WWI Sniper Scope Cases

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I have been looking at the WWI USMC sniper Win A5 scope cases, and there appear to be at least three versions, and I recently read that the "authenticate" USMC A5 scope case had only 6-loops and a leather strap. I believe that statement to be incorrect, and I believe I can so prove. If those who have these scope cases would post a two pictures, one of the full length of their scope case, and one of the inside of the scope cap, I would be appreciative. I suspect we have all seen Tom Jackson's most excellent scope case, and I believe that scope case is an example of the original issue scope cases for the Marine snipers.

If your scope case has a serial number or a name written on it, I may be able to give you much more information on your case and the sniper, which can only increase its value.

jt

[clintonhater]

Photographs of every variation available from Winchester (5, I think) can be seen in Campbell's The Winchester Single Shot, Vol. 2.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I don't have that book, and the question was not how many variations there are, but which one was the original issue.

Thanks, Fred. Can you post a picture of them for the sake of clarity?

Jim

PS
I still like that rifle of yours.

[Promo]

The three I have - none is serialized nor marked.

[cplnorton]

I want to say I saw several listed in the WRA documents, but they make it clear on who was actually receiving it.

The Marine Corps Contract one they describe in great detail though. Almost every measurement is listed. But the Marine one was a six loop one and made from 7oz Russet leather.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I want to say I saw several listed in the WRA documents, but they make it clear on who was actually receiving it.

The Marine Corps Contract one they describe in great detail though. Almost every measurement is listed. But the Marine one was a six loop one and made from 7oz Russet leather.

Gunner Steve Estock had one of the first, if not the first, sniper rifles issued, and his scope case is an 8-loop. It is now owned by Tom Jackson, and you have probably seen photos of it.

jt

[cplnorton]

I do have WRA documents that detail a 8 loop one somewhere in one of the piles, but I think I honestly found them in the commercial files after WWI. If I remember the document right it just sort of sounded like they were a commerical sales item.

The Marines and Army both ordered the same cases on three seperate contracts during the War. Which those were a little over 2,000 cases. But when you read the descriptions of those contracts, they all just say the 6 loop.

It could have been a private purchase item maybe.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I do have WRA documents that detail a 8 loop one somewhere in one of the piles, but I think I honestly found them in the commercial files after WWI. If I remember the document right it just sort of sounded like they were a commerical sales item.

The Marines and Army both ordered the same cases on three separate contracts during the War. Which those were a little over 2,000 cases. But when you read the descriptions of those contracts, they all just say the 6 loop.

It could have been a private purchase item maybe.

All known WWI USMC sniper rifles have 8-loop russet scope cases with a web strap. I have never seen a six loop. I was hoping someone would post one. When the rifles were issued, they were taken to the range and the settings for different ranges were established. The rifle's scope zero was always zero @ 100 yds. In the scope cap, a disc was placed with the settings, the serial number of the rifle, and the name of the Marine to whom it was issued. Bear in mind, some Marines who attended the school were never going to be snipers or scouts due to rank or duty station (like instructor or unit commander, etc.). I'm not certain how their rifles/scopes they used were marked,if they were. Upon the death of a sniper, the rifle and scope were re-issued.

Have you ever seen a 6-loop scope case that can be associated with a known sniper?

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim, I guess anymore I question everything unless I have a document that proves it. We are pulling more documents out of a archive location literally every week and what they say usually does not match what is accepted now. A lot of these Marine 1903 rifles have been floating around for almost a 100 years and been through many hands. And after finding the Marine team docs, they were building these A5 rifles for over 20 years after the Winchester contract ended. So you have many different build and rebuild era's of A5 rifles with even just the Marines, which leads to many different possibilies and variations. So I tend to rely more on what I can actually prove in either period pictures or actual documents from that time period. It's sort of hard to base research on stuff that exists today as there are a lot of variables and possibilites on how it became that way in that equation.

But I have copies of all the archived WRA WWI files at Cody, and there is no mention of WRA producing a 8 loop case for the Marines. The only case that I can prove 100% going to the Marines in 1917/18/19 is a 6 loop.

I will never say never and there might be a very valid explanation for a 8 loop case, but I have a ton of documents from this era and I haven't seen it yet.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I think you have it backwards. No document trumps the physical existence of an entity. I can show you documents from long ago that stated the Earth was the center of the universe. I have an old document around here somewhere that claimed it was a scientific impossibility for man to exceed the speed of 24 mph before the air was sucked out of his lungs. The 8-loop A5 scope cases exist. The scope cases were sold by the sniper's families, and for them to have been faked in exactly the same way by individuals who did not know each other is just not possible. Gunner Estock, a South Alabama boy, had his case sold by his family. I know the man who sold Sgt. LaValley's A5 scope case on eBay, and he didn't even understand what it was. It 's pretty much the same story for the other known scope cases. All of them are 8-loop scope cases, and most can be traced by the data in them to known snipers. I have a picture of Gunner Estock holding his scope case, but you can't see the loops.

To date, no one has shown me a 6-loop A5 scope case that can be attributed to the Corps sniper program in any way. I doubt they exist.

jt

[cplnorton]

Well Jim we will just agree to disagree.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve,
I am not certain what it is we disagree over. We know the 8-loop A5 scope cases exist and were issued to known snipers in early 1918. This can be documented with pictures and documents. So no disagreement there. We know there was a contract that stipulates an order for 6-loop scope cases. No argument there. What we don't know is if those 6-loop scope cases were actually made and delivered since neither of us has seen one that can be traced to any sniper or even the Corps itself. Agreed? I concede I do not know whether the 6- loop scope cases exist, and if I understand your post, you do think so. Therefore I don't necessarily disagree with you, I am just seeking some physical proof they exist and were used by the Corps sniper detachments.

That is the purpose of the original post. I am seeking a photo of a 6-loop scope case with the tell-tale data in the cap documenting it as a Corps A5 scope case. Let's see what comes our way.

Regards,

jt

[cplnorton]

Actually I have never seen any Marine/WRA documention of any 8 loop cases in the Marines or at WRA.

On the WRA side I probably pulled over 5000 documents from Cody, that detail all the WWI Contracts. I have zero mentions of a 8 loop case. But I have several mentions of a 6 loop going to the Marines. Jim I can prove that 6 loop cases were sent to the Marines as well as the Army.

We pulled all the labeled Marine Documents at the archives from this era and went through them all. We did find several documents from the Marine side for the Winchester orders. The rifles are described in greater detail than the cases. The cases just say leather cases. So that is not any proof of either.

I have all the Neidner shop records for the Marine Corps for 1916 and 1917, there are no mentions of Neidner selling any cases to the Marines.

I have never seen any actual 1917/18 pictures of a 8 loop case in actual use.

The only proof I've seen of a Marine 8 loop case is a very few with a Marine name typewritten inside the lid. Many of which came through a dealer hands. Which it only takes a blank card and an old typerwriter from the day and a name from a roster. Sorry to say, but it would take me about five minutes to fake one. And there is no way you could prove it was real or not.

What I'm arguing Jim is the WRA documents do not mention a 8 loop case going to the Marines, they only mention a 6 loop case. And our only proof of a 8 loop case in the Marines is a few with typewritten names on the inside. I am not aware of any other proof.

Jim as I said, there might be a perfectly logical reason they exist, and maybe I haven't found it. Maybe there was some contract for them, that wasn't archived, or maybe they went through another supplier to get them. Maybe the Marines scrounged/ordered them from someone other than Winchester. Or they bought them after WWI.

But Winchester does not mention they made a 8 loop for the Marines during the war. So how do you prove they are real?

[cplnorton]

Jim I use this as case in point.

The Marine Unertl sniper rifle in Brophy's book, I think anyone who knows these rifles would say it doesn't look real. But that rifle in that book has #10 sights. As soon as that one seemed to show up in a book, you start to see Unertl rifles show up with #10 sights.

But the problem with this is, when you look at the actual documents, the order to remove all #10 sights from the Marine Corps happened 7 years before the Unertl rifles were even converted. They were done with those sights and condemned them. What what makes it even more problematic is in the documents it actually describes the sights used on the Unertl snipers and they are not #10 sights.

So to me I think what happened is they saw the rifle in Brophy's book, or some expert told them #10 sights were correct on them, so people started to add them to their rifles.

The same can be said with the star guage stamp at the muzzle on Unertl rifles. Even though I have documents proving that the Marines replaced the barrels with standard barrels. You see real snipers with a Marine replaced barrel and a faked star guage stamp at the muzzle. Someone just added it because someone or a book told them that was correct. So they faked it to make it seem correct.

That is why I do not trust traits anymore. There are too many possibilities of people adding or removing stuff. Usually if you search long enough you will find the actual document that describes the item at the time it was made.

And as I've said several times, maybe I will find a document someday to prove they did exist. I'm still actively looking for A5 documents. I have a researcher buddy going to the Archives on Thursday as we found a location for A5 documents from 1918/19. And God only knows what they will say in there.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

"....and an old typerwriter from the day and a name from a roster". Show me a roster of WWI USMC snipers. I have looked for 5-years and can't find one. Yet every name found in an 8-loop scope case withe the data in the lid can be traced back to his time as a sniper. Either all were faked by one very knowledgeable faker, or they are all authentic.

I can provide you with the name of a very nice preacher who sold his father's A5 scope case, and his father was trained as a sniper at the OSD Scout-Sniper School and kept a detailed diary of his time in the Corps. I know the man who now owns that scope case. I have seen and held that scope case. All involved will attest to the fact that the scope case has the detailed data pasted inside the lid of the scope case. The scope case is identical (except for name, serial number, and values) to all the other known A5 scope cases. It is an 8-loop russet brown scope case. That scope case is not faked - period. Since the others are essentially identical to it, there is no way they are fakes.

The first sniper rifles issued were issued with A5 scopes in an 8-loop russet scope case.

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim, as I said earlier we will agree to disagree on this.

The snipers names are very easy to find. Just look down the Marine rosters from WWI and pick out the ones going to sniper school. Here is your Gunner Estock and a couple more from the same page he was on.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208232016%2011932%20PM.bmp_zp sh8mj8gm9.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208232016%2012941%20PM.bmp_zp slumorgsp.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208232016%2012628%20PM.bmp_zp srt6xauqj.jpg

[TDP0311]

Gunner Estock and Sgt LeValley came from regular duties in Cuba to HQ Company, Overseas Depot in Quantico in June of 1918. Gunner Estock was an instructor at this course, and both men would transfer to 3/11 and deploy with the 5th Marine Brigade in the late fall of 1918, with Gunner Estock taking a commission as a 2nd Lt. Due to the late timing of their departure, they would not see combat. It also is very likely the rifles they deployed with would be from the WRA contract, as the earlier Neidner built rifles would have left with the 5th & 6th in 1917.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve, Are you saying you believe the existing 8-loop scope cases with sniper's names in them are all fakes?

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Gunner Estock and Sgt LeValley came from regular duties in Cuba to HQ Company, Overseas Depot in Quantico in June of 1918. Gunner Estock was an instructor at this course, and both men would transfer to 3/11 and deploy with the 5th Marine Brigade in the late fall of 1918, with Gunner Estock taking a commission as a 2nd Lt. Due to the late timing of their departure, they would not see combat. It also is very likely the rifles they deployed with would be from the WRA contract, as the earlier Neidner built rifles would have left with the 5th & 6th in 1917.

The Neidner rifles left with the 6th Regiment, as the 5th was already in France before Neidner started his work.

Jim.

[TDP0311]

Archival documents we have found show Niedner began his main mounting run in May (some were done considerably earlier), and finished in early June. He was paid before the 5th Marines, who sailed during the 3rd week of June departed. There was ample time for the portion allotted to the 5th Marines to leave with them for France.

[cplnorton]

Jim this is my honest thoughts on this.

A Winchester contract detailing 8 loops going to the Marine Corps is undeniable proof. A Marine picture that you can document to WWI, where you could count 8 loops on a case is proof it's possible. A Marine Corps letterhead document decribing a 8 loop case would also be proof. I do not think any reasonable person would argue that a 8 loop case is not Marine, if presented with one of these facts. If I was presented with this info, I would be ok cool. Yeah they did have 8 loop cases.

A typewritten name in a case that was found 80 to 100 years after it was made. I don't see that as absolute proof. Especially when you consider you only see a few of them. I see that as something of interest and it would need a lot more research. And to confirm it and say it is fact, you would need to find documentation or a photo from WWI to prove it. I think basing all your evidence on a few cases, without any documentation from WWI, leaves a lot of room for argument.

It especially raises arguments when you say that the 8 loop was the Marine contract, when the WRA docs specifically state it was a 6 loop.

I think to prove it, you need to find a document or a picture from WWI. You need something from that time period that proves it is possible the Marines had a 8 loop case.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

At least you spelled his name correctly - I didn't. You need to check your dates. The dates Niedner did the work and the date, at least the month, he was paid are fairly well known. You are incorrect on both counts.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve, You need to carefully reread my posts. I can only caution you against accepting typewritten words over physical proof.

jt

[cplnorton]

Well Jim, I have to admit I'm lost with this discussion. I really am. As I told you privately this is why I finally decided to stop sending you all the new documentation that I found a while ago. It just leads to a fight because you say the documents are wrong. But I don't get how anyone can argue that if Winchester says the Marine Contract specifically states they were 6 loop cases, that somehow Winchester was wrong about what they were shipping?

Now you are arguing with TDP0311 and I have no clue where you are basing this argument on.

On August 18, 1917, the FBI interviewed Adolph Neidner and this is exaclty what Neidner said himself to the FBI Agents. This was 3 months after Neidner compeleted the work.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208232016%2090753%20PM.bmp_zp s4ehyqvxj.jpg

This is from Neidner's own Journal and is from Micheael Petrov's papers. After he passed, his notes were archived. I found the location of his notes, and had all the Marine notes pulled from the Neidner files. Many of which Micheal never shared with anyone. It was just lucky this stuff was archived and not lost to the ages when Petrov passed. This is Neidner's own handwriting from his June 1917 Ledger. He put down the date of June 1st as the date. July 13th he went back and marked it was paid. This is confirmed by flipping over to Neidner's seperate CASH journal, and looking at the date July 13th 1917 which again says he was paid $1500 by the Marine Corps. The FBI went looking for Neidner on June 28th 1917, and he was already gone from the Philadlephia Depot. So he didn't work on these rifles from June 1st to July 13th. That is not correct at all.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208242016%2064825%20AM.bmp_zp sohsjfkmj.jpg


So how can you say TDP0311 is wrong? When Neidner himself even says what TDP0311 is saying is correct? I'm lost with all this Jim. Where is what you are saying coming from? If what TDP0311 is wrong, post proof he is wrong.

[cplnorton]

Neidner also converted several rifles for the Marines in August/September 1916. This is proven again in the Neidner Journal.

To me TDP0311's point that it's possible rifles left with the 5th Regiment, is very feasible. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise at this point.

[clintonhater]

What we don't know is if those 6-loop scope cases were actually made and delivered since neither of us has seen one that can be traced to any sniper or even the Corps itself.
jt

There's one associated with an identified sniper shown in Brophy, p. 506, which perhaps you've forgotten, as I don't doubt you're very familiar with the book. Another, though not traceable to USMC, is shown on the same page. (The latter is black leather, which Joe Poyer said meant post-war production.) The 8-loop case shown on p. 503 he calls a "standard commercial" case.

However, nobody is too great an "authority" to made mistakes; a couple of Brophy's comments about the differences between the A5 and 5A are incorrect.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There's one associated with an identified sniper shown in Brophy, p. 506, which perhaps you've forgotten, as I don't doubt you're very familiar with the book. Another, though not traceable to USMC, is shown on the same page. (The latter is black leather, which Joe Poyer said meant post-war production.) The 8-loop case shown on p. 503 he calls a "standard commercial" case.

However, nobody is too great an "authority" to made mistakes; a couple of Brophy's comments about the differences between the A5 and 5A are incorrect.


The scope case you refer to is the Pvt. A. A. Groupe scope case, and yes, I am familiar with it and the fact it is a 6-loop scope case. I was hoping whoever owns it would post more pictures of it. Pvt. Groupe was one of the later trained snipers at OSD.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Well Jim,....So how can you say TDP0311 is wrong? When Neidner himself even says what TDP0311 is saying is correct? I'm lost with all this Jim. Where is what you are saying coming from? If what TDP0311 is wrong, post proof he is wrong.

Post proof he is wrong? He can't post proof he is right.

A number of years ago, Michael Petrov asked me to find what happened to Niedner's 150 rifles. He supplied me with a number of ledger entries showing work performed by Niedner doing work for the Corps. His original premise, as was mine, was that the 150-rifles were intended for the 4th Brigade. At that time, the general consensus was that the Corps had very few snipers in WWI, which would make the need for 150-sniper rifles questionable. Since that time, it has been discovered that the Marines had a plan for a sniper program from day-1, and it was a large operation run by some of the most competent Marines in the Corps.

I have the entire page for the Niedner ledger snippet you posted, but it is too large to include in this post and keeps getting my post kicked out of the system. So you know I am not BS'ing, the first date on the page is "July 9" and the ledger entry page number is "76". Please note the FBI entry you note is for work performed for the U. S. Army, not the Marine Corps. I don't see a connection. Unless there is some proof otherwise, I will take Niedner at his word and presume the ledger entry is correct.

I might point out that there was no rush to get sniper rifles to the 4th Brigade. The Henderson was continually making trips to France and the trip time was about 10-days one way. The Marines knew they faced months of training once they arrived in France. It only seems logical the rifles went with the 6th Marines. Until someone proves otherwise, I will continue to do so. It doesn't really make much difference who took them to France.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Please note the FBI entry you note is for work performed for the U. S. Army, not the Marine Corps. I don't see a connection. Unless there is some proof otherwise, I will take Niedner at his word and presume the ledger entry is correct.


Here is your proof Jim. All you need to do is read the next couple lines. Neidner did the work in May and June exactly as TDP0311 said.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Capt%20mcdougal_zpscf5pvbfq.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

OK, point made; now how do you reconcile the differing date intervals, both coming from Niedner? Do you automatically assume the FBI report is correct? Whoever is recording it is only writing down what Niedner is saying. You have presented two documents that present two conflicting dates. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to follow your line of reasoning, and you must have some reason for believing the FBI report over Niedner's ledger.

May I point out that it really makes no difference which months Niedner did the work, whether it was May and June or June and July, just as it doesn't matter whether the rifles went to France with the 5th or 6th Regiment. Amusingly enough, there was no Ordnance Department at the Marine Philly Depot until AFTER WWI. Makes one wonder why they picked the Philly Depot to modify the rifles. Could the work have been done at the Philly Arsenal - the Frankfort Arsenal?

Jim

[clintonhater]

What's more interesting to me than when the work was done was his wife's remark that "he doesn't mean what he says," which, combined with the reference to "German clubs," suggests he did not fear to conceal his distain for Wilson's program of demonizing "the Huns"--propaganda as vicious as anything produced by the Third Reich. Was that why he was being investigated by the FBI in the first place?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

That is my understanding. Niedner was an old Indian fighter and was Mayor of his town, and proud of his German heritage. He had many influential friends, and was considered a nice guy. I guess he let his mouth overload his brain.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Neidner also converted several rifles for the Marines in August/September 1916. This is proven again in the Neidner Journal.

To me TDP0311's point that it's possible rifles left with the 5th Regiment, is very feasible. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise at this point.


Those individuals were both Distinguished shooters on the Marine Rifle team. They were not snipers.

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....It especially raises arguments when you say that the 8 loop was the Marine contract, when the WRA docs specifically state it was a 6 loop....

I never said there was a contract for an 8-loop case.

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Well Jim, I have to admit I'm lost with this discussion.

So am I.


....This is Neidner's own handwriting from his June 1917 Ledger. He put down the date of June 1st as the date. July 13th he went back and marked it was paid. This is confirmed by flipping over to Neidner's seperate CASH journal, and looking at the date July 13th 1917 which again says he was paid $1500 by the Marine Corps. The FBI went looking for Neidner on June 28th 1917, and he was already gone from the Philadlephia Depot. So he didn't work on these rifles from June 1st to July 13th. That is not correct at all.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208242016%2064825%20AM.bmp_zp sohsjfkmj.jpg

I believe you have a valid interpretation of this issue. Michael Petrov and I both just assumed Niedner was referring to the time interval of his work and never gave it much thought, but further examination on my part supports your version more so than mine. On the grand scheme of things, it makes little difference, since the goal was, and is, to identify and locate the rifles; but I believe you are correct. What this tells me is the Corps never had any intention of awarding the 500 rifle contract to Niedner, as he thought.

Jim

[clintonhater]

What this tells me is the Corps never had any intention of awarding the 500 rifle contract to Niedner, as he thought.

Jim

Why did one of the most eminent custom gunsmiths in the country NEED the red tape of a gov't contract? Especially when he was going to have to leave his home to execute it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Why did one of the most eminent custom gunsmiths in the country NEED the red tape of a gov't contract? Especially when he was going to have to leave his home to execute it.

If you look at Niedner's ledger, $1,500 was a huge sum of money for the man. Philadelphia is about 320 miles from Malden, so it wasn't so far away. The powers that were running the Corps sniper program needed, or better yet, wanted the Mann-Niedner mounts for the rifle, so Niedner was the ticket. At the time Niedner was doing the mounts, time really was no big issue. There is a Niedner ledger entry where the Corps paid him $140. I believe that was payment for the use of the M-N mounts on the remaining rifles assembled by WRA, but I have no proof of same. Although I assume one exists, I have not seen a patent for the Mann-Niedner base.

jt

[cplnorton]

At this time Neidner was a small time gunsmith. He mostly did work for organizations around the Massachusetss area. He worked out of a small garage at his house, so that is why it became necessary to go to the Philly Depot to accomplish a larger work order.

It doesn't say the exact date, but in the middle of June it appears when he was done with the Marine contract he went out drinking. While drunk he talked with 3 guys and made some comments that he just had finished converted rifles for the military and he hoped the people who used his rifles would be killed or something like that. He was a German Immigrant, so the 3 guys contacted the FBI and told them he said this. Which the FBI was concerned he might have potentially sabotaged the rifles.

That is why the FBI was interviewing everyone around him, and you see the comment from his wife.

But that is what launched the investigation into Neidner and they were actively contacting Philadelphia Depot with concerns that Neidner might have sabotaged the sniper rifles on June 28th 1917. This I'm sure is what actually cancelled his contract. I imagine if the FBI tells you they are investigating him for sabotaging those rifles, the Marines weren't going to have him back to do more. So you then see four days later the Marines call Winchester and have them contracted to finish the remaining rifles. Which Winchester was not ready for this contract it seems at all, and you see them seem sort of concerned about it.

The blocks were not patented by Neidner. They were pattented by Dr. Franklin Mann. The same person who the Mann Acccuracy devices are named after. He did record breaking studies on ammo accuracy at the turn of the century and was really quite famous at the time. He is the one who owned all the patents to these tapered blocks. But he passed away in 1916. All the records from back then state that since Mann and Niedner had worked together many times and were friends, he continued to use Mann's blocks after he passed. But I have never found any evidence at all that Neidner gained legal control of these patents after he died though. So I do not beleive Neidner would have even been legally able to sell those rights.

But this is why also the blocks are also named Mann- Neidner blocks. Because they were created by Dr. Mann, and used by Neidner on his rifles. But this is OUR name today we call them. That is not what they were called back then. They were not called Marine blocks, or special Marine Blocks or anything like that. In fact Neidner used them on all his rifles, so these were not exclusive to the Marines.

But back then the official names of these blocks were Mann Tappered blocks. The Marines only called them Tappered blocks.

As far as WRA using the Mann Neidner blocks, everything I have read on the WRA side and the actual Marine documents. I am pretty convinced that Winchester did not use the Mann Neidner blocks. All the detailed contracts and even the actual Wincehster pictures from this time show them using another block that they had named the Springfield Marine Block. But I don't want to get in this argument at this time. lol I'm emotionally spent on all whole discussion already. So I'm not going to get into it. But I honeslty didn't find anything that makes me think that WRA used a Mann Neidner tappered block desing. Everything pointed to one WRA had actually created which they named Marine. That is why all the confusion. Everyone has always assumed the Mann Neidner was the Marine blocks, when Winchester had their own design they named Marine. The whole confusion of all this, is a play on words.

Brophy was onto this I think. And you can sort of pick some of this in his book. He just didn't have the Marine side documents which I think would have probably pushed him over the edge about it.

It's like Trench Gun shotguns. You will never find anywhere back then they called them Trench Guns. That is our collector name for them. Back then they were called Riot Guns with Bayonet adaptor. Many times people confuse the terms we call stuff now and assume they called them the same back then. They didn't.

But like I said I don't want to get in that fight right now.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....But that is what launched the investigation into Neidner and they were actively contacting Philadelphia Depot with concerns that Neidner might have sabotaged the sniper rifles on June 28th 1917. This I'm sure is what actually cancelled his contract.

Are you saying Niedner had a contract for all the rifles initially?


But back then the official names of these blocks were Mann Tappered blocks. The Marines only called them Tappered blocks.

I can provide a document from the period where the Marines refer to them as "taper block Marine Corps type". The following is from a Marine Corps document. (The system will not let me post the clip - will try again later).


As far as WRA using the Mann Neidner blocks, everything I have read on the WRA side and the actual Marine documents. I am pretty convinced that Winchester did not use the Mann Neidner blocks. All the detailed contracts and even the actual Wincehster pictures from this time show them using another block that they had named the Springfield Marine Block.

How do you explain all the modified scopes having Mann-Neidner bases? I'm not sure what pictures to which you refer, but I would love to see a picture of a WWI USMC documented sniper rifle without Mann-Niedner bases.


Everyone has always assumed the Mann Neidner was the Marine blocks, when Winchester had their own design they named Marine. The whole confusion of all this, is a play on words.

The "Marine Springfield Mount" is a block that is required to mount an A5 scope on 7.2" centers. All 03 rifles with scopes mounted on 7.2" centers use them to this day. They are not particular to the Corps, and every commercial gunsmith that mounted an A5 scope on 7.2" centers used those bases. If I recall, the WRA drawing of this base is dated 1925 or so.

Are you now conceding that WRA mounted the scopes and not the Philly Depot?

[cplnorton]

Are you saying Niedner had a contract for all the rifles initially?

That is exactly what the FBI report states.

[cplnorton]

I can provide a document from the period where the Marines refer to them as "taper block Marine Corps type". The following is from a Marine Corps document. (The system will not let me post the clip - will try again later).


Jim look at exactly what I said. I said there is NO proof that Winchester used the Mann Neidner, or a tappered block. When did I EVER say Philadelphina Depot didn't use them? And I said the Marines called them Tappered blocks. Well how is what you are saying any different than what I am saying? Everything I say in this post is about the rifles done during the 1917/18 era. Post WWI is a totally different era in the A5 history.

Now you come back and say you have proof from a document. Well Jim I'm the one who sent this out to everyone back in Febuary, so I am quite familiar with this one. First it's not NOT a Marine document as you state. It's from the Marine Gazette or Leatherneck Magazine dated Dec 1925, that is talking about the currect activities at the Philadelphia Depot. So it's not the official document you portay it to be. It's a magazine.

And what you haven't figured out in all this Jim, and I said this earlier, is they never stopped putting A5 rifles together. From the Marine team docs, it looks like they made them as needed, and they were still building them as late as 1941 for the training.

There is not just one tappered block out there Jim. This is a big clue to all of this. And as I said the Marines called them Tappered blocks. But that isn't what Winchester called them.

If you are going to imply that you have some kind of proof that WRA made a tappered block design, you might want to make the Magazine doesn't say the tappered block design was developed and made at Philadelphia Depot.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/marine%20tappered%20blocks_zps3kcmyig2.jpg

[cplnorton]

Jim I'm going to be completely honest. If you haven't figured out by now, if I say something anymore I have a document that backs up what I said. I will never say I'm not wrong on something, because if you say that, you are full of it. Because with every document you find, you learn that much more. And we are finding new documents every week. A researcher friend jus yesterday pulled out a bunch of sniper docs in France, so I'm excited to see what they say. But if I say it anymore Jim, I have a document to back it up.

Jim, I've decided I'm not going to post anymore documents for you. All I'm doing is making your research better and it cost me a lot of money to figure this all out, and a better part of a year to find. If you want to know this stuff, I suggest you go find it. Just as I did.

If you think Winchester used a tappered block design, find proof. There is nothing on the Winchester side that says this in anyway. There is nothing on the Marine side that says Winchester used a tappered block design.

In fact if you use logic on this Jim.


Adolf Neidner said in the FBI report that he was going to finish all the Marine rifles when he was done with his vacation. This is detailed in the FBI report. In fact it sounds like Neidner didn't even know his contract was cancelled when he was interviewed by the FBI.

June 28th, a week or two after he completed the first 150 rifles at Philly. The FBI contacted the Philadelphia Depot and said we suspect all the rifles Neidner just did for you are sabotaged. They wanted the rifles to be examined for flaws, as they thought Neidner did something to them that could hurt the shooter.

Four days later the Marines contacted Winchester to do all the remaining contracts that Neinder was supposed to do.

Do you seriously think the Philadelphia Depot said four days later, "Hey Winchester, this Neidner guys design is so great, that the FBI is at our door step saying all of his riles are sabotaged. But can you please go ahead and make the rifles exactly like Neidner did for us?

And this is just logical thinking Jim. This isn't even factoring in that I have detailed Despriptions of the contracts and original Winchester factory pictures.

[cplnorton]

Jim for the rest of what you said, It's not even worth discussing. Because it would take me posting documents, and I'm done with that. In fact I'm really done with this whole thing. Anything I say, you just argue with it. And I'm not even sure where you are pulling your info from.

I think I have provided enough that the reader can decide on this whole conversation. And this isn't worth the frustration anymore. So I'm going to bow out of this one.

Good luck to you Jim on your research.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The only document I have ever received from you that I didn't already have was the FBI report. Don't think you are doing my research, because you aren't. In the past five years I have filled quite a few cardboard boxes with documents, and I am certain you have a few by now. You are pulling a lot of documents, and that is fine; but don't ignore the physical evidence. I have advised you to be cautious in what you say. I will give you an example. In our email exchange, you expressed the belief that the Philly Depot mounted the scopes for the Corps - not WRA. I knew that the Philly Depot didn't have an Ordnance Section until after the war (they did not repair or work on rifles until after the war - check it out). It is highly unlikely the Philly Depot mounted any of the scopes, as they were very busy equipping the 4th and 5th Brigades for war.

My search has always been to identify the rifles, and I am not concerned with who mounted what or when. Along the way, I have found some of the same documents you have found, but I concentrated on physical evidence more so than documents. If you own a 1969 Pinto, you don't need a document to prove Ford made a 1969 Pinto. You dismiss the 8-loop scope cases by saying they are fakes. They aren't, as any high-end collector will tell you. Some can be traced back to the still living family members who originally sold them. I have done so, and so have others. FYI, it appears the 8-loop scope cases were the first issued, and later in the year, I believe there were 6-loop cases issued. That is why I have always been interested in Pvt. Groupe's scope case - it is a 6-loop. I would drive half way across the country to examine it as I have done with 8-loop scope cases that are "un-published" so to speak. Your document doesn't change the physical fact that all the known early scope cases are 8-loop. The purpose of my original post was to see if I could find a 6-loop scope case from early 1918.

You seem to think you are the only person who has pulled documents. I can assure you that we both have been preceded by many, many researchers. I just want to identify the rifles, and I doubt your documents will ever do that for me.

To me, any discussion about 03's is worth the frustration.

Good luck.

Jim

[Ed Byrns]

"Mommy ,mommy stop them from yelling ,my head hurts"
I respect both Jim and Steve and the research they have done and will continue to do.
But were comparing apples and oranges here . Jim for most of his research life has been involved in Serial Numbers.
And Steve gravitates towards the snipers along with serial number research.
So ,all the data on this subject is not found yet and actually will never be.
There are things I do know about the USMC in the first half of the 20th Century.
They never had two nickels to rub together(because they were afraid to cut the one the had in half)
To the Navy department,the USMC was the Orphanage,where all the outdated ,broken or worn out equipment went.
And when it got there The USMC was overjoyed to get it.
At the USMC "unservicable " meant "new arrival".
The Navy Department was never ,lets say Kind to the USMC and following WW1 Gen.Pershing wanted
the USMC absorbed into the Army,but the Navy didn't ,Because of lost of revenue for them.
The Sniper programs in the USMC have never completely been explored as far a serial numbers ,when concerning 1903s,
and may never be.Serial numbers in the archive between WRA and SA are somewhat ambiguous,due to the fact that
30/06 ammunition had become problematic and WRA was doing so much testing(of ammo and rifle tests) to come
to a conclusive answer.A great deal of the correspondence between SA and WRA is about this problem.
The final answer is that the USMC would accept almost anything that they could use to be better,they may never be an answer for the Scope Scabbard
and its configuration ,because they got what they could whenever possible.
The USMC use of the VB grenade and launcher sums it all up.By 1918 ,The French and US Armies discontinued use of it ,because of one reason,
It was Dangerous. Low and behold the USMC used it till the beginning of WW2,and had plenty of them in their Ordnance system.
I think they refer to this as dumpster diving.
Respectfully submitted
Ed Byrns

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Howdy, Ed. I hope you are faring well. Give me a call someday when you aren't busy. I will tell you all about my latest project - a LSR (Land Speed Racer). I am going to run it at Bonneville next year. I hope to have the fastest blown fuel 750 cc flathead Harley in the world. I am having a ball building it. Jim Lieneweber designed the cams for it.

I really think the real issue in understanding the WWI USMC sniper program is nomenclature and knowing who dreamed up the program and why and how they did it. For example, most documents I have seen refer to the modified mounts and bases simply as #2 mounts, which they are, albeit highly modified. Yet in communication after communication, the modified mounts are simply referred to as #2 mounts. To really understand the USMC sniper program, one needs to understand who was running the sniper program from the Marine side, and why. It was they who asked for the modifications, and they had a good reason for each modification.

The A5 scopes with modified mounts are fairly common. I have three of them myself, and I know individuals that have more of them than I do. I was privileged to see a scope cabinet built to house nothing but USMC scopes. The cabinet was about 10' long x 5' tall, and had individual drawers for each scope. That person had more A5's than I will ever see again in my lifetime. They sell on eBay and other auctions on a regular basis. They all have Mann-Niedner bases. Have you ever seen one that didn't? They number in the hundreds. The named (sniper) scope cases are more rare, but when found, they are, with one exception to my knowledge, are 8-loop scope cases. They are the 800 lb gorilla in the room. On the other side, not a single A5 scope with modified mounts and 7.2" center common bases (knob on base receptacle attached to scope - the "Marine Springfield" bases supposedly developed by WRA) has ever surfaced, again to my knowledge. The powers that were (PTW) in the Corps wanted a base system that allowed the scope to be removed quickly with a firm bump of the hand, yet be instantly returned to its mount with no lose of accuracy. That is why one sees the open sight elevations in the scope cases. The PTW knew there would be many instances when the open sights would be preferable to a scope. Scope damage was a serious concern in an environment where Marines had their clothing shot to pieces by machine guns and shrapnel (Lt. Cates, later Commandant Cates, was a good example at Bourches). An 800 yd shot was nothing extraordinary for a typical WWI 4th Brigade Marine. Just look at what happened at Les Mare Farm. So the PTW made sure there was an alternative to the scope, and that the open sights could be accessed in an instant. Anyone who has tried to remove an A5 scope with regular mounts after it has been rained on or even gone through morning dew knows just how difficult it can be to turn those screws.

Don't think for an instant I can't document my claims also. I also have a source of information that is very detailed, and is not available in any archive (thanks to another good friend). This stuff didn't come to me in a dream.

Take care, Ed. My head hurts too.

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

[quote]....Now you come back and say you have proof from a document. Well Jim I'm the one who sent this out to everyone back in Febuary,

Not to me, you didn't.


....so I am quite familiar with this one. First it's not NOT a Marine document as you state. It's from the Marine Gazette or Leatherneck Magazine dated Dec 1925, that is talking about the currect activities at the Philadelphia Depot. So it's not the official document you portay it to be. It's a magazine.

Where did I use the word "official" and when and where did I portray it as "official"? Please don't embellish my statements to fit your preconceived notions, it is unprofessional and unethical at best. The magazine is published by the Corps to keep the Marines informed, and it is indeed a Marine Corps document, is it not? If you say it isn't, you are going to have to convince about a million Marines plus the Corps itself.


....And what you haven't figured out in all this Jim, and I said this earlier, is they never stopped putting A5 rifles together.

What are you talking about? The rifle teams used A5's for decades. Show me any statement I have ever made to the contrary. Are you making this stuff up as you go? Arms and the Man is full of pictures of rifle team Marines holding rifles with A5's. And you say I haven't figured it out yet? Where on earth did you get that idea?


There is not just one tappered block out there Jim. This is a big clue to all of this. And as I said the Marines called them Tappered blocks. But that isn't what Winchester called them.

A tapered block is a tapered block. You may change the angle or the height, but it is still a tapered block. Give it any name you want, but it is a Mann-Niedner base.


If you are going to imply that you have some kind of proof that WRA made a tappered block design, you might want to make the Magazine doesn't say the tappered block design was developed and made at Philadelphia Depot.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/marine%20tappered%20blocks_zps3kcmyig2.jpg

I was refuting your previous statement, which you have now done for me - thanks. That particular magazine issue was published in 1925, not 1917 The Ordnance Section at the Philly Depot was established in 1919, which you know by now; which makes your statements a little suspect. If you are trying to imply that the bases found on the modified A5 scopes is not a Mann-Niedner base, my response is BS! We all know that after the war, the Ordnance Section at Philly Depot made anything needed for a 1903 rifle. I think you are getting a bit confused.

I tried repeatedly to post that same clip, but Jouster kept telling me it had too many characters (over 800,000). How did you post it?

The tone of your post is less than desirable. Let's just stick to facts and opinions and leave embellishments out of the exchange and not presume you know what I have, or have not, figured out. I posted a request for pictures of scope cases, and you tell me, and the world, they are all fakes without one whit of documentation to back up your assertion. I told you why I believe them to be the issued scope cases (physical evidence), but you have offered nothing in return.

I have told you before, and I tell you again - beware of how you interpret documents. By the way, I don't think for one second that the word "developed" in the magazine clip means "invented". I think it means they developed the capability to make Mann-Niedner bases.

Regards,

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim I disagree with many of the statements you have made, but it's not worth my time nor my energy to even respond. Your recollection of events and mine are quite different. It's up to the reader to decide. :hello:

As far as your constant need to try to belittle me and give me advice on how to be a better researcher. I think I have already proved I am quite capable to research on my own and if I say something, I have the proof to back it up. :)

Have a good life Jim.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim I disagree with many of the statements you have made, but it's not worth my time nor my energy to even respond. Your recollection of events and mine are quite different. It's up to the reader to decide. :hello:

I have no idea what you are talking about. All our communications are written records. Conserve your energy.


As far as your constant need to try to belittle me and give me advice on how to be a better researcher. I think I have already proved I am quite capable to research on my own and if I say something, I have the proof to back it up. :)

I have only encouraged you. Look back at any post or email. If you think advising you to be careful how you interpret documents is belittling you, you have reached a sad state of affairs. You have changed through the months. You started out a cheerful fact finding guy. You have found whatever you have found and have now become paranoid that people are trying to "get your data". I doubt you have any document others have not seen, but if by chance you do - congratulations. It changes nothing I have done or am trying to do. If you fall apart every time someone asks you to document some adverse claim you make (which you still haven't done), you have a hard row to hoe. Back in the day, JB used to take me to task on a fairly frequent basis, and he can do so with the fewest words of any man I have ever met. Just ask RTL. I admire JB a ton, and I realized he was trying to help.

By the way, pulling documents from archives does NOT make you a researcher per se. You will eventually discover your boxes of documents are like mine - they won't change history. During WWI, there was a huge shortage of materials from tin to leather. They often had to improvise and use what they had to meet deadlines. I don't think WRA was in the leather business, and I suspect they sent what they could find. You may produce a contract for 6-loop scope cases, but they sent 8-loop cases.

I wish you nothing but luck in your endeavors to find whatever it is you are seeking, but if you make a claim that is contrary to known history, you can expect someone to call your hand.

Life is good.

Jim

[Promo]

It might sound stupid but might be due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker, but what do you understand by "8 loop" and "6 loops" scope case?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It might sound stupid but might be due to the fact that I'm not a native speaker, but what do you understand by "8 loop" and "6 loops" scope case?

The shoulder strap passes through a number of loops attached to the case. 8-loop has six loops on the lower portion of the case and two on the lid. A 6-loop has four loops on the lower portion of the case and two on the lid. The three scope cases you posted in the first part of this thread are all 8-loops (one appears to be missing its cap loops).

I would post pictures, but I can't seem to get Jouster to accept my photos or clips. Pics I have previously posted are suddenly "too many characters" and are rejected. Anyone got any idea what I am doing wrong?

[clintonhater]

At this time Neidner was a small time gunsmith. He mostly did work for organizations around the Massachusetss area. He worked out of a small garage at his house, so that is why it became necessary to go to the Philly Depot to accomplish a larger work order. ...

This is the first time since the hack-attack I've been able to access this site, and only by blocking ALL pop-ups. (Right now I'm receiving a notice of a pop-up blocked!)

Even working in a small garage, he must have owned all the machine tools needed to turn out premium quality barrels and other metal work, because his clientele was the most distinguished group of target shooters in the country at the time--the members of the Walnut Hill Club, many of whom were important inventors and innovators in their own right. For ex., what we now call target scope mounts were developed by a member of the Club named Willard, who never tried to patent them, but authorized his friend, scope-maker John Sidel, to manufacture them; called "Willard rings" at the time, they were soon copied by other makers, and his name forgotten. Most members of this club were more or less well to do gentlemen-sportsmen, so it's surprising that the sum of $1500 was such big money to him.

Neidner wrote two rather lengthy biographical pieces for the Rifleman in 1950, in which he mainly discusses his famous shooting companions of days gone by; but he doesn't say a word about how he got into the gunsmithing trade. Had he, as a youth, been apprenticed as a machinist, doesn't seem likely he'd ever have worked as a Milwaukee policeman.

[cplnorton]

This is the first time since the hack-attack I've been able to access this site, and only by blocking ALL pop-ups. (Right now I'm receiving a notice of a pop-up blocked!)

Even working in a small garage, he must have owned all the machine tools needed to turn out premium quality barrels and other metal work, because his clientele was the most distinguished group of target shooters in the country at the time--the members of the Walnut Hill Club, many of whom were important inventors and innovators in their own right. For ex., what we now call target scope mounts were developed by a member of the Club named Willard, who never tried to patent them, but authorized his friend, scope-maker John Sidel, to manufacture them; called "Willard rings" at the time, they were soon copied by other makers, and his name forgotten. Most members of this club were more or less well to do gentlemen-sportsmen, so it's surprising that the sum of $1500 was such big money to him.

Neidner wrote two rather lengthy biographical pieces for the Rifleman in 1950, in which he mainly discusses his famous shooting companions of days gone by; but he doesn't say a word about how he got into the gunsmithing trade. Had he, as a youth, been apprenticed as a machinist, doesn't seem likely he'd ever have worked as a Milwaukee policeman.


This is what I have on Neidner. After finishing school he went into the hose buisness with his brothers. Then decided to go west and joined the US Calvalry. But he had always been around guns and ammunition. It says then he went to Milwaukee and became a police officer. This is where he married his polish wife. Around 1907 he came back to Walden, MA and started to work on rifles in a small space behind his house.

It details in his little space he had one lathe 9'' swing, one milling machine, and one upright drill, and the usual bench with the small hand tools. He also had electric power and lights.

Around 1920 he moved to MI and opened up his gun business there.

For the $1500 amount. It says that he had wanted to go back to go on a family trip for a while and didn't have the money and did this to get the money for the trip. That is what it says at least.

[5MadFarmers]

This is what I have on Neidner. After finishing school he went into the hose buisness with his brothers. Then decided to go west and joined the US Calvalry. But he had always been around guns and ammunition. It says then he went to Milwaukee and became a police officer. This is where he married his polish wife. Around 1907 he came back to Walden, MA and started to work on rifles in a small space behind his house.

It details in his little space he had one lathe 9'' swing, one milling machine, and one upright drill, and the usual bench with the small hand tools. He also had electric power and lights.

Around 1920 he moved to MI and opened up his gun business there.

For the $1500 amount. It says that he had wanted to go back to go on a family trip for a while and didn't have the money and did this to get the money for the trip. That is what it says at least.

Ok, that got me too curious for my own good.

Niedner (http://www.niedner.com/en/company-history.aspx)

Yes, that's the same Niedner family in spite of the "immigrated in 1895" claim as they were living together in 1902. Charles H, Charles L, and Adolph (Otto). Don't bother looking for the house as it's now a parking lot for a five story apartment building. House next door did survive - it's a side by side duplex now.

Niedner was in Milwaukee in 1888. He worked as a clerk for Roettcher & Schimmel. They were a retailer of carpet, wallpaper, etc., Pretty fair size. Don't bother looking for the store though as the street was renamed and the building dozed some time ago. If it helps it's about five blocks from the Harley-Davidson museum. While there walk North Water street as it's a lot of fun.

Married to Josie Malezeska on November 14th, 1887.

I suspect he had relatives there as Milwaukee is swimming in Niedners.

On January 9th, 1909, Niedner took first place in the Massachusetts Rifle Association off-hand match. Held at Walnut Hill, where-ever that is.

Niedner Rifle Corp was founded in the 2nd week of January, 1921, with $30,000 in stock. Niedner, William A. Stolley and C.W. Hendryx being the shareholders.

As an aside, in 1912 Niedner patented a rifle sight which appears to be an improvement to the M-1905 on the '03. He assigned his rights away.

[clintonhater]

This is where he married his polish wife...

Photo of her in the Rifleman piece--he evidently liked them large.

[PhillipM]

As an aside, in 1912 Niedner patented a rifle sight which appears to be an improvement to the M-1905 on the '03. He assigned his rights away.

Is there a picture of it somewhere?

[cplnorton]

Is there a picture of it somewhere?

Here is the rear sight Phillip. He also had a patent for a shell holder, but that is the only two patents I've ever been able to associate with him.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208312016%2060306%20AM.bmp_zp s7h1o0nvh.jpg

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/Fullscreen%20capture%208312016%2060358%20AM.bmp_zp snbkfobee.jpg

[PhillipM]

Thanks, Steve!

[Promo]

Forgotten Weapons made a video on three M1903 "snipers" in the upcoming James D. Julia auctions. Who wants to see it himself, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWICTS0g-E

What was interesting to me (aside the funny screw heads on all scope bases) was the leather scope can one rifle comes with. I captured a few screenshots, which fit into the discussion here - see attachment.

If I'm reading the serial of #645.991 correctly (please correct if someone has a different suggestion), it's not SRS listed, but right within a block of USMC rifles, and right next to a handful of SRS listed snipers in the 646.xxx serial range.

[cplnorton]

Yeah to me that rifle looks faked. Those blocks and screws look like repos.

On M.H. Van Camp. There is one match. Melvin H. Van Camp

-June 5th, 1917 Enlisted

-Till July 5th, 1918 He looks like he was just stationed at Marine Barracks Naval Yard New York

-July 5th 1918 He joined the Headquarters Overseas Depot Quantico VA

-August 26th, 1918 He is transferred to Co. M 3rd BN 13th Regiment


I don't show him being a CPL, but there were a lot of Temporary ranks back then so you would have to pull his whole file to see. But how he wrote on the bottom of the case Co. M 13th Regiment, it would have had to been after Aug 26th 1918 that he would have wrote that.

This is what I have around it. A lot of Marine rifles inter-twined. Both Telescopic equipped rifles and regular service rifles. Which this really matches what the docs say on how they were selected as well.


645755 013031USMC - HAITI 2nd Marines
645963 050141USMC - SAN DIEGO 2nd Marines
645991 A5 Case named to Melvin H. Van Camp Joined 13th Marines Aug 26, 1918
646008 042731USMC
646034 071731USMC
646035 013031USMC - HAITI 2nd Marines
646068SGS 071530USMC - NICARAGUA 5th Marines Telescopic rifle
646136SGS 071530USMC - NICARAGUA 5th Marines Telescopic rifle
646147 Boot Camp Rifle Leo L. Abbott USMC June 1917
646237SGS 031026USMC - PHILA DEPOT (SURVEYED) Telescopic rifle
646241SGS 071530USMC - NICARAGUA 5th Marines Telescopic rifle
646385 101331USMC
646389 102837USMCR - NEW ORLEANS (SURVEY)
646475SGS 031026USMC - PHILA DEPOT (SURVEYED) Telescopic rifle

[JWM]

I do have WRA documents that detail a 8 loop one somewhere in one of the piles, but I think I honestly found them in the commercial files after WWI. If I remember the document right it just sort of sounded like they were a commerical sales item.

The Marines and Army both ordered the same cases on three seperate contracts during the War. Which those were a little over 2,000 cases. But when you read the descriptions of those contracts, they all just say the 6 loop.

It could have been a private purchase item maybe.

What is the answer to the defining characteristics of the 6 loop case that Cpl Norton has brought forward, and what are the defining characteristics of the 8 loop case that Jim has mentioned? Is it possible that the 6 loop and the 8 loop cases being discussed are one and the same, in that the number six is derived from the number of loops on the case body, with the two on the case lid not being counted?

Interesting discussion and strong arguments on both sides. That said, Brophy's body of work and personal experience as a U.S. Army Rifle team shooter during the era of when these scopes and cases were still in use by the Army and Marines will be extraordinarily difficult to discredit.

Thanks...it was an enjoyable and most informative read! :icon_study:

James

[cplnorton]

I don't think there honestly is a answer quite yet.

Like for example, I have a hard time saying anything is definite unless I can validate it with 3 different ways. For example: 1) A actual document detailing it and confirming it's possible. 2) Period pictures of the item actually in use that I can date. 3) Items that still exist today that you can study. So when you only have one, or two of these possibilities it's really hard to say anything definite in my opinion.

I don't think the WRA contracts are confusing a 6 and 8 loop, but I will never say I'm not wrong. It's detailed in there a couple times and seems to be specific in both the Army and Marine Contracts.

Like for example this is one sentence on one of the contracts, "Each case to be fitted with six leather loops, of such a dimension to permit the attachment of a web strap. Which the web strap was 16 1/4''.

I saw a document that detailed 8 loops in the WRA docs, but I swear it was in 1919 or after and sounded more like a commercial sales item. But I didn't put much value in the document and don't remember where I filed it.

But you know these date timeframes you see on these 8 cases are getting pretty late as well. A lot of these Marines served well past the war and I know by the WRA documents that the shipments of scopes to the Marines did not stop when the war ended. They are still detailing them as active and completed contracts well into the beginning of 1919. So maybe that plays into all of this somehow.

What did Brophy say on the six and 8 loop argument? It's been a long time since I picked up his book and I let a buddy borrow it so I can't double check it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Forgotten Weapons made a video on three M1903 "snipers" in the upcoming James D. Julia auctions. Who wants to see it himself, visit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWICTS0g-E

What was interesting to me (aside the funny screw heads on all scope bases) was the leather scope can one rifle comes with. I captured a few screenshots, which fit into the discussion here - see attachment.

If I'm reading the serial of #645.991 correctly (please correct if someone has a different suggestion), it's not SRS listed, but right within a block of USMC rifles, and right next to a handful of SRS listed snipers in the 646.xxx serial range.

I am familiar with two of these rifles. Yet another 8-loop case. I knew about the case, but I had never seen a picture of it. Thank you, Promo.

I see the YouTube moderator has never seen a Steve Earle reproduction M-N base. They are slightly different from the originals. They aren't the only problem.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....Brophy's body of work and personal experience as a U.S. Army Rifle team shooter during the era of when these scopes and cases were still in use by the Army and Marines will be extraordinarily difficult to discredit. James

You are right, but Brophy came long after the WWI snipers were gone, and he was in the Army. I have wondered what information he did have. Still, with one possible exception that was issued very late in the sniper program, every scope case, of which I am aware that has surfaced, has been an 8-loop and all have been the same. Some may believe them to be faked, but the logistics of such a widespread fakery by one person is beyond the pale, as he would have no way of knowing the names of so many snipers. Ancestry.com just wasn't around back in those days.

In the end, I suspect we will discover all the initial issued scope cases were indeed 8-loop. I believe WRA had 8-loop scope cases on hand and that is what they shipped. Who, but us, would notice the difference?:1948:

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....But you know these date timeframes you see on these 8 cases are getting pretty late as well....

I don't remember seeing a date on any of them. When the 1st class graduated, there was only 86-days left to war's end.

jt

[Promo]

I believe James thought is very interesting, if not considerable. If we break down a "scope can", what do we get (or what do we name the parts)? The "case" and the "cover" (or case lid). And if the documents speak of 6 loops on the cases, they probably aren't wrong, since the case itself does have 6 loops - the two additional loops are on the cover/case lid. Looking at the cases, if it had two loops the sling might not had fitted that well, or it could be caught in the field. So it definately is a good amount of loops as one would need in the field. And not often enough we can encounter the same problem of different methods of counting still today.

And as a small side note, this solution would be a win for anyone participating here - it would confirm the documents, and we have still existing cans which fit into this pattern. And the mentioned picture might just show a case where two of the loops had been cut off, because of personal preference.

[cplnorton]

I don't remember seeing a date on any of them. When the 1st class graduated, there was only 86-days left to war's end.

jt

Yeah there are no dates, but I'm just going by dates the Marines could have got them.

Looking at the documents from France I can place cases there a lot earlier than these named 8 cases. They seem to be over there pretty early in the war, and that matches the WRA documents say as well for the first order shipment. But when you research all the named 8 loop cases so far. They all seemed to have served stateside until after the war was basically over. And they didn't seem they could have got these cases till very late in the war or even after the war was over.

Like for instance I haven't seen a named 8 loop case where he served in France during the height of the war. Or early in the War. But I know there were cases over there pretty early as I see mention of them.

I could see a argument that WRA described them wrong if six loop cases didn't exist. But from earlier posters, I guess there are several pics in the Brophy book of some, one named to a A.A. Groupe.

Which there is a Marine match to a A.A. Groupe. His name was Adolph A. Groupe. And seeing where he was in the rosters, it looks like he might have had a chance to pick up one earlier than the others.

To me though, just seeing the documents, and timeframes and such. If there is a possibility these 8 loop cases were a Marine contract and sent from WRA. I personally think it would fall more likely into the 2nd shipment of cases to the Marines, as the dates those were shipped would seem to match up a lot more to the timeframes of the Marines with the 8 loop cases.

I will never say I'm not wrong. But it would be really nice to see a picture of one in use, that you can date. And a picture of one in France would really be helpful as they would seem to have been the earliest style.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Yeah there are no dates, but I'm just going by dates the Marines could have got them.

They were first issued in the spring of 1918 (I know the exact date).


Looking at the documents from France I can place cases there a lot earlier than these named 8 cases. They seem to be over there pretty early. But when you research all the named 8 loop cases so far. They all seemed to have served stateside until after the war was over. And they didn't seem they could have got these cases till very late in the war or even after the war was over.

To my knowledge, the scope cases went to France with the 11th and 13th Regiments. I can place one in France with the 6th Regiment, but no idea when he received it. That sniper was immediately separated from service upon his return to the states (as indeed, all of them were). The known snipers with the 5th and 6th Regiments, who describe what they were issued, do not mention a scope case, although I know at least one of them who had one (8-loop).


I haven't seen a named 8 loop case where he served in France during the war. At least none I have seen so far. So you have to wonder what the ones were in France that seem to be earlier than these 8 loop cases.

I have seen several. If you are referring to combat, I have seen, and held, one. All are 8-loop.


I could see a argument that WRA described them wrong if six loop cases didn't exist. But from earlier posters, I guess there are several pics in the Brophy book of some, one named to a A.A. Groupe.

Which there is a Marine match to a A.A. Groupe. His name was Adolph A. Groupe. And seeing where he was in the rosters, it looks like he might have had a chance to pick up one a lot earlier than the others.

A. A. Groupe's case has always been the odd man out. If the single picture we have of it is correct, it is quite different from all the other known cases, and he received it very late in the sniper program - not early. Groupe was in one of the last known classes. I would like to see more pictures of that case, which was the purpose of the original post in this thread, as previously stated. I do not know who now owns it, unfortunately.


It would be really nice to see a picture of one in use, that you can date. That would clear up a lot.

Just look at Gunner Estock's picture I sent to Tom Jackson, taken in early 1918 (I know the month and who took the picture and where). His scope case is draped over his right shoulder.

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim what are the names of the Marines with the 8 loop cases that you say were in France during the war?

All I have seen they never left for France till the war was basically over, including all the names in this post.

As for shipping in early 1918. The WRA rifles were, but those shipments were staggered by WRA. So they didn't ship on one date, it looks like several. But it appears some of the WRA cases shipped much earlier than the WRA rifles in the WRA docs. The Niedner rifles predated the WRA rifles by at least 6 months, and the cases for those rifles were ordered on July 2nd 1917,with a suspected Delivery Date of 5 weeks. I can place Telescopic rifles and cases in France before the 1st shipment of WRA rifles could have even got there.

[cplnorton]

Just look at Gunner Estock's picture I sent to Tom Jackson, taken in early 1918 (I know the month and who took the picture and where). His scope case is draped over his right shoulder.

jt

Jim, are you talking about the picture that is labeled "last practice before overseas trip Quantico?" If you are, all you see is a strap. There is no case visible. Honestly to me that looks like a leather strap and not a web strap. So it might be something else entirely. But I honeslty don't see any part of a case visible. I would imagine also that picture if labeled "last practice: before overseas Trip, it would have been taken right before he went oveseas.

Looking at the rosters Gunner Estock was a Sniper instructor in the US till September 19th 1918. On September 20th he was transferred to the 11th Regiment. And I think the 11th left for France on two dates, one late Sept, one early Oct. So if this was the last practice, I would imagine the picture was taken in Sept 1918 at Quantico.

[cplnorton]

You know when I get in this situation when I'm trying to figure stuff out. I just lay out my research and see the pattern. So Let's just lay out the names of the Marines on these cases and see where they were. We can't prove which case was shipped when. So lets see what the pattern is by the Marine. Because we can prove that. And we can also date them by the Rifle Serial number. We know when the rifle were built, so they can't be made before that date.

But Jim go ahead and post the names of the guys you said were in France and a pic of the case, and I will add them in as well and show all their details. That way we can just lay this all out.

But right now I know of six that are supposed to be out there. With only three that I have seen pics of. One of the six I imagine is a fake, and one of them, I don't know if it exists. I sort of doubt it. So I think we mostly going by 3 or 4 right now. The interesting part of all this, I can only prove two of these guys actually had anything to do with Snipers. Even though sniper school attendees are listed in the rosters, I only show Estock and LaValley being there and both were late. The others do not seem to have any connection with Sniper School.

1) Gunner Steve Estock- 8 loop, Rifle Serial 620XXX. I left out the last three. But it Looks like late 1917 he was attached to some Recruiting Div, Dec 1917 he is attached to the 125/126 Co 9th Regiment Cuba. He was in Cuba through April and transferred to the Supply Detachment Quantico on May 2nd 1918. Then in June 1918 he transfers to the Overseas Depot Quantico VA. Then I show him being a instructor at Sniper School between Aug 25th, 1918 till Sept 19th 1918. With some time on leave in there as well. Then on Sept 20th he transfers to the 11th Regiment.

2) Sgt Leslie La Valley- His career is almost identical to Gunner Estocks. But I have never seen a case attributed to him. I think someone said once there was one, but I have never seen it. I have only seen a rifle range book with a 671720 serial and it also says Cuba on the book. Which he left Cuba in early May 1918, so the book had to date before then. Which since I have been pulling rifle serials from the archives, there are a lot of regular service rifle serials in this 670 range. And it would have been a very tight timeframe to get a WRA Sniper rifle to Cuba before early May 1918.

3) Adolph A. Groupe- (6 loop) No rifle serial number listed. Brophy Boook . I do not ever see him attending sniper school. Looks like he started with the 101st at San Diego in late 1917. Early 1918 and basically till the end of the war he was with the 102nd Co Naval Ammunition Depot NY. Which seeing all the ammo testing they were doing with Telescopic sighted rifles, it might be possible he got it during this time. He joined the 11th Regiment on Nov 12, 1918. But I don't show any sniper schoool training for him.

4) Private G.C. Chandler (Senich book) Rifle Number 672932 Does not list 6 or 8 loop, but Senich says the USMC contract is 6 loop, commercial was 8. So it is possible this might be a 6 loop. But you would have to find it to be sure. Also Senich claims the name is G.C. Chandler. But I think Senich read it wrong, and the pic seems to show a C.C. as well. And the only match during the war is to a C.C Chandler. But private Clarence enlisted very late, June 1918. He spent Aug 1918 working at a Supply Company, Parris Island. Then it shows him Oct through at least Feb 1919 as being attached to the Rifle Range Detachment Parris Island. So he could have got that case there. I do not show him ever attending any Sniper School.

5) "Damerow" (Senich Book) Rifle Serial Number 673181 not pictued only detailed. But I find no Damerow's that served during WWI. So it might be fake, or some other explanation.

6) M.H. Van Camp (8 loop) Rifle 645991 case from Julia Auction. June 5th, 1917 Enlisted, spent till July, 1918 at the Marine Barracks Naval Yard New York, July 5th 1918 He joined the Headquarters Overseas Depot Quantico VA, and August 26th, 1918 He is transferred to Co. M 3rd BN 13th Regiment. I do not show him attending a sniper school in the rosters.

[JWM]

Thanks for the answer, Steve. My question was simply one of many thoughts I had once I finished reading the exchange of comments. You are probably correct in that the 6 and 8 loop are not being confused.

Brophy mentions in his book that the Marine WWI A5 telescopes were carried in brown leather cases that had a web shoulder strap, and that he has seen examples of them with his own case being marked Pvt. A.A. Groupe. He further states that black leather carrying cases were furnished with post-WWI telescopes purchased by the Marine shooting teams. Additionally, he makes note that the Winchester commercial carrying case had decorative tooling and eight leather loops for the strap, whereas the Marine type case had only six loops.

Judging from the above information one might draw the following conclusions:

1 - That the 6-loop Marine carrying case was not available to Marines until after WWI.

2 - That during WWI, Marines carried their A5 scopes in brown 8-loop carrying cases.

In terms of the WRA document and the 1919 date concerning the 8-loop case, it might be possible that instead of 1919, it was 1909, which is about the time the A5 made its debut...but that's just a guess. What I would do here, Steve, is go to the Winchester Arms Collectors Association and ask them about the Winchester (commercial) A5 scope case as to when it was first advertised in the company's catalog along with any descriptive information. Someone there should certainly be able to help you about this subject.

As to when the shipment of the subject scopes to the Marines stopped: Way back in the cobwebs of my mind, I seem to recall that shortly after WWI, the Marines ordered a relatively large shipment of A5 scopes, but I could be wrong. Should this old memory be correct, it goes without saying that any A5 scopes the Marines had on hand before then would have been from an earlier order(s). I believe the two earlier generations of the Marine Van Orden family, was in on both deals to some extent...but here again, I'm working on some very old memories and long lost references.

James

[clintonhater]

What I would do here, Steve, is go to the Winchester Arms Collectors Association and ask them about the Winchester (commercial) A5 scope case as to when it was first advertised in the company's catalog along with any descriptive information.

Scope was first advertised in June, 1910, but not listed in the full catalog until 1911, an original copy of which I happen to have; case is priced, but not otherwise described. Until the end of production, Winchester catalogs reprinted exactly that same A5 copy, except that all references to the B models were deleted beginning with the 1918 catalog.

First cases were a pain to use, as both mounts had to be slid all the way up to the top of the case, the lower portion being a narrow tube only large enough for the scope tube.

[cplnorton]

No it's always nice to have people look over the same info. Sometimes people pick up things that someone else never thought of. It's always nice to brainstorm, and someday I might even find a document to prove you are right. You never know. :)

But what you are saying from Brophy's book, that is really similar to my thoughts as well. But I will add the Caveat that Brophy was knee deep into the WRA documents. It was very obvious when I first got the docs and started to compare them to his book. You could follow along to where Brophy was getting a lot of his info.

On the shipment of A5's post WWI, yeah the Winchester ledgers show a large shipment of Telescopic sights going to the Marines.

But I appreciate your insight on this. It's always nice to brainstorm!

[clintonhater]

...But I will add the Caveat that Brophy was knee deep into the WRA documents. It was very obvious when I first got the docs and started to compare them to his book. You could follow along to where Brophy was getting a lot of his info.


Very evident from his uncritical repetition of the "compensating errors" malarkey, dreamed-up not in an optics lab, but in Winchester's advertising dept. Had he run that story by an optics engineer, he could have laid that myth to rest, but instead he perpetuated it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....On the shipment of A5's post WWI, yeah the Winchester ledgers show a large shipment of Telescopic sights going to the Marines....

I suspect those scopes were never delivered. Troop strength after WWI dropped to 17,000 men by late 1919, early 1920. Considering they already had one scope for every 17-Marines in the Corps, why would they need more scopes? In 1939, the Corps still had about 900 A5 (type) scopes in storage (from the WWI sniping program). What happened to the additional "large shipment" of A5 scopes?

jt

[JWM]

No it's always nice to have people look over the same info. Sometimes people pick up things that someone else never thought of. It's always nice to brainstorm, and someday I might even find a document to prove you are right. You never know. :)

But what you are saying from Brophy's book, that is really similar to my thoughts as well. But I will add the Caveat that Brophy was knee deep into the WRA documents. It was very obvious when I first got the docs and started to compare them to his book. You could follow along to where Brophy was getting a lot of his info.

On the shipment of A5's post WWI, yeah the Winchester ledgers show a large shipment of Telescopic sights going to the Marines.

But I appreciate your insight on this. It's always nice to brainstorm!

Steve, I forgot to check my library. I have a set of books that are Winchester Catalogs that date from 1885 to 1918. I seldom use them at all, but this is what I found in them: The first catalog that the Winchester leather scope case appeared in was "CatalogueNo76 June 1910." It appeared in most all of their catalogs up through 1916, and there was only one description that did not change over this period of time, including the picture of the scope case in each catalog. Here's how they read: "Telescope Sight Case." as header. Description: "Winchester Telescope Sight Case, heavy russet leather, strap lock and handle." "List price, each....$3.50" End quotes.

The picture of this case looks very similar to the bottom case in Promo's attached thumbnails

Senich shows a picture of an 8-loop leather scope case on page 11 in his book U.S. Marine Corps Scout Sniper World War II and Korea and makes note that it is "Believed to be the 'Marine Corps standard' referenced in the Handbook of Ordnance Data (No. 1861) dated 15 November 1918...and commercial carrying case adapted for military use by the addition of a shoulder strap and loops for same."

Comments: Given that the Winchester commercial leather case pictured in the company catalogs during the subject time frame, could be made to look exactly like an 8 loop case with nothing more than "the addition of a shoulder strap and loops for same" being added to their standard commercial scope case and lid, in place of "the strap lock and handle" features, Senich appears to be correct in his statements, that look to support Brophy's statements as regards this subject as well.

Steve and Jim: The later shipment might have been Lyman 5-As rather than Winchester...my memory to this end is really bad. Steve, thanks for the info on the later shipment of Winchester scopes.

[cplnorton]

Senich shows a picture of an 8-loop leather scope case on page 11 in his book U.S. Marine Corps Scout Sniper World War II and Korea and makes note that it is "Believed to be the 'Marine Corps standard' referenced in the Handbook of Ordnance Data (No. 1861) dated 15 November 1918...and commercial carrying case adapted for military use by the addition of a shoulder strap and loops for same."

Steve and Jim: The later shipment might have been Lyman 5-As rather than Winchester...my memory to this end is really bad. Steve, thanks for the info on the later shipment of Winchester scopes.

I will have to check out Senich's book tomorrow when I have time. I haven't picked that one up in a long time either. But is Senich saying the A5 cases are referenced in the Nov 1918 Handbook of Ordnance? I have that Ordnance book and I'm pretty sure nothing is mentioned in there on the actual cases. It does have a little bit of info on the 1st Contract 500 order by WRA, but that is only about a paragraph. But I will get that one back out and look again, but I really don't think there was anything on cases in there.

On the Lyman 5A. Yeah Senich's book says that got some of the Lyman 5A scopes. Which those weren't made till like 1928/29, when Lyman bought out the WRA A5 design. But I think he is only basing that off the Frank Mallory Docs. The Docs that Frank found are not as complete as the ones you find now at the archives now. So I could see looking at the packet that Frank sold, one could assume they did buy some Lyman 5A's. But seeing the rest of the documents it really paints a different picture.

But I think where the confusion lies on those Lyman 5A's, is when you look at Frank's packet and those WWII Marine docs in there. The Terminology on the A5 is all over the place. Almost every document you see on the A5 in WWII, they seem to name it a different name. Like for example they call them Lyman 5A, Lyman A5, Winchester 5A, A5, A-5. Basically the terminology on the scopes is all over the place on the A5's. There is nothing uniform. And I personally think Senich was reading these documents and just figured since they used the Lyman 5A name, they had to have them.

But if you go to the archive now and pull the files for the Mariens from 1919 to 1940. It's pretty clear when you start reading those, that a Lyman 5A purchase never happened. Those records are pretty detailed of the Telescopic rifles in between the wars. And I have documents buying scopes from Fecker and Lyman. But none of the Lyman purchases were for the 5A.

I just think Senich was reading those WWII docs and just was confusing the terminology.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Please allow me to explore this post war shipment of A5 scopes (no 5A's until 1928). As I pointed out before, the Corps already had a scope for every 17-Marines in the Corps. That is excessive to say the least. The Corps I know didn't have enough field jackets in 1970 to equip every Marine. We trained with M-14's that were worn out, to be polite. I had a 5-digit SN M-14 that blew its bolt vertical during my Qualification. My spotter put it back together and handed it to me. It did not repeat its performance, but needless to say, my tension at every shot did not lend itself to a fine score (I had been tied with another Marine for the highest scores all week). If you tell me this same Corps ordered a bunch of scopes, not needed by any means, post war while trying to shelve all the extra equipment they had from the war (by starting an Ordnance Section at PD), I must admit to a certain degree of doubt. Scores of contracts were cancelled at war's end, bankrupting many businesses that had dealt with the government in good faith. Why would this contract not be cancelled? To what purpose were these scopes acquired?

We know the Corps had trained Marines to repair optics (and still do). They were fully capable of repairing any scope they had that malfunctioned. The Corps throws it away, you can be assured it is junk! The OSD trained snipers permeated the 11th and 13th Regiments, and were separated as soon as their feet touched mother earth after their return to the states (many had been retained to police Germany after the war). The 1150 or so scopes previously acquired were now surplus (only about twenty or thirty guys on the R&P Teams). What was the impetus for acquiring additional scopes? The attrition rate of scopes on R&P Teams was essentially nil. In 1939, the Corps had 875 (?) or so scopes in storage at PD. These scopes represent what remained of the WWI A5 scopes purchased to train the 400 or so 11th and 13th Regiment snipers who never went to war.

My point is this. The Corps certainly had no need for additional scopes, so why order more when contract cancellation was the post-war solution to government procurement issues. Where did these scopes go? They seem to have disappeared, if they ever existed at all. WRA had problems meeting the initial orders. Did they expand their work force to meet this particular demand? I don't think so. I do know there were Corps plans to order additional scoped rifles as OSD turned out trained snipers (475 in all), but that all came to a screeching halt on 11 Nov 1919.

Document or no document, I have my doubts they were ever delivered, if they represented additional scopes not ordered in the 1150 initially ordered. Could you be looking at the delivery of the last of the initial orders?

jt

[cplnorton]

I suspect those scopes were never delivered. Troop strength after WWI dropped to 17,000 men by late 1919, early 1920. Considering they already had one scope for every 17-Marines in the Corps, why would they need more scopes? In 1939, the Corps still had about 900 A5 (type) scopes in storage (from the WWI sniping program). What happened to the additional "large shipment" of A5 scopes?

jt

This is what I can find on it Jim. The contact was marked as completed by WRA in 1919 and they were paid for it. It was also not in the cancelled contracts that WRA detailed as the govt cancelled at the end of the war. So just cross referencing about three seperate areas in the WRA files on this file, everything shows it was paid for and shipped.

On the counts, to me the counts don't really work unless they got another shipment. There were a 150 rifles done by Niedner in 1917. And 500 mounted by WRA in 1918. So that is a possible 650 scopes total. I know from seeing the France documents, that they were having a lot of problems with the A5 sights breaking in France. A lot were unserviceable and going to a Depot over there for repair and they were doing all they could to salvage them. And it sounds like they were failing miserably. So it's unclear how many of the ones used in France even would have made it home. But it doesn't sound promising.

But right now you have a possibility of a max 650 scopes at the end of WWI and probably a lot less. But the count you are referring to was at the beginning of WWII, and that count was for (887) A5 scopes. Which the Marines detail they received in the last war.

But this is where it gets sort of interesting. In the Marine docs my buddy pulled, the 887 were just spare scopes by themselves. There is another count that I do not believe anyone is aware of yet. This count was at Philly for the amount of Telescopic rifles with sights attached in storage. This hasn't been published yet and I didn't find this one, so it's not mine to really say the details on.

But in a nutshell at the same time Philly did that count on 887 A5 scopes, there is another count on Telescopic equipped rifles with scopes that was also done at Philly. These were not rifle team rifles, as you can find inventory on the telescopic team rifles almost every year in the docs. And those rifles were seperate in all the docs, and very few in number. These just seem to be A5 scoped rifles with the scopes in storage and there were actually a good number of them. It also mentions around this time that Telescopic equipped rifles were issued out to the fleet. But I don't have a precise number on the ones issued as I do the ones in storage at Philly.

But already without figuring in the new ones my buddy found, there are more in WWII than WWI. So that shows they got some somewhere. But you figure in the ones my buddy found, with the 887, the ones that probably became unserviceable or were lost, and that 2nd contract with Winchester. The numbers really seem to add up. Then you figure in that from the WRA side they show paid for and shipped. So to me it just all adds up as they got that second contract.

[cplnorton]

Document or no document, I have my doubts they were ever delivered, if they represented additional scopes not ordered in the 1150 initially ordered. Could you be looking at the delivery of the last of the initial orders?

jt

Ok now I get where you are coming from and why it doesn't make sense to you. I'm guessing you are thinking the Marines received the 2nd order of 500 scopes from WRA.

Jim there were four orders of A5 scopes placed with WRA in the war. A 500 and a 1000 order was placed by the Marines, for the Marines. And a 500 and 400 order that was placed by the Army procurement Div. All four are different WRA contract numbers, so all four seperate contracts.

The 1st order of 500 placed in July 1917 by the Marines were the ones that WRA mounted and actually shipped during the war. The 1000 order placed by the Marines doesn't show completed till 1919.

The 500 and 400 orders to the Army procurement are questionable if they did ship. It's not exactly clear. Like with the Marine order I can cross reference the contract numbers in all the ledgers to make sure they were completed. But on the Army orders it's not as clear. They might have though. i really can't prove it 100% either way. But again if they did ship, it was again not unitl that 1919 timeframe, same as the 2nd shipment to the Marines.

But yeah I think you must have saw something about that the 2nd 500 contract order to Army Procurement and thought it was going to the Marines. But that one honestly wasn't. But I think that is where you were getting that 1150 number. 500 + 500 + 150.

The Marines only got 500 from WRA during the war, and then the 150 from Niedner. You can also confirm this also by the Nov 15th Ordnance manual listed above, which also details they only got 500 during the war. Which it's interesting to note they don't even count the ones Niedner did in that report. I think Niedner was blacklisted honestly as his FBI investigation was still going on when that book was printed. But that manual was also printed before the 2nd Marine contract would have came in from WRA. So that is why I think the 2nd contract was listed.

And that also would explain if the Army procurement orders shipped why they are not listed as well in that book. They too would have shipped after that book was written.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Upon return from France, all seven-eighty-deuce equipment was confiscated upon embarkation. The 400 or so scoped sniper rifles would have been sent with the other rifles to PD for inspection, repair, and storage. I believe the scopes were not on the rifles when turned in, but where carried separately. Most of the known named scopes/cases all had one thing in common. I can just imagine the confusion and chaos at the embarkation point as so much seven-eighty-deuce gear was turned in. I suspect the "scoped rifles" in storage at PD, to which you refer, were the sniper rifles that were turned in as each Marine was separated from service. If my sources are correct, those rifles were pulled from storage in the '50's and destroyed (just the receivers - the rest was mostly salvaged). I was told by an old Marine that he personally half-filled a 55 gal drum with D&T'ed receivers and some barrels from which he could not separate the bases. Totally hear say evidence, but he described the rifles in exact detail. He added one detail that I found to be significant. He said a few of the rifles had their bases soldered onto the receiver and barrel in addition to being screwed on. The only rifle I have ever seen that I finally believed to be a Niedner rifle has its bases soldered and screwed. I could see the solder line beneath the bases. I think I know why they were soldered (something Niedner did not do on his commercial work).

jt

[JWM]

I will have to check out Senich's book tomorrow when I have time. I haven't picked that one up in a long time either. But is Senich saying the A5 cases are referenced in the Nov 1918 Handbook of Ordnance? I have that Ordnance book and I'm pretty sure nothing is mentioned in there on the actual cases. It does have a little bit of info on the 1st Contract 500 order by WRA, but that is only about a paragraph. But I will get that one back out and look again, but I really don't think there was anything on cases in there.

On the Lyman 5A. Yeah Senich's book says that got some of the Lyman 5A scopes. Which those weren't made till like 1928/29, when Lyman bought out the WRA A5 design. But I think he is only basing that off the Frank Mallory Docs. The Docs that Frank found are not as complete as the ones you find now at the archives now. So I could see looking at the packet that Frank sold, one could assume they did buy some Lyman 5A's. But seeing the rest of the documents it really paints a different picture.

But I think where the confusion lies on those Lyman 5A's, is when you look at Frank's packet and those WWII Marine docs in there. The Terminology on the A5 is all over the place. Almost every document you see on the A5 in WWII, they seem to name it a different name. Like for example they call them Lyman 5A, Lyman A5, Winchester 5A, A5, A-5. Basically the terminology on the scopes is all over the place on the A5's. There is nothing uniform. And I personally think Senich was reading these documents and just figured since they used the Lyman 5A name, they had to have them.

But if you go to the archive now and pull the files for the Mariens from 1919 to 1940. It's pretty clear when you start reading those, that a Lyman 5A purchase never happened. Those records are pretty detailed of the Telescopic rifles in between the wars. And I have documents buying scopes from Fecker and Lyman. But none of the Lyman purchases were for the 5A.

I just think Senich was reading those WWII docs and just was confusing the terminology.

Good Morning Steve,

I interpret the text and the picture to mean: That Senich, at the time the subject book went to publication, felt that the referenced picture and text aptly conveyed his best understanding of the type of scope and scope case that was viewed by the author and those people in the know, "Believed to be the 'Marine Corps standard.' and therefore the standard issue items that were in use by their snipers during WWI. Which is to also say, the Marines of that day and time were using a commercial Winchester scope case that had been modified with a shoulder strap for military purposes.

James

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....A 500 and a 1000 order was placed by the Marines, for the Marines. And a 500 and 400 order that was placed by the Army procurement Div. All four are different WRA contract numbers, so all four seperate contracts....

The Marines received 1650 A5 scopes, or 1650 scoped rifles?


The 1st order of 500 placed in July 1917 by the Marines were the ones that WRA mounted and actually shipped during the war. The 1000 order placed by the Marines doesn't show completed till 1919.

The original 500 were drop shipped in early 1918 in several lots to two different locations at different times. That 500 rifles coupled with Niedner's 150 would have armed all four regiments. What happened to the 1000 remaining rifles shipped in 1019? I am assuming they were mounted since they didn't need 1000 replacement scopes for the 650 (less attrition) they already had. Straight to PD OS?

You are right in that I believe there were two lots of 500 rifles and one of 150 for a total of 1150 scope mounted rifles. Now you have upped that ante by 500 rifles?

jt

[cplnorton]

The first order of 500 was mounted by WRA. The second order was placed at the height of the war and was only for the scopes, spare parts, and everything to attach them to rifles.

In the documents, Philly had been building up for several years to do everything in house. And by 1918 in the documents they are pretty much ready to go. And you see parts for rebuilding rifles coming in.

WRA was training, in house, Marines on how to mount and repair these scopes starting in mid 1917. And it looks like they had a pretty detailed class going by the WRA docs.

The 887 number of spare scopes you see, I would guess are most likely the ones left over from that 2nd contract 1000 number order. The ones mounted on rifles in storage and also issued out to the fleet, I imagine were the ones left over the ones actually produced during the war.

There were new ones produced as need. So that will also figure into that somewhow. But that number seems small until they made a nice little batch of new rifles for training in 1941.

[1903fan]

JT, thank you for a great break down of all of the ins and outs of this subject, I have learned a lot over the last few days browsing through old posts!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The first order of 500 was mounted by WRA. The second order was placed at the height of the war and was only for the scopes, spare parts, and everything to attach them to rifles.

The war was essentially 160 days of intense combat, and a lot was done in those 160 days. Considering the order of 500 would cover all the 475 trained snipers, I can see how there may never have been a second order of scoped rifles. Of the 475 snipers trained, only about 350 were intended to serve as snipers, thus the reduced number of rifles needed.


In the documents, Philly had been building up for several years to do everything in house. And by 1918 in the documents they are pretty much ready to go. And you see parts for rebuilding rifles coming in.

The armory at Philly was put in place post war to handle the huge number of arms being returned from the war. During the war, there was a ginormous repair facility built in France to rebuild weapons, including rifles and scopes. Even SA was forced to sent armorers to help man the facility, and undoubtedly, the Marines did likewise. No one was shipping rifles or scopes home for repair during the war.


WRA was training, in house, Marines on how to mount and repair these scopes starting in mid 1917. And it looks like they had a pretty detailed class going by the WRA docs.

To be expected, as the Marines repaired all their own weapons, to include a scope repair facility at the previously mentioned ginormous French/American armory. The Corps armorers were mounting scopes on 1903's long before the war started, and hardly needed WRA to train them to do so. Repairing A5 scopes was a different matter all together.


The 887 number of spare scopes you see, I would guess are most likely the ones left over from that 2nd contract 1000 number order. The ones mounted on rifles in storage and also issued out to the fleet, I imagine were the ones left over the ones actually produced during the war.

At that time, I suspect there were very few A5 scoped rifles "in the fleet" due to lack of need. From the tone of the letter, I suspect the writer was trying to convey the number of scopes available for their purpose at the time. Prior to the second war, the Corps was very small in numbers and scattered all over the world.


There were new ones produced as need. So that will also figure into that somewhow. But that number seems small until they made a nice little batch of new rifles for training in 1941.

Considering the number of scoped rifles on hand from WWI, and the total number of men in the Corps after the war, there is no way they ever needed more scopes or scoped rifles in the period between the world wars, with the possible exception of the of the rifle team scoping "pet" rifles.

Ain't history grand?

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

JT, thank you for a great break down of all of the ins and outs of this subject, I have learned a lot over the last few days browsing through old posts!

You are welcome, sir. Although a tiny aspect of the 1903 legacy, it is a fascinating one. I always liked the "why" of history versus the "did" part. Once one understands why things were done the way they were, the way it was done becomes so much more clear.

A good example is why didn't Sam Houston execute General Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana after defeating his army? The Texans slaughtered his soldiers, and to a man wanted to shoot Santa Ana, but were stopped by Houston. No one could understand why. According to Mexican history, it was because Santa Ana was a Mason, as was Houston. A Mason is prohibited from killing another Mason, which was a very big deal in those days. Not so much anymore, which is a pity. Santa Ana would return from exile to fight us again when we invaded Mexico.

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim everything I'm saying is taken off the official Marine Records. Someday I will make public all these documents, I think then it will make a lot more sense what I'm saying.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim everything I'm saying is taken off the official Marine Records. Someday I will make public all these documents, I think then it will make a lot more sense what I'm saying.

(The documents you reference are public records now).

I have no doubt of that, Steve. No doubt at all. But documents do not history make. If you believe official" Marine documents, Col. Wise was incompetent and a coward. Post war analysis reveals Col. Wise was one of the bravest of the brave, and a leader from the front who accomplished much with very little from those that would vilify him and his actions at Belleau Woods. If one reads the copious, detailed documents of Operation Sea Lion without any knowledge of history, one would have no doubt Hitler invaded England in WWII. Don't misunderstand, documents are wonderful sources of information, but they must be viewed in light of historical fact. I have documents that refute several of your statements you say came from your documents. I don't think you made anything up, as I believe you believe your documents back up your statements. I have no doubt I am right in some respects, and I believe you may be right in others. I told you a long time ago that it would be a good idea for us to work together and form a consensus; but you chose not to, which was certainly your privilege. Therefore, we now disagree on several points of fact.

By the way, the "Cody" documents you kept telling me about - don't exist at Cody. They aren't "Cody" documents at all. For everyone who might be interested, all military related WRA documents are located in the National Archives. This can be verified by contacting the Cody museum.

jt

[cplnorton]

By the way, the "Cody" documents you kept telling me about - don't exist at Cody. They aren't "Cody" documents at all. For everyone who might be interested, all military related WRA documents are located in the National Archives. This can be verified by contacting the Cody museum.

jt


Actually Jim, the researcher for Cody that told you that, Mr. Gdula. He is repeating to you, what I told him. He contacted me a week ago, asking me for help in finding the documents for you. Because he didn't really know where they would be located at Cody.

I told him simply that the A5 documents that Jim really wants, I did not find at Cody, they are located at the National Archives. I told him a lot of Winchester documents are archived at the National Archives. Which is the truth. So he told me thank you and said he would pass that info onto you.

In the grand scheme of things, I found pretty much everything replicated at the ARchives, that I found at Cody. So people would be far better off spending their money on a researcher for the archives, than they would be at Cody. Because the Archives has a lot more.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

[QUOTE=cplnorton;478111]Actually Jim, the researcher for Cody that told you that, Mr. Gdula. He is repeating to you, what I told him. He contacted me a week ago, asking me for help in finding the documents for you. Because he didn't really know where they would be located at Cody.

I told him simply that the A5 documents that Jim really wants, I did not find at Cody, they are located at the National Archives. I told him a lot of Winchester documents are archived at the National Archives. Which is the truth. So he told me thank you and said he would pass that info onto you.{/quote]

That was after he went through every WRA box at Cody at my great expense. What he told me was, that there were no documents whatsoever concerning any exchange with the military in those files. Of course, I am assuming he is being straight up with me. I find it incredulous that the people at Cody were unaware of that fact. I am also somewhat perplexed why you referred to the documents we were discussing in our email exchanges as the "Cody" documents, and why you didn't give me a heads up when I told you I was going to hire a researcher to go through the Cody files since you couldn't share the Cody documents due to copyright concerns and demands on the part of the Cody museum.

jt

[cplnorton]

[QUOTE=cplnorton;478111]
That was after he went through every WRA box at Cody at my great expense. What he told me was, that there were no documents whatsoever concerning any exchange with the military in those files. Of course, I am assuming he is being straight up with me. I find it incredulous that the people at Cody were unaware of that fact. I am also somewhat perplexed why you referred to the documents we were discussing in our email exchanges as the "Cody" documents, and why you didn't give me a heads up when I told you I was going to hire a researcher to go through the Cody files since you couldn't share the Cody documents due to copyright concerns and demands on the part of the Cody museum.

jt


There are tens of thousands of WWI military documents at Cody. Not only the US, but foreign govts orders as well. I have thousands, if not tens of thousands of pages of US WWI documents from there myself.

Jim, When you initially asked me what I found at Cody back in the beginning. I told you the cliff note version of what I found, for Free. Even thought I spent a better part of a year pulling from there and more money than I could even keep track of, to figure it out. But I did not give you copies of the documents.

I told you I had hit Cody hard and I didn't think there was anything more from there to learn, other than what I had already told you the cliff note version of. If you chose to try to retrace my steps there, and hire a different researcher to try to find the actual documents, that is not my fault.

Cody is like every single archive place you go to. Everything is filed wrong, the filing system is utter garbage, and no one knows where anything is located or what you are even talking about. That is why it just takes a extreme amount of detective work to try to figure out where to even point your researcher to even look. And even then it's hit or miss and usually you will pull tens of thousands of documents to find the one you really want. And many times you will find nothing. It's very rare to find a researcher who is even willing to put the amount of hours into finding this stuff, even if you offer them boat loads of money.

There is nothing easy, or simple in finding this stuff and it is extremely expensive. That is why no one does this, and why so much is still left out there undiscovered. If it was easy to be found, it would already be published in a book.

If you don't believe me, you should talk to Andrew Stolinksi or Tim Plowman and hear how much stuff they go through to find one new document.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve, If you remember, I did offer to split the cost with you.

I am really confused. You are saying there are tens of thousands of WRA WWI documents at Cody, but you told my researcher there were none? My researcher claims to have gone through every WRA box at Cody (70 boxes at my expense) and says he found nothing. Not one single document. To be clear, I do not know, nor did you tell me, the contents of your documents. You told me the documents you found would change what is now accepted as fact about the whole WRA sniper issue. I was excited for you and definitely was curious and I told you I was going to do the same search since you were prohibited from sharing your documents with anyone due to copyright restraints, and asked you if you minded me using the same researcher. You told me she had worked for Cody and had quit. I called Cody, they had no idea who you were talking about (they told me that Cody employees did not do searches) and recommended Mr. Gadula. My search was for any WRA document connected to WWI. Nada. Nothing. Zip. But an invoice. I told Mr. Gadula what you had found, he contacted you, he told me you told him there were no WRA/Military documents at Cody, he then presented me with yet another invoice, told me there were no such documents at Cody (per you), and that is where it all stands. I find it all a bit confusing.

Have you actually been to Cody? Your knowledge of their filing system sounds very extensive.

I did thermophillic anaerobic digestion research for a living for 15-years, so I truly understand the nuances of document searches. It's a tough job.

jt

[clintonhater]

Cody is like every single archive place you go to. Everything is filed wrong, the filing system is utter garbage, and no one knows where anything is located or what you are even talking about...

What??? You were expecting museum staffers to be "experts" about whatever artifacts or history the museum is concerned with? I've been associated with two highly-rated regional history museums as a humble volunteer, and what characterized the staff of both was amazing ignorance about the subjects in which their facilities specialized, in part because they had absolutely no personal interest before landing the job.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The elusive Brophy described black 6-loop A5 scope case finally comes to light. Oh, oh. Where are the "Marine Springfield" bases? Are those, yes, I believe those to be Mann-Niedner bases!

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38434&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38435&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=38436&stc=1

All joking aside, This is the scope case that started this thread. The brown (russet) 6-loop A5 scope case also surfaced. So now we have the 8-loop "Penguin" russet scope case, the black 6-loop scope case, and the russet 6-loop scope case for the A-5, with only the 8-loop russet "Penquin" scope cases traceable to any WWI USMC Scout Snipers. I suspect the scope case issue is a bit more complicated than some would have us believe. At this point, I don't have the final answer, and I think no one else does either.

Please note that neither of the 6-loop scope cases had any marks that would link them to any snipers or the sniper program for that matter. Maybe we will find one in the near future as they seem to be coming out of the '03 woodwork. This issue is not resolved by any means.

Never say never!

jt

[cplnorton]

What??? You were expecting museum staffers to be "experts" about whatever artifacts or history the museum is concerned with? I've been associated with two highly-rated regional history museums as a humble volunteer, and what characterized the staff of both was amazing ignorance about the subjects in which their facilities specialized, in part because they had absolutely no personal interest before landing the job.


I run into a lot of College interns. I don't know if they get college credit for working in these places, or college kids just work cheap and that is why they are there. But either way the results are the same, they do the least amount of work as possible.

[cplnorton]

The Marines first order of leather cases from Winchester was for 650 leather cases. 500 for the WRA made snipers, 150 for the Mann Niedner rifles. So they ordered all the leather cases from Winchester, in the first shipment, for the 150 rifles Mann Niedner converted. So All Mann Niedner rifles should have had WRA leather cases that were in the Marines. Same as those Leather scope caps. They are Winchester, and they ordered extra to cover the Mann Niedner rifles.

The black on the leather I would say is more likely dye. I have a orders for certains Marine units, that dyed all their leather gear black, at several times in Marine Corps History. I would suspect that case was most likely dyed by the Marines, at a later date, and did not leave WRA like that.

[clintonhater]

I run into a lot of College interns. I don't know if they get college credit for working in these places, or college kids just work cheap and that is why they are there. But either way the results are the same, they do the least amount of work as possible.

The ignorance of an intern would be understandable, but I was talking about the curatorial staff.

[cplnorton]

The ignorance of an intern would be understandable, but I was talking about the curatorial staff.

Oh I know, its sad really.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The Marines first order of leather cases from Winchester was for 650 leather cases. 500 for the WRA made snipers, 150 for the Mann Niedner rifles. So they ordered all the leather cases from Winchester, in the first shipment, for the 150 rifles Mann Niedner converted. So All Mann Niedner rifles should have had WRA leather cases that were in the Marines. Same as those Leather scope caps. They are Winchester, and they ordered extra to cover the Mann Niedner rifles.

The black on the leather I would say is more likely dye. I have a orders for certains Marine units, that dyed all their leather gear black, at several times in Marine Corps History. I would suspect that case was most likely dyed by the Marines, at a later date, and did not leave WRA like that.

I presume from your post that you continue to infer the WRA constructed sniper rifles did not have Mann-Niedner bases. I disagree. Further, I can prove you incorrect without any doubt whatsoever. Since neither of us is prepared to release to the public all our data, I suggest you and I pick a forum member we believe to be trustworthy and above board - and unbiased. We both must agree on the person picked. You present to this person your proof of your statements that the WRA rifles did not have Mann-Niedner bases, to include to where they were shipped and why, to whom they were shipped and why, when they were issued and to whom they were issued, to include pictorial proof of rifles and scope cases as issued to include serial number(s). A simple picture of a 1903 rifle in Marine Springfield bases won't cut it unless it is linked to an individual Marine with rifle serial number issued to him verified in some indisputable manner. Some vague document that can be interpreted a dozen different ways won't cut it. I, in turn, will send to this person proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the first shipment of 350 WRA rifles had Mann_Niedner basis to include where they were shipped, to whom they were shipped, when they were issued, where they were issued, and to whom they were issued including pictures of the rifles along with their snipers, scopes and cases and other visual and documentary evidence to prove they had Mann-Niedner bases, and further prove the scope cases issued with the rifles were "Penquin" 8-loop scope cases.

The person we pick must agree to hold all data he receives from us as confidential and not to be shared with anyone at any time now or in the future, nor in any publication. That person will evaluate all the data we each send and make a judgement as to which one of us is correct; and we, in turn, will both agree to abide by his judgement to the extent the loser agrees to quit expressing his opinion on this matter on any forum.

Time to man-up.

jt

[1903fan]

Sounds like a fair idea for me, and much better than the Old West that would have seen y'all boys duel with pistols! :icon_e_surprised:

[cplnorton]

Jim,

lol, are you really serious? I have never had anyone try to challenge me to a "expert off." Which is sort of comical, but also sad at the same time.

If someone says something that I know is not correct, I'm going to comment on it. Because there are people out that read this stuff and don't know any better and I do want them to know there are different conclusions out there. So if you have a problem with me saying you are not correct. I'm sorry. But I'm certainly not going to stop commenting, because you have issues with me saying I don't think your research is correct.

And what your suggesting is dumb anyways. If you ask anyone who is the biggest expert of Marine Sniper rifles, everyone is going to say John Beard anyways. John has already weighed in on this topic. You just didn't agree with his conclussions either.

Look, I could care less what anyone thinks of me. If they want to believe me, that is fine. If they don't, that is their decision.

I know my research and I stand behind it. I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

lol, are you really serious?

Absolutely.

No one is questioning your being an "expert", and I readily admit I am not an expert in anything. I simply want to settle the issue (amicably) of what bases were on the WRA rifles. No reason to be so sensitive about it. Heck, this is a forum, not a place to be tutored by anyone. But what the heck, it was worth a shot.

As for me worrying about you saying I am wrong - forget it. It ain't so, Joe. What I am concerned about is the dissemination of incorrect information. People spend money on these rifles, and sometimes it is a lot of money. I don't want to see anyone buy something thinking it is what it is not. I see Winchester A5 Grasshopper scopes for sale on eBay as WWI Marine sniper scopes, and there is not one iota of proof such a scope was ever used by the Marines in France. Judging from the prices some people pay for those scopes, some must believe those silly ads.


You just didn't agree with his {JB's} conclusions either.

Really? Plural? Unless you see something I don't, the only thing we disagreed on was whether WRA or Philly Depot mounted the bases.

I have nothing to prove to you or anyone else.

I believe anyone who gives advice as to what is correct, and what is not correct, owes their readers something; which is why I wanted to settle this issue once and for all.

jt

[clintonhater]

I see Winchester A5 Grasshopper scopes for sale on eBay as WWI Marine sniper scopes, and there is not one iota of proof such a scope was ever used by the Marines in France. Judging from the prices some people pay for those scopes, some must believe those silly ads....jt

Hey, would a dealer lie? They say it's a "sniper scope," what more do you need to hear? Hell, half the commercial Lyman Alaskans are described that way.

[cplnorton]

I see Winchester A5 Grasshopper scopes for sale on eBay as WWI Marine sniper scopes, and there is not one iota of proof such a scope was ever used by the Marines in France.

I think you need to go back and re-read what John Beard has said to you.

On this statement above, I strongly disagree. I have official Marine and WRA pictures and documents that detail otherwise. But it's pointless to argue with you Jim. You have made your mind up on this.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I think you need to go back and re-read what John Beard has said to you.

On this statement above, I strongly disagree. I have official Marine and WRA pictures and documents that detail otherwise. But it's pointless to argue with you Jim. You have made your mind up on this.

At this point, it is a disagreement, not an argument. Has it occurred to you that there is a good reason I "have made my mind up on this"?

You may not have what it takes to back up your claim, but I do. We will need a starting point. Would you agree the Niedner rifles went to France with the 4th Brigade and that the first delivery of WRA sniper rifles was 350 rifles delivered in the spring of 1918? The exact date is not really significant at this point.

To be perfectly clear, our point of contention is that you claim these rifles had Winchester clamp on bases on 7.2" spacing and my claim is that they had Mann-Niedner bases on 7.2" spacing. Correct so far?

jt

[cplnorton]

I'm not getting into this with you Jim. I'm made my points very clear over the upteen millions times we have talked in private and in public. And any discussion with you is just one giant circle. It's redundant and pointless.

You can make all the claims that you want, that you have all this research that proves me wrong. But I really honestly don't believe it.

If anyone reading this has seen something I posted, and wants to talk to me about it, they are more than welcome to contact me, and I will discuss it with you.

Good luck in your search Jim.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No balls, no glory. I will proceed without you, and I frankly don't care what you believe.

I will need someone to examine my data and express an unbiased and respected opinion while maintaining confidentiality as to the data itself. Anyone willing to get involved in this morass, please contact me by email. jimtarleton@att.net

jt

[1903fan]

So does that make Marine A5 Sniper Rifle the winner by default? :icon_lol:

[Roadkingtrax]

So does that make Marine A5 Sniper Rifle the winner by default? :icon_lol:

Makes you stirring the pot. :icon_salut:

Actually, I err on the side with the team of archival documents and supporting information.

[clintonhater]

So does that make Marine A5 Sniper Rifle the winner by default? :icon_lol:

By default of thoughtfullness, I'd say you were the winner of the Lame Remark award.

The winners are those, like myself, who've profited greatly by this exchange of differing viewpoints and interpretations of the data by two serious scholars of this very complicated subject--so complicated and confusing, it just leaves my head spinning.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....The winners are those, like myself, who've profited greatly by this exchange of differing viewpoints and interpretations of the data by two serious scholars of this very complicated subject--so complicated and confusing, it just leaves my head spinning.

Which is the very purpose of a forum.

jt

fo·rum

ˈfôrəm

noun

noun: forum; plural noun: forums; plural noun: fora

1.
a place, meeting, or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.

[1903fan]

Well of course your head is spinning, there are two view points that don't match up! A chance has been offered to make some sense of all this!

I must say though, how many of y'all are Marine snipers? I'm sure there are a few in here and I just want to say thanks for what you boys are doing :icon_salut:

[Rick the Librarian]

I've watched this with interest, but I admit one thought keeps going through my head:

"I'm SURE glad I stay away from sniper rifles!!" :)

[clintonhater]

I've watched this with interest, but I admit one thought keeps going through my head:

"I'm SURE glad I stay away from sniper rifles!!" :)

Yes, skinny cats like myself don't have to worry about being caught up in that mania.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There's more to come, Rick.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Headquarters U. S. Marine Corps
Office of the Quartermaster
Washington, DC

Quoted April 15, 1918.

1,000 leather carrying cases
for Winchester telescope
sights, including web straps
length 16-1/4" over-all;
inside diameter at base 1-
7/8"; inside diameter at
top 2-1/2"; each case to be
fitted with six leather loops
of such dimension to permit
the attachment of web strap.
Material used shall be 7 oz.
russet leather; each case to
be supplied with a leather
cap of same material measur-
ing 2-7/8" diameter, and 2-
1/4" deep, in accordance
with sample submitted.
_____________________

I pulled this one, which I suspect is exactly like yours, Steve. Allow me to examine this order as written.

"...each case to be
fitted with six leather loops
of such dimension to permit
the attachment of web strap."

OK, we now have 6-loops.

"...each case to
be supplied with a leather
cap of same material...."

Oh my goodness. Each of those caps has 2-loops, for a total loop count of 8 per scope case. The order is for 8-loop scope cases. When did you realize I was right?

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim you are speculating, and adding info to the document that isn't stated. I've posted this document publically several times, even on facebook. And I've given it out to about every 1903 expert I respect the opinion of, so a ton of people have a copy of this document now. No one has mentioned to me that they have came up to the conclussion you have.

The only way I could even see arguing this is by saying a documented 6 loop Marine case doesn't exist. But they do. In fact a Marine Winchester 6 loop case is pictured on page 506 in Brophy's Book.

To prove me wrong, you need a actual document that clearly states they ordered cases with 8 loops to hold the web sling. This document clearly states that the case has 6 loops to hold the web sling. It does not say the case BODY has 6 loops and then the lid has 2 loops. For you to infer anything other than the 6 loops menitoned above, as being anything but the grand total of the number of loops, you would just be speculating and guessing.

After I got my Brophy book back, he also clearly states that 6 loop case are Marine cases, and 8 loop are commercial on page 507. So you are going to have prove Brophy wrong as well and that is something that is very difficult to do.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/15776427_10154894201109886_112032797_o_zpsvz6oueyb .jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Unless someone changed the rules of grammar, there is no speculation whatsoever. Maybe you can point out what I added to the document for those who may be confused by your statement. Military specifications are by nature very definitive, and the Corps ordered 8-loop cases. That order made a definite distinction between the case and the cap, with the case to have 6-loops. As we all know, the cap has two loops, for a total of eight.

It appears to me that all Brophy is doing is confirming the source of the 6-loop cases as being post-war, and nothing else. Besides that, what do post-war shooting teams have to do with the subject at hand?

"And I've given it out to about every 1903 expert I respect the opinion of...." So you have no respect for the opinion of those on this forum to whom you did not send a copy? Finally, you make a statement I believe.

jt

[cplnorton]

It appears to me that all Brophy is doing is confirming the source of the 6-loop cases as being post-war, and nothing else. Besides that, what do post-war shooting teams have to do with the subject at hand?

jt


If you seriously read Brophy's statement above and came out of it with the 6 loop case is post war Commercial? I'm at a loss for words.

Brophy page 507. This is as clear as it gets, I don't know how to make it any clearer.


http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/15776427_10154894201109886_112032797_o%201_zpskkbe thky.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve,
First of all, I don't see the word "commercial" in my post, and you failed to point out what I added to the document as you claimed in your last post. Secondly, you need to take a course in reading and comprehension. I have been aware of that excerpt from Brophy for many years, but it has NOTHING to do with the Corps order for scope cases at the beginning of WWI. NOTHING.

I told you a long time ago that you need to read and comprehend the documents you are pulling. If you think that order does not indicate the case and cap have a combined total of 8-loops, you need to take a break.

You have begun to resort to insults in your responses, which is usually an indicator of desperation. This is a forum of people who have an interest in sniper rifles, and typically we discuss matters in a civil manner. We may disagree, and often do; but insults are uncalled for, serve no useful purpose, nor further understanding of the issues at hand. Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim,

I don't think I am reading anything wrong, and if you think otherwise that is ok. But I don't think many reasonable people would read that or the Brophy Comments and come to the same conclusion that you are stating as Proof Positive.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

"Proof Positive"? One thing I have learned, and so will you, is there is no "Proof Positive" when it comes to history, only opinions bolstered by evidence of differing types. Each man must weigh the evidence and judge for himself. You are the one who made the claim that the order in question proved"without a doubt" that 6-loop cases were ordered. Instead, it indicates 8-loop scope cases were ordered. But you were careful not to post a copy of it, and I suspected there was a very good reason. One of the experts you hold in high regard sent that order to me. He doesn't believe your position is tenable either.

There is more to come, folks.

Jim

[Roadkingtrax]

Jim, please post the document.

Otherwise, why keep going on about it?

[cplnorton]

But you were careful not to post a copy of it, and I suspected there was a very good reason. One of the experts you hold in high regard sent that order to me. He doesn't believe your position is tenable either.

There is more to come, folks.

Jim

Oh yeah Jim, I had no doubt you were quoting from MY document, that I found. I knew instantly that you didn't find that document, because if you actually found it, you would know about the companion document that goes with it, that was found next to it. And you would not be making many of the claims that are you making.

I shared only the one leather case document, that you quoted that you found, with many people, including many of the people who have posted on this discussion. But I am pretty sure I know exaclty who gave it to you. And I can guarantee they will never get anything else from me again. I also have been told by other experts that they gave you a few documents I found, but they did so not knowning, so I don't blame them.

This is why I only SHARE my good stuff with people I trust, because of reasons just like this.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Good Lord, Norton. Tell me you didn't write that post. You have let a simple disagreement evolve into something really nasty. You are going to "punish" forum members? None of this is worth that, my man. None of it. I consider the forum members to be friends and fellow companions, and I would help anyone who ask for it, as you did. I still have around fifty or sixty emails from you where you were asking for help, and I always gave it freely. This isn't a contest to hide information.

It is sad that you had the opportunity to help members, who for whatever reason, cannot go to the archives nor afford to pay someone to pull documents for them. Instead, you intend to "punish" them by withholding documents that are actually public information.

What does "...they did so not knowing...." mean? Not knowing what? I thought that business of you telling my Cody researcher that the documents I wanted were not at Cody was strange, but now I am having a sinking feeling there is more to this than I ever suspected. I was amazed that a researcher could spend $1000 worth of time going through indexed boxes and come back and tell me there were no documents on A5's, the USMC, sniper rifles, or WWI when the index clearly shows they exist. To be honest, I don't want to know. Keep it to yourself. I'll eat the $1000 and call it an education in humanity.

If any of you forum members find this as disturbing as I do, I apologize for my part in this whole mess. I have long been reluctant to publish all I have because I didn't want to provide information that would lead to even more fakes of probably the most faked rifle of all. I see now i was like a kid with all the marbles - there was no one else to play with. I am now writing a brief synopsis of what I have found, and if I can find a suitable path, will publish on this forum. Each of you can then judge for yourself.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim, that is not true at all. I post documents and research all the time on this forum for people. And most of it, has cost me a considerable amount of money to figure out. I told you before you even tried to retrace my steps, that is a journey you didn't want to go down. I even gave you some of it for free, even though you would never admit that I did that publically. But you chose to try to retrace my steps. So you can say I didn't warn you, or I didn't tell you the truth about where I found stuff, but that is totally false.

I help people everday in private email on whatever topic they are researching. I've freely give out documents that I have acquired on my own. But the ones that were found on a group effort, or someone gave to me. I make sure to give them credit or ask their permission first. Because I know how much I have spent in time and money on mine. So I give the same common courtesy to them.

Jim, you can make any claims of anything you want on here. But to try to claim that I don't help people or I'm lying about stuff, that is total utter garbage.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who has asked me for help, that I didn't go out of my way to help.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....I told you before you even tried to retrace my steps, that is a journey you didn't want to go down....

I have been doing this for many years, long before you got into it. I still have all the emails. I had no intention, nor did I say, that I wanted to retrace your path. I simply wanted specific documents, offered to pay you for them, and you refused, claiming there was a copyright issue with Cody. I can post those emails if you need to refresh your memory.


I even gave you some of it for free, even though you would never admit that I did that publically.

No you did not. Produce the email. The only thing you ever sent me was the FBI report.


But you chose to try to retrace my steps. So you can say I didn't warn you, or I didn't tell you the truth about where I found stuff, but that is totally false.

You were unwilling to share the documents, even though I offered to pay you for them. I decided to hire a researcher, and asked you for the name of yours. You refused to give me that name. I realized at that point that you had no intention of aiding me in my search. I hired my researcher and that debacle ensued. If you infer I am lying, I will post the entire series of emails.

I have never said you didn't tell me the truth about where you found stuff. I don't remember asking. Our discussions at the time were about Cody, so I assumed Cody was the source.


Jim, you can make any claims of anything you want on here. But to try to claim that I don't help people or I'm lying about stuff, that is total utter garbage.

I don't know whom you have helped, but I do know how you repaid me after I helped you. If you help people - great. That is what this forum is for.

I can back up every statement I have made. You might want to reread the series of emails before you press this issue too far. My previous posts were about the posts that you made today - they were your statements. I added nothing.

If you are going to further this debacle, I suggest we take it off forum. You have my email and I have yours. Jouster doesn't need to lose bandwidth on petty nonsense. Discussing how many straps is on a Corps scope case is one thing, this kind of nonsense needs to be between the two of us. If you have something to say about scope cases, I'll respond. Otherwise, I will refrain from posting unless your statements get too egregious or personal.

This thread began by my asking if anyone could produce a WWI Corps/sniper connected 6-loop scope case. It appears no one can. Let us leave it at that.

Jim

[cplnorton]

There are two sides to every story, and that one is yours. I do archive all my emails, and have went back and read them several times.

I do fully agree with one thing you have said though, this is beating a dead horse. There is more than enough info for the anyone to read and make their own conclusions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Outstanding. Let's move on.

Jim

[Jeff L]

I think we're done here.