he got that number from the total number of scopes delivered and the remaining number of scopes left in the depot.

He also states that on April 8th, 1941 they decided to make (40) 1903 rifles with the Winchester A5 scopes and they were to be distributed between the two Marine Divisions for training. Then in March 42, the 1st Marine Raider Battalion received an additional (40) 1903's with Winchester A5's. So it sounds like at least 80 were made with the A5 scope before the Unertl.

There is a picture of a Marine in Sniper School with an A5 on his rifle, in the South Pacific in the book training. Not that it helps my cause. :( lol The rifle has the modified mounts. I don't know with the copy right laws if I can copy that and put it up here as long as I give him credit? It's a really good pic of the rifle and one that I haven't been able to find yet. I think you would really be interested in it Jim.

[Roadkingtrax]

Another thing I had someone tell me, they say the Marine Match rifles had a punch mark on the area of the receiver that was polished. He said it was punched, then polished and sometimes they are hard to see.

If this is true, and it looks like it has a punch mark on the receiver in this area that I circled. Then that means this was one that was a USMC Match rifle at one time and then converted? I know the Marines used many of the shooting team rifles to build the snipers. But I also read they used other receivers as well as long as they could build them to match quality.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210651_zpszbtlquhz.jpg

Mine had one...

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd281/ttraxler/Target%2003/MarineTarget025_zpsf93473de.jpg (http://s223.photobucket.com/user/ttraxler/media/Target%2003/MarineTarget025_zpsf93473de.jpg.html)

[chuckindenver]

i believe that the scope, mounts and bases were added by someone other then the military, i believe the rifle is genuine..but not with an A5 scope, i believe the stock and buttplate have also been added..
id bet you would hit dirt 4 foot low at 100 yards with that scope mounted that way, and the screws would come loose of not break off..
adding the correct bases...and finding a correct scope would be ideal

[cplnorton]

Tim, that was the one that they thought was made in the 50's from leftover sniper parts, wasn't it?

[Roadkingtrax]

Tim, that was the one that they thought was made in the 50's from leftover sniper parts, wasn't it?

Yes, that was the rifle I purchased from Rick. Shot for a while and sold to TBONE69 on the this forum. It had the same "match" modifications your rifle did. The sear and firing pin rod were perfectly matched for a 3lb break. The top of the tigger guard was draw filed to remove material to allow a good "bite" into the wood. Several other things were done to the rifle, but no bearing on the discussion for your fine rifle here.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Steve, once again you have turned up an outstanding piece of history through your network of connections, and I don't know how you do it. Your photography skills are on a parallel with John Holbrook over in the 1911 Forum, I wish I had your skills. Genuine, put together, wartime expedient, whatever...that is a cool rifle. Thanks for sharing.

[cplnorton]

I hope this is ok to do as long as I cite it. And since this picture was from WWII, I imagine the govt owns the copyright to it and it would fall under public domain anyways. But this is the picture from page 252 of Grunt Gear by Alec Tulkoff of a Marine A5 on a 1903. With the P42 camo jacket in the pics, this must be around 1943 or later. It's labeled as being taken of a sniper in training in the South Pacific.

Even though it doesn't show my scope rings. :eusa_wall: The one thing that really sticks out to me is the finish on the rifle. The receiver looks like a dark magnesium park and the thing that really sticks out to me is the middle band. It looks like it's a deep high polish blued finish. That is very uncommon on a Marine rifle.

Now looking at my rifle. One of the first things I noticed on it when I got it was the middle band has a very high polish blued finish. Also note the rifle in the pic has the S stock. Which I've now found more straight stock pics of snipers in WWII than C stocks.

But this is one of the best up close pics I've ever seen of a real sniper. This one also had the small size (non USMC) sight hood on it, but I cannot fit in the scanner I have all the way to copy it.

But if nothing else I bet Jim will like the pic of the 1903 with the A5. :)

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/Scan0002_zpsatjlitlm.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210910_zpskyyikx4k.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210927_zpssqnjalyz.jpg

[cplnorton]

Steve, once again you have turned up an outstanding piece of history through your network of connections, and I don't know how you do it. Your photography skills are on a parallel with John Holbrook over in the 1911 Forum, I wish I had your skills. Genuine, put together, wartime expedient, whatever...that is a cool rifle. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Jeff! I will have to get with you offline. It's actually pretty easy to do. I have barely $50 in my photobooth and I used a old panasonic camera from like 2005. lol

[CPC]

Either way it's a great rifle. But since we are trying to make comparisons to establish originality does it make a difference if the handguard shape in the picture showing the A5 has a completely different profile than the rifle in question? Doesn't Steve's have more of a unertl profile?
CC

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Nice pic of a Win A5 in Winchester modified mounts. Note the larger knobs and absence of the grasshopper spring. Those are the mounts I would have expected to see. I deer hunt with one just like that. You can take it apart and clean the lenses in a couple of minutes without dismounting the scope. Too bad you guys ran the price of an A5 out of sight.:icon_wink:

Note the different bases also. Those are Mann-Neidner bases in the last photo.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim are by chance the Mann-Neidner bases taller than the Unertl's? Would that explain why the front block needed to be shimmed? The Unertl front block is shorter than the Mann Neidner base?

I was thinking too, after reading that the scopes and blocks were ordered together, they were probably shipped together. So yeah now I'm pretty convinced my rifle had an Unertl on it from when it was original built.

Now Unertl's were prone to breaking so I wonder what the process was if was broken in the field? What was the replacement scope? I imagine replacement unertls were hard to get until very late in the war. Just because all the new ones were probably used to make new snipers.

Now here is another question, since the one A5 in the pic above has Mann Neidner blocks, will those USMC modified mounts on the A5 scopes only fit the Mann Neidner blocks? So I guess I'm wondering if they would have had to use #2 rings to fit unertl blocks because the Mann Neidner USMC modified ones wouldn't attach to Unertl's? I know it's grasping at straws. Just trying to think outside the box.

[cplnorton]

I did get brave this morning. I had to know if the front block had an E under it. So I took it off. I was a little nervous doing it, but at the same time I had to know. lol But it came off just fine and I got it back on just fine. So I feel much better.

But both blocks are marked O and E, so I think they are original to the rifle.

One thing I did find interesting the shim is much smaller than it looks in my pics. It just has a lot of dried grease that got caught under it. It also has a lot of rust. And it's actually only one solid one piece brass shim, and then a small thin shim for the side, which is exactly like the one that is under the rear block.

I measured the shim with my calipers, and I think my pics make it look much bigger than it actually is. Both shims together at their thickest point even with the grease, it measure .0620 on my digital calipers. So I think it's much smaller than most thought.

Here are the pics.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220097_zpspg4cpnsj.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220095_zpsmkotkuhc.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220098_zps4z4qj1iy.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220094_zpsi3zprrys.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220090_zps7y5hno8z.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220089_zpszskybgyz.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220088_zpsvddlzop7.jpg

The screws were longer and cut down. The tops were filed down as well.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220092_zpscp1og4me.jpg




http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220100_zps7uwllubr.jpg

And there is a punch mark on the bottom of the receiver that was applied after finish. The other marks look finished over. I don't know if this means anything or not.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220104_zps0gylrcu5.jpg

[cplnorton]

This is the other thing. It's hard to get a pic of it, but when I twist it in the light the follower has SERIAL written on it and then it looks like numbers. I can halfway make out a 1 and 4 but the rest is worn off. But it reminds me of how the top of the bolt is electropenciled. It's just worn down a lot.

But the IAL is the only letters I can really capture with my camera. I might have to try taking it outside in the light and see if I can get a pic of it better.

I tried to highlight it a little so you guys can see it. I don't know if this will help.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220109_zpsowkyj82z.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220109_zpsjtqgsyk3.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220114_zpsk7ta1ija.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220108_zpsrkde3abh.jpg

[cplnorton]

I think too the S stock is original to the rifle and is a real sniper stock. The area around the sight base has really been dished out. There was a lot of material removed. In fact from the side you can actually see the drawing number on the sight base.

Please excuse the dog hair. I didn't catch it till I was editing the pics and I was too lazy to go back down and take more pics. But you can really see in these pics how much wood was removed around that base.

Also I'm finding more pics of S stocks during the War than C's. I'm really starting to think the S stock sniper was much more prevalent that we thought.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220132_zpsdven3luk.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220125_zpsxmknvnky.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220133_zps8qq93qo4.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220130_zpsusfzjzls.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1220137_zpsaxbyydtf.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210873_zpsgn8bnhwc.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210875_zpstwiyvqld.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim are by chance the Mann-Neidner bases taller than the Unertl's? Would that explain why the front block needed to be shimmed? The Unertl front block is shorter than the Mann Neidner base?

I was thinking too, after reading that the scopes and blocks were ordered together, they were probably shipped together. So yeah now I'm pretty convinced my rifle had an Unertl on it from when it was original built.

Now Unertl's were prone to breaking so I wonder what the process was if was broken in the field? What was the replacement scope? I imagine replacement unertls were hard to get until very late in the war. Just because all the new ones were probably used to make new snipers.

Now here is another question, since the one A5 in the pic above has Mann Neidner blocks, will those USMC modified mounts on the A5 scopes only fit the Mann Neidner blocks? So I guess I'm wondering if they would have had to use #2 rings to fit unertl blocks because the Mann Neidner USMC modified ones wouldn't attach to Unertl's? I know it's grasping at straws. Just trying to think outside the box.


The height of a front Neidner base is 0.475" and it is 0.500" - 0.480" wide by 1" long. Look at your handguard hole to see if it would clear.

jt

[cplnorton]

Ok I am sort of a amateur with calipers and my calipers are a cheap $20 pair of digitals from harbor freight. So I know I'm off some, but this will give you a general idea of it. Just don't take my measurements to be 100% perfect. :)


The hole of the my handguard is .05280 wide and 1.0110 long. The front Unertl block with shim is .5075 tall measured from the middle of the barrel.


This is probably a stupid question. But will the modified USMC Winchester scope fit on Unertl blocks? Or do you have to change the blocks over to the Mann Neidners for a USMC A5 to be put on?

It seems now every instance I find of the modified USMC A5 the rifle has the MAnn Neidner mounts as well. So I'm wondering would they have to change the rings on the A5 back to #2's to get them to slide on Unertl blocks? I know I'm grasping at straws. But just curious if there is any other explanation on that scope other than a civilian putting it on there.

But yeah if I didn't make it clear earlier, I 100% agree with everyone's assessment that it would have been made and had a Unertl on it originally.

By the way thank you for your help guys! Especially Jim for answering all my dumb questions on the A5. This is a wonderful learning experience and I've really learned a lot. So thanks so much guys! I appreciate everyone's input!

[Promo]

No the Mann Neidner scope blocks are different. They use a recoil-locking technique.

[cplnorton]

No the Mann Neidner scope blocks are different. They use a recoil-locking technique.

So if you had to put a A5 on Unertl bases you would have to change the rings to #2's to do it?

And I would imagine you cannot interchange the Mann Neidner bases with Unertl bases on the receiver and barrel because they probably have different locations for the screw holes? I doubt they would be the same patterns and would interchange would they?

Am I correct in my thinking?

[Punch the Clown]

I can't see building an entire rifle around a WWII Remington replacement handguard. Why not get a set of Steve Earle blocks and see where you stand, without the handguard.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

So if you had to put a A5 on Unertl bases you would have to change the rings to #2's to do it?

And I would imagine you cannot interchange the Mann Neidner bases with Unertl bases on the receiver and barrel because they probably have different locations for the screw holes? I doubt they would be the same patterns and would interchange would they?

Am I correct in my thinking?


No. The base screw hole spacings are the same, as is the base separation (7.2").

Whoever changed those bases was a relative amateur. Look at the bottoms of the screws where they were cut. Whoever cut them did not radius the rough cut thread ends to avoid thread damage. NO Corps armorer would have left them in that condition. Look at the holes in the spacers. They appear to have contact with the threads due to being the same size or slightly undersized. A Corps armorer would have drilled the shim holes slightly over sized to avoid this. The spacer would have been slightly smaller that the bottom of each base so it would not be visible when assembled. Little things that make the difference between an expert and a wanna be.

The reason the base has a spacer on one side is that the two bases were not level with each other when installed. This usually happens when the holes are not in alignment, making that base slightly rotated from the other. I use a Sun Optics and a Forster Drill Jig to drill and tap my rifles. Find one, take your barreled action and pace it in the jig and check the center line of the holes to see if the two bases are aligned in the vertical plane. I suspect you will find the front two holes slightly rotated from the axis of the rear holes. If they check out OK, replace the front base.

Level the barrel and check to see if the two bases are level in the same horizontal plane (put a long accurate level across the tops of the two installed bases). The bases' tops should be dead level with each other.

Good luck!

jt:1948:

[cplnorton]

Thanks so much for your help Jim!

[cplnorton]

I've been digging. Not that this proves anything at all with my rifle, which it doesn't. But I find some of this info really intersting because it's much different than what I thought a couple weeks ago about the 1941's. This might explain though why we are finding differences from rifle to rifle.

This is all taken from the book named, "US Marine Corps Scout Sniper World War II and Korea," by Peter Senich, it was made in 1993.

But in the book they have a interview with Colonel Walter R. Walsh who was the officer who established and commanded the USMC scout sniper school at New River starting in late 1942. This interview starts on page 165. The interview was done in 1990. Colonel Walsh I guess was also part of the rifle team in the 1930's so he was familiar with the rilfes pre-WW2 and then went on to create the basis of the sniper program.


Here are some of the interesting quotes he said.



"Rifles began arriving from Philadelphia almost immediately, about the same time, as I remember. They came in huge green boxes and had scopes on them. These were the same scopes we had used on the USMC Rifle team in the matches. By the time I left the school in mid 43, there were about 100 (03) sniper rifles with scopes there. I'm certain the scopes were mostly Unertl, although we had also used Lyman and Fecker scopes on the rifle teams. Some of these could have been in the sniper program since much of the rifle team equipment and people were involved with the program at large."



"The same situations existed with the care and maintenance of the sniper rifles in the user units. The rifle/scope combinations were held in unit inventories and maintained there. Maintenance was not always of the highest quality; thus any reports about sniper effectiveness have to be weighed against these variables, if known. Also, care given the rifles and scopes in the field varied with the individual, some giving better care than others. Obviously the level of performance was directly affected by this factor. The school at New River had it's own armorers, but they performed only basic routine maintenace on the sniper rifles. Major, higher echelon maintenance was performed at Philadelphia if required. During my short tenure there, no rifles were returned to Philadelphia, however."



"The sniper rifles were USMC Rifle Team National Match 03's made at Springfield Armory and used by the team in the 1930's. They all had polished bolts and most had "C" stocks, although some team rifles still had straight "S" stocks, some of the older shooters, having started with the straight stocks, preferred to stay with them even after the pistol-grip C stocks became standard. "



"All team rifles were carefully worked over with the major effort expended on getting the bedding correct. As I recollect, correct bedding of the barreled action was a 6 o'clock bed. Where the barrel touched the stock only at the forend at the 6 o'clock position."

[cplnorton]

Also in "US Marine Corps Scout Sniper World War II and Korea," by Peter Senich, it was made in 1993.



They also have a interview with Stan Deka who was a WWII Marine Scout sniper trained in New Zealand from the 2nd Marine Division. He was a scout sniper on Tarawa, Tinian, and Saipan. Now I should state that another question he was asked if he saw any other scopes than Unertls and he said No. But the one question that he was asked that I found intersting is this one. The first sentence is the question asked by the interviewer, then his answer below.

"Were you resonsible for taking care of your weapon, or was it taken to a unit armorer for repair or adjustment?"

-"We maintained our own weapons; very few repairs were needed."



I'm going to keep digging. But if they maintained their own weapons that might be why we are finding so many differences in them from rifle to rifle, such as some trigger housings are staked, some are not, and other differences. It just seems I never find two rifles the same. Even ones that experts agree are real snipers.

Now all this info woudn't make any difference if these rifles that were returned and rebuilt at say Philly after the war, which I imagine many were. And it doesn't prove anything at all on my rifle. Because what everyone has said so far, makes perfect sense. I just found it interesting because it's much different than what I had initially thought on the WWII Marine snipers. And I had thought I knew a decent amount on them. But the more I dig, the more I realize I didn't know much at all on them.

If you don't have the book, and like these snipers, get it. Man there is a lot of neat info in there. I'm still reading it. So I hope there are some more little tidbits in there like this. :)

[PhillipM]

This is the only picture needed to show this rifle did not have scope blocks applied at an arsenal. This is just somebody's match rifle.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/1903%20Marine%20sniper%20rifle/P1210730_zpsdv6r2qvl.jpg