Sniper Rifles

[JRice79]

I've never posted but appreciate all of the discussions that offer insights into what is real and what has been altered or faked. I pulled my collection out to wipe down and log some serial numbers, and decided to share a photo of my snipers. This is a work in progress and I'm happy to share additional photos/info. I still need to fill in some gaps and upgrade the M1C and MC1 that have the MC-52 stamp on the receiver.

Top down:

Springfield 1903 with offset Winchester A5 and Winchester mounts
Springfield 1903 with USMC modified Winchester A5 and Mann Neidner mounts
Springfield 1903 with Lyman 5A
Springfield 1903A1 with USMC Unertl
Remington 1903A4 with Weaver M73B1
Remington 1903A4 with Lyman M81
Springfield M1C with Lyman M82
Springfield MC1 with USMC Kollmorgen
Winchester M1D with M84 (WWII SN)
Winchester M70 with USMC Unertl (40,000 SN)
Winchester M70 with Lyman (US electro penciled marked with 150,000 SN)
Winchester M70 with USMC Unertl (US electro penciled marked with 300,000 SN)

[JRice79]

37823

[JRice79]

Feedback is welcomed. Also, still need a M40A1.

[JRice79]

Anyone know how to upload a better picture?

[cplnorton]

I can't see them, but if you want you can email them to me and I will post them for you.

It sounds like you and I are very much into the same things. I'm working on the same list. lol

cplnorton2@yahoo.com

[cplnorton]

Or I usually upload my pics to photobucket. Then you can attach a link to the album on photobucket, or you can link each pic onto here. Linking each pic onto here is the best option.

This is one of the mods here writing how to post them as well.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?7806-How-to-post-pics

[Promo]

The attachments also do not work for me, but I would be highly looking forward to the pictures of what sounds to be a very interesting collection!

[JRice79]

I can't see them, but if you want you can email them to me and I will post them for you.

It sounds like you and I are very much into the same things. I'm working on the same list. lol

cplnorton2@yahoo.com

Thank you. I sent the picture to your email. - Jon

[cplnorton]

Here is Jon's picture.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/image2%201_zps7ki8jwqy.jpg

[Allen]

I've never posted but appreciate all of the discussions that offer insights into what is real and what has been altered or faked. I pulled my collection out to wipe down and log some serial numbers, and decided to share a photo of my snipers. This is a work in progress and I'm happy to share additional photos/info. I still need to fill in some gaps and upgrade the M1C and MC1 that have the MC-52 stamp on the receiver.

Top down:

Springfield 1903 with offset Winchester A5 and Winchester mounts
Springfield 1903 with USMC modified Winchester A5 and Mann Neidner mounts
Springfield 1903 with Lyman 5A
Springfield 1903A1 with USMC Unertl
Remington 1903A4 with Weaver M73B1
Remington 1903A4 with Lyman M81
Springfield M1C with Lyman M82
Springfield MC1 with USMC Kollmorgen
Winchester M1D with M84 (WWII SN)
Winchester M70 with USMC Unertl (40,000 SN)
Winchester M70 with Lyman (US electro penciled marked with 150,000 SN)
Winchester M70 with USMC Unertl (US electro penciled marked with 300,000 SN)

Wow, these are nice. You either have a very understanding wife or no wife.

[pmclaine]

Awesome collection.

Don't eave out the M40 (Rem 700) lineage or the M24.

[Promo]

Wonderful collection! May I ask if the Lyman 5A is also on the Mann-Neidner bases? And what serial ranges are the M1903 sniper rifles in?

[rayg]

3782637827

[John Sukey]

Very nice. Will just have to be content with my one No4 Mk1T

[JRice79]

Thank you. My wife is the best! She has bought me several guns and supports my hobby which can be expensive. I've also had the pleasure of meeting some really good people who allow me to buy high ticket items on layaway. Otherwise I would never be able to afford some of these. Forced savings.

[JRice79]

I like those. Almost picked one up in the box when they were reasonably priced. Prices have definitely gone up.

[JRice79]

Thank you. I have a M40 but it's very hard to find the M1A and M40A1. I've seen the Remington M24 program and asked a friend at the NRA if he can help me buy an all original setup. No joy so far.

[JRice79]

Wonderful collection! May I ask if the Lyman 5A is also on the Mann-Neidner bases? And what serial ranges are the M1903 sniper rifles in?

Negative. I believe they're Unertl mounts. Serial number is 1.49 million range with 3-37 star gauged barrel and watery blued bolt. USMC Unertl also fits but I decided to keep the scope that came with it on.

[Promo]

Thank you for the information! What serial ranges are the one with the Winchester A5 offset scope and the one with the Winchester A5 with the Mann-Neidner modified rings in?

[JRice79]

Thank you for the information! What serial ranges are the one with the Winchester A5 offset scope and the one with the Winchester A5 with the Mann-Neidner modified rings in?

457594 and 660214

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Impressive. Thanks for sharing. You should be very proud.

[Promo]

Thank you. What is really interesting, the second rifle is right in the block of rifles which are SRS associated with WRA in 1919.

If you have time, please post detail pictures of the rifles individually! Would highly appreciate that!

[jgaynor]

Very nice collection. :1948:

[Shooter5]

Thank you. I have a M40 but it's very hard to find the M1A and M40A1. I've seen the Remington M24 program and asked a friend at the NRA if he can help me buy an all original setup. No joy so far.

Fantastic collection. The Loft had a M24

https://m.facebook.com/sportsmans.loft/

Have you considered adding a Model 720?

http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-galleries/world-war-i-and-firearms-innovation/case-35-evolution-of-the-bolt-action-rifle/remington-model-720a-bolt-action-rifle.aspx

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thank you. What is really interesting, the second rifle is right in the block of rifles which are SRS associated with WRA in 1919.

If you have time, please post detail pictures of the rifles individually! Would highly appreciate that!


Someone finally noticed.

jt

[JRice79]

Someone finally noticed.

jt

Thank you. I'll have to call the Loft. Any idea on the price?

Very interested in learning more about the M720; optics, etc. never heard of it until now. Thank you for sharing that link. Any idea where I can find one :)

[Shooter5]

The 720 is a rare bird, only have seen 2 at gun shows in last 15 years (and kicked myself for not getting either one!) and one online few years back. I dont know much about them nor any optics, nor do I know if any were employed in combat.
The M24 at the loft was $3600. I dont know if its new production or one of US Army so-called "surplus" models. I assum you are aware of that saga?

[cplnorton]

Thank you. What is really interesting, the second rifle is right in the block of rifles which are SRS associated with WRA in 1919.

Georg you can pretty much write off all those WRA Inpsected rifles from the SRS. I know there was speculation that they might have some association with Marine A5 rifles. But after reading them, they were just regular Winchester ammo testing with rifles provided by Ordanance. So I would honestly just ignore them.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It isn't likely that anyone is going to "write off" a block of rifles that include every known authenticate Marine A5 rifles SN identified to date. Exactly why did WRA need such a huge number of rifles to test ammo? Ammo testing is normally done with pressure guns, rail guns, or something equivalent to same. The idea when testing ammo is to 1. Prove the ammo is safe (pressure) to fire in typical rifles, and 2. Take the human element out of the accuracy test. An ammo company testing ammo by letting old Joe Blow blaze away at some target with a 1903 he got from SA just sounds silly. WRA had more rifles in that block than they had employees. I do not claim to know why they had so many 03's in such a tight block, but I would wager it wasn't for testing ammo.

jt

[clintonhater]

Wow, these are nice. You either have a very understanding wife or no wife.

And a good job.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

It isn't likely that anyone is going to "write off" a block of rifles that include every known authenticate Marine A5 rifles SN identified to date. Exactly why did WRA need such a huge number of rifles to test ammo? Ammo testing is normally done with pressure guns, rail guns, or something equivalent to same. The idea when testing ammo is to 1. Prove the ammo is safe (pressure) to fire in typical rifles, and 2. Take the human element out of the accuracy test. An ammo company testing ammo by letting old Joe Blow blaze away at some target with a 1903 he got from SA just sounds silly. WRA had more rifles in that block than they had employees. I do not claim to know why they had so many 03's in such a tight block, but I would wager it wasn't for testing ammo.

jt

Respectfully, disagree.

It specifically lists the rifles have been used for "testing ammunition." It mentions nothing as telescoped rifles or mounted with A5s or any sort of "optics" (for lack of a better term).

The correspondence is VERY detailed. If they were mounted with any sort of telescopes. It would be included in the shipping order.

It also lists M1917 rifles which were included in the shipment as well. They do not make any mention of any telescopes mounted the rifle.

If there was anything in the document to imply anything mounted, I'm sure Frank Mallory would have included in his database when constructing the SRS lists.

I usually don't participate in these discussions since I'm not well versed on the subject as others. But I can say definitively that the rifles in question were used with ammunition testing at WRA (M1903s and M1917s), testing was complete and they wanted order to where to ship them. Nothing more.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Respectfully, disagree.

Disagree with what exactly?


It specifically lists the rifles are to be used for "testing ammunition."

What is "it"?


It mentions nothing as they telescoped rifles or mounted with A5s or any sort of "optics"

I didn't mention it either.


The correspondence is VERY detailed. If they were mounted with any sort of telescopes. It would be included in the shipping order.

Only if the order preceded the shipment - right?


It also lists M1917 rifles which were included in the shipment as well. They do not make any mention of any telescopes mounted the rifle.

I didn't say they did.


If there was anything in the document to imply anything mounted, I'm sure Frank Mallory would have included in his database when constructing the SRS lists.

Most likely.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. No one, to my knowledge, has made any statement whatsoever about the rifles being shipped to WRA to have scopes mounted. What I said, and further implied, is that one who believes those rifles, that outnumber all WRA employees by many multiples to one, were sent to WRA for WRA to use to "test ammunition", would have to be one really gullible individual.

Of course, your document explains the oddity of all the known USMC A5 sniper rifles being included in that serial number expanse of that group of rifles? A rather narrow grouping at that. To repeat myself, no one with a curious mind is going to dismiss the existence of the WRA block of rifles based on any documents found by Mallory or anyone else. There was a war going on with a huge demand for 1903 Springfields and someone had to present a reason for transferring a large number of those 1903 rifles to WRA instead of the 4th Brigade, the Rainbow Division, and many others engaged, or to be engaged, in combat. If you look at contemporary documents, the M16 was issued to all Marines complete with a cleaning rod and cleaning kit. I can assure you those documents are BS. I was issued a M16 in 1970 with no rod or cleaning kit as was the rest of my company.

jt

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Disagree with what exactly?



What is "it"?



I didn't mention it either.



Only if the order preceded the shipment - right?



I didn't say they did.



Most likely.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. No one, to my knowledge, has made any statement whatsoever about the rifles being shipped to WRA to have scopes mounted. What I said, and further implied, is that one who believes those rifles, that outnumber all WRA employees by many multiples to one, were sent to WRA for WRA to use to "test ammunition", would have to be one really gullible individual.

Of course, your document explains the oddity of all the known USMC A5 sniper rifles being included in that serial number expanse of that group of rifles? A rather narrow grouping at that. To repeat myself, no one with a curious mind is going to dismiss the existence of the WRA block of rifles based on any documents found by Mallory or anyone else. There was a war going on with a huge demand for 1903 Springfields and someone had to present a reason for transferring a large number of those 1903 rifles to WRA instead of the 4th Brigade, the Rainbow Division, and many others engaged, or to be engaged, in combat. If you look at contemporary documents, the M16 was issued to all Marines complete with a cleaning rod and cleaning kit. I can assure you those documents are BS. I was issued a M16 in 1970 with no rod or cleaning kit as was the rest of my company.

jt

Then I could be mistaken to the intent of your original statement. You stated you wouldn't wager they were used for testing ammunition. Whereas it specifically states they were.

I have heard several people make claim (not saying you are or have) that those SN block of "INSP OF ORDNANCE WRA CO" are A5 sniper rifles. Or had some sort or link to sniper rifles. That is not the case in those SRS hits. If they were made into sniper rifles later, it's possible but on March 26, 1919 they did not exist in such configuration. But if they were made into sniper rifles later, that's speculation, but entirely possible. I'm just stating what is recorded to those SNs.

The shipping order is very detailed, the SN of rifle, model of the rifle (M1903 or M1917), when it was received, where it was manufactured (SA or RIA), damage during testing (broken stock, stock split, etc.), number of rounds fired and equipment mounted to it (few were pressure gauges some had nothing mounted to it as it states), spare parts list included in the shipment (being as specific to stocks and broken stocks). If anything else was specific to the rifle, it would have mentioned it. If A5 scopes mounted to the rifle would certainly have been included.

It does not say "why" the rifles were used for testing ammunition. Ammunition was a problem during that timeframe but that is a separate discussion topic. So I'll leave that one separate from here.

It specifically says that the rifles were used for testing ammunition, ammunition testing has been completed at the plant and they wanted shipping orders of where to send them next.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Since the document is so detailed, tell us what kind of ammo testing was performed that required so many rifles?

The document, to which you refer, was written after the war was over. The armories were awash in surplus weapons at that time. The 400(+) sniper rifles that went to France with the 11th and 13th Regiments were still in France. Upon their return, the Corps had at minimum, 400 surplus sniper rifles, which makes the idea that the Corps built more sniper rifles after the war sound absolutely ridiculous (another subject entirely). We know WRA assembled the Corps sniper rifles, and all known examples fall within the serial number range of this block of rifles we are discussing. Does it not seem reasonable that WRA used rifles from this block of rifles they had on hand to build sniper rifles, versus asking for even more 1903's at a time when the demand for 1903's was highest and SA was on the hot seat?

Had WRA asked for more rifles to fill their obligation to the Corps, don't you think SA would have shipped newly made rifles to WRA, having distributed every available rifle they had to the National Guard units and the Corps to arm future combat troops? If I had been running SA at the time and WRA asked for a thousand rifles, I would have told them to use what they had on hand and then call me back when the stock was depleted. Forget documents for a minute, and try to explain the situation you believe existed that would account for the known physical evidence.

By the way, have you seen the 6-loop scope case for sale? The seller states it is a commercial unit from the 1920-28 time frame.

jt

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Since the document is so detailed, tell us what kind of ammo testing was performed that required so many rifles?

The document, to which you refer, was written after the war was over. The armories were awash in surplus weapons at that time. The 400(+) sniper rifles that went to France with the 11th and 13th Regiments were still in France. Upon their return, the Corps had at minimum, 400 surplus sniper rifles, which makes the idea that the Corps built more sniper rifles after the war sound absolutely ridiculous (another subject entirely). We know WRA assembled the Corps sniper rifles, and all known examples fall within the serial number range of this block of rifles we are discussing. Does it not seem reasonable that WRA used rifles from this block of rifles they had on hand to build sniper rifles, versus asking for even more 1903's at a time when the demand for 1903's was highest and SA was on the hot seat?

Had WRA asked for more rifles to fill their obligation to the Corps, don't you think SA would have shipped newly made rifles to WRA, having distributed every available rifle they had to the National Guard units and the Corps to arm future combat troops? If I had been running SA at the time and WRA asked for a thousand rifles, I would have told them to use what they had on hand and then call me back when the stock was depleted. Forget documents for a minute, and try to explain the situation you believe existed that would account for the known physical evidence.

By the way, have you seen the 6-loop scope case for sale? The seller states it is a commercial unit from the 1920-28 time frame.

jt

You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.

I am merely stating specifically what is included in the documentation.

All these rifles were received at different dates and not one shipment. Some of the rifles were received for testing as early as August of 1917 (1 rifle may have been June 1917 but slight smudge where it would be a "6" or an "8"). These rifles were received at various dates from August 1917 until testing was concluded. Each one with a specific date of when it was received at the plant. And they were received scattered throughout the testing phase.

The document is stating testing of the ammunition was complete and they were requesting orders where to ship them.

I don't want to get into "why" or "how." I just want to stick with what is documented. Anything more is outside my research goals, which is just to collect data. I am just relaying the a portion of the data that contained within that correspondence.

As far as the 6-loop scope case. I know there's a couple different variations in scope cases, but I'll be honest I wouldn't be able to tell the different between it and another variation. So if I saw it I probably wouldn't realize it.

[cplnorton]

Jim I am lost by your posts. If you haven't seen the WRA Ordnance inspected document from 1919, how do you know those rifles had anything to do with the Marine A5 rifles?

On the six loop case on ebay. There is actually a name on the case that appears much older than the rest of the writing. Did you run his name against the Marine rosters? Because it's interesting.

http://i1282.photobucket.com/albums/a535/cplnorton11/s-l1600_zpsbqpslshx.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim I am lost by your posts. If you haven't seen the WRA Ordnance inspected document from 1919, how do you know those rifles had anything to do with the Marine A5 rifles?

Did I say I hadn't seen the document? If you are confused by my questions, think about those of us you are trying to convince that SA had some stash of 1903's they dribbled to WRA for ammo testing, all made within a short time period in 1916, at a time when the military was short of 1903's and waiting for armament to deploy.

I have not seen, nor have you presented, any document that precludes an association of the two groups of rifles. On the other hand I have stated it is notable that one group encompasses the other. One needs no document to make that observation.


On the six loop case on ebay. There is actually a name on the case that appears much older than the rest of the writing. Did you run his name against the Marine rosters? Because it's interesting.

All I can see is a name written with a lighter ink than the remainder of the script, if indeed both are written in ink. I could duplicate the effect with the pens lying on my desk.

The owner clearly states the origin of the case as being post war commercial. I see no basis, nor reason, to dispute his statement.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.]/quote]

"The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question." If one never speculates, one does no research. Speculation is the heart of research.

[quote]I am merely stating specifically what is included in the documentation.

No issue with that.


"All these rifles were received at different dates and not one shipment. Some of the rifles were received for testing as early as August of 1917 (1 rifle may have been June 1917 but slight smudge where it would be a "6" or an "8"). These rifles were received at various dates from August 1917 until testing was concluded. Each one with a specific date of when it was received at the plant. And they were received scattered throughout the testing phase.

If each rifle was received on a differing date, I don't think there were that many days in the period of interest. Would you like to make a correction in your statement?


I don't want to get into "why" or "how." I just want to stick with what is documented. Anything more is outside my research goals, which is just to collect data.

That isn't research, it just the gathering of data. Data tells a story, you might get the right story or you may be off a tad, but use the data and tell your story. It's history. History is what interest people. I'm sure a stack of documents would hold some amusement for some people, but it would be better if you interpreted the data and expressed your viewpoint. Be careful interpreting the data - therein the big bopper resides. For example: CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles, yet there is not one word in those documents that precludes that notion. I have little interest in ammo testing, but what the documents tell me was that WRA had a stockpile of 1903's that they could have used to construct the sniper rifles. They further tell me that the sniper rifles fall into that block of rifles nicely. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt

[cplnorton]

CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt


Yes I do believe that, but it's because the Marine/WRA documents state that WRA did not provide the rifles that Winchester mounted the A5 scopes on for the Marines. The documents clearly state that the Marines Furnished the rifles to WRA, for Winchester to mount the A5 scopes. Also if you double check the serials that WRA inpsected in that 1919 date in the SRS. They all do not fall in the 600k range as you state. There are low number RIA's on that document, and even high number SA serials on that document. Not including the 1917 rifles on that document. So if you are going to use that 1919 WRA document to prove that all Marine A5 serials fall in that 600k range, the document clearly state there are serials outside that range. You can check the SRS and look for WRA inspected serials with the same date and you will see what I mean.

Also you are basing the Marine A5 serial ranges off the roughly 8 that are in the SRS, that Frank found at the archives. I have those documents that Frank pulled those serials off of. If you check the dates of those serials in the SRS. They are mostly 1930, with a couple like 1926. But these are not WWI dated documents.

If you actually read the real documents that Frank pulled those serials off of, they do not say A5 rifle. In fact check out the SRS, Frank does not even say A5 fitted rifle as he does on the early 400k rifles. Frank only states they are SGS rifles. And the MArine document only states they are 1903 Telescopic equipped rifles. Which by this time the Marines had also purchased Fecker scopes, so there is always the possibility these rifles were not even A5, as they had Fecker scopes at this time as well.

But if you say those 8 serials from the SRS, dated in the 1930's are proof they all fall in that 600k range, there are other MArine documents from this time that are not published, that have Telescopic equipped rifle serials outside this 600k range. Tim Plowman found them at the National Archives. So you can't even say they all fall into the 600k range now.

The Marines for sure recieved 650 A5 rifles during the war. There is only (1) 100% for sure A5 recorded in the Marine docs during WWI that is known. It clearly states it is equipped with a A5 scope and is in France in early 1918. The rest are recorded roughly 10 years later when the MArines also had Fecker Scopes. And at that time there are serials recorded outside the 600k range.

There is just not enough proof to make any claims on serial ranges when you have a handful that aren't even for sure, and they had 650. Any claims made are just speculation.

[cplnorton]

All I can see is a name written with a lighter ink than the remainder of the script, if indeed both are written in ink. I could duplicate the effect with the pens lying on my desk.

The owner clearly states the origin of the case as being post war commercial. I see no basis, nor reason, to dispute his statement.

jt


I sort of did that for a reason Jim, as I knew you would make the argument that a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. I 100% agree with you, but I wanted you to see my point. If you go back and read our discussion on the other post, on the 6 vs 8 loop cases, that is the exact same argument I was making to you. But you said that was wrong as you said that a handwritten name on a 8 loop case was proof that is what they used. But as you just said, anyone can replicate that. That is why a document is undeniable, but a hand written name on a case is not.

In the WRA documents they clearly state that the Marines had 6 loop cases. It is mentioned several times. So even though that ebay seller says 6 loop is commercial, the original Winchester documents are a much more reliable source of information than a ebay seller

[Smokeeaterpilot]

[QUOTE=Smokeeaterpilot;475382]You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.]/quote]

"The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question." If one never speculates, one does no research. Speculation is the heart of research.



No issue with that.



If each rifle was received on a differing date, I don't think there were that many days in the period of interest. Would you like to make a correction in your statement?



That isn't research, it just the gathering of data. Data tells a story, you might get the right story or you may be off a tad, but use the data and tell your story. It's history. History is what interest people. I'm sure a stack of documents would hold some amusement for some people, but it would be better if you interpreted the data and expressed your viewpoint. Be careful interpreting the data - therein the big bopper resides. For example: CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles, yet there is not one word in those documents that precludes that notion. I have little interest in ammo testing, but what the documents tell me was that WRA had a stockpile of 1903's that they could have used to construct the sniper rifles. They further tell me that the sniper rifles fall into that block of rifles nicely. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt

I accumulate data and record my findings. Should a question or discussion arises where they can provide valuable information or offer a definitive answer on a topic, then I will share what is documented. As I have here.

I stick to what is factual and separate it from is not substantiated. I'm not interested in contributing to conjecture.

Here the facts are simple.
1) This document states there are rifles at the WRA Plant which were used in ammunition testing and ammunition testing is complete.
2) The Ordnance officer is requesting shipping orders due to the fact that testing has been completed.
3) Each rifle was recorded and certain information included in the document (see above for what is included).
4) Some rifles were mounted with equipment, the only equipment mentioned were pressure gauges.
5) These rifles include (M1903 and M1917 rifles)(The model 1903 SNs include 260k RI made and SA made 600k-1 million).
6) There is no mention of the scope or intent of the ammunition testing, merely notification that testing was complete. The document is a request for shipping orders, it is not a review of the test itself.
7) The rifles were not received for testing the same day. They were received at different intervals between August 1917 and when testing was noted as concluded on the date of the document. The dates are scattered throughout that period. It does not state the specific date when the test itself was concluded. But one can definitively state that as of March 26, 1919 testing was concluded. To answer your question, no I would not want to revise my statement. It is very clear when the rifle was received by serial number and by month, day and year. All dates varying from the range noted above.
8) If there were any possibility of the rifles being shipped and fitted with scopes, it would be documented. You can review SRS hit such as:
"473298 SGS 022814 FITTED W/ A5 SCOPE BY WRA C" That is another shipping order which details a rifle that has been shipped fitted with an A5 scope. When a rifle has been shipped or received, if it was fitted with a telescope, it was noted in the paperwork. And yes I have that paperwork as well, so it is not based on opinion. It is documented.


I'm not interested in getting into arguments. I am interested in separating opinion from what is documented. Here what is documented is very specific and detailed.

Going beyond what is documented is opinion, which is fine. However, assumptions were made about those serial numbers blocks and that particular citation without reviewing the data contained within. Which would fit as a perfect definition as conclusions based on incomplete information.

If you would like to discuss details about what is documented within the correspondence, I would be happy to and answer questions specific to what was documented. Anything beyond that would be conjecture on my part and I am not interested in it because I would not be able to prove it. Other individuals may wish to form theories based on that data, that is fine. It's just not what I do. I'm just offering information what I have recorded.

Anything is possible, however I am only answering what I can state definitively. Beyond that is outside my research goals.

Respectfully,

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

.... So if you are going to use that 1919 WRA document to prove that all Marine A5 serials fall in that 600k range, the document clearly state there are serials outside that range.

Please stick to what I say, not what you think I said. I have never said any such thing. Don't waste bandwidth.



Also you are basing the Marine A5 serial ranges off the roughly 8 that are in the SRS, that Frank found at the archives. I have those documents that Frank pulled those serials off of. If you check the dates of those serials in the SRS. They are mostly 1930, with a couple like 1926. But these are not WWI dated documents.

Once again, please stick to what I have stated, not what you want me to say. I have no idea what you are talking about. I am doing no such thing, and I am not aware of any 8-SRS Corps sniper rifles in the SRS. Please be more specific and quit guessing as to what I am doing.


If you actually read the real documents that Frank pulled those serials off of, they do not say A5 rifle. In fact check out the SRS, Frank does not even say A5 fitted rifle as he does on the early 400k rifles. Frank only states they are SGS rifles. And the MArine document only states they are 1903 Telescopic equipped rifles. Which by this time the Marines had also purchased Fecker scopes, so there is always the possibility these rifles were not even A5, as they had Fecker scopes at this time as well.

What are you talking about? I have copies of those documents. Please show me where I made any statements that led you to such BS.


But if you say those 8 serials from the SRS, dated in the 1930's are proof they all fall in that 600k range, there are other MArine documents from this time that are not published, that have Telescopic equipped rifle serials outside this 600k range. Tim Plowman found them at the National Archives. So you can't even say they all fall into the 600k range now.

I have no idea as to the 8 serial numbers to which you refer. Where in the world did you pull this crap out of a hat? Please show me where I said they all fell into the 600K range. Are you related to Hilliary Clinton? From the 30(+) verified and 40(+) possibles I have in my database, I can freely state that all the rifles DO NOT fall exclusively into the 600K range. Quit making crap up, Hilliary.


The Marines for sure recieved 650 A5 rifles during the war. There is only (1) 100% for sure A5 recorded in the Marine docs during WWI that is known. It clearly states it is equipped with a A5 scope and is in France in early 1918. The rest are recorded roughly 10 years later when the MArines also had Fecker Scopes. And at that time there are serials recorded outside the 600k range.

You are stating as fact what is clearly not. I have Marine documents that positively prove you wrong.



There is just not enough proof to make any claims on serial ranges when you have a handful that aren't even for sure, and they had 650. Any claims made are just speculation.

No kidding? Look at your previous statement and tell me you weren't speculating:-). The purpose of my research was to identify 150 rifles on which A. O. Niedner mounted scopes for the Marine Corps. I have identified 24.7% of them (handful? - BS). In the process, I found a larger number of WRA rifles. I have identified the Marines who ran the sniper program, and by whose authority they ran same. I discovered why they chose the particular combination of components for the rifles, and have found the actual sniper course curriculum used at the OSD SOS school. But I make no claims as to "serial number ranges", regardless of your repeated erroneous posts. I have made certain observations about the WRA rifles, as stated above; but no more.

You do not know what I have - period. You have collected copies of documents that have been known and available for decades. Somehow that has made you all-knowing as to the WWI Marine sniper program. Please understand I am not trying to be rude (as you have been), but you have merely touched the surface of the subject.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

[QUOTE=Marine A5 Sniper Rifle;475402]I accumulate data and record my findings. Should a question or discussion arises where they can provide valuable information or offer a definitive answer on a topic, then I will share what is documented. As I have here.

Wonderful.


I stick to what is factual and separate it from is not substantiated. I'm not interested in contributing to conjecture.

Good.


Here the facts are simple.....7) The rifles were not received for testing the same day. They were received at different intervals between August 1917 and when testing was noted as concluded on the date of the document.

Noted.


If there were any possibility of the rifles being shipped and fitted with scopes, it would be documented.

Pure conjecture.


When a rifle has been shipped or received, if it was fitted with a telescope, it was noted in the paperwork.

More conjecture on your part. You have looked at a few hundreds of documents and you can definitively state what would be contained in EVERY document? As a former Marine 0141 (I had 3-MOS's), I can assure you that is more BS.


And yes I have that paperwork as well, so it is not based on opinion. It is documented.

I have it as well. What has that got to do with the subject at hand?



I'm not interested in getting into arguments. I am interested in separating opinion from what is documented. Here what is documented is very specific and detailed.

If you discount opinions, there would be no need for this forum. Opinions, or hypothesis, are the foundation of research. Try getting a research grant without an opinion.


Going beyond what is documented is opinion, which is fine. However, assumptions were made about those serial numbers blocks and that particular citation without reviewing the data contained within. Which would fit as a perfect definition as conclusions based on incomplete information.

You are assuming the shipping document precludes WRA from having used the rifles as a source for the sniper rifles. Please show me which statement in your document supports that possibility. If I were doing cancer research, and I used a sample a cohort was testing as a cure for the common cold and later published the fact that it didn't work; yet I discovered the sample cured cancer, are you telling me the sample didn't cure cancer because a document exist that states the sample was used for cold research? Your document proves what you stated, but negates nothing.


....I'm just offering information what I have recorded.

I respect that and thank you for your post. I have accumulated a lot, if not most, of the same documents you guys have collected. I like shipping documents because it is a "point in time". I am glad to see you guys doing this work, but others have preceded you. There was a time on the forum when we freely traded documents. I don't see much of that anymore. Like many others, I have a file cabinet filled with documents plus a few cardboard boxes. I am surprised you have no goal in mind. Having a premise to prove can make the hunt a lot more fun.

Again, good luck.

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim,

All I am doing is pointing out some holes in your statements, that are not supported by the documents. When I do so, I usually post the actual Marine or Winchester document for everyone to read. You then take it personal and start making a lot of claims. Some I really question. It's just constructive criticism Jim. You shouldn't take it so personal.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I sort of did that for a reason Jim, as I knew you would make the argument that a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. I 100% agree with you, but I wanted you to see my point. If you go back and read our discussion on the other post, on the 6 vs 8 loop cases, that is the exact same argument I was making to you. But you said that was wrong as you said that a handwritten name on a 8 loop case was proof that is what they used. But as you just said, anyone can replicate that. That is why a document is undeniable, but a hand written name on a case is not.

You are quite confused Anyone can read for themselves what I said. And you wasted your time, as I never said a hand written name on a scope case means nothing. If it can be traced to its source and matched to a known sniper, it is means a lot.

Please point out where I said a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. Would you consider an Indian Treaty an "undeniable" document? Native Americans might take exception to your assertion that a written document is "undeniable" as to the accuracy of its contents. Your statement has absolutely no basis in truth. Moreover, any order made from any vendor during WWI was subject to change during manufacturing depending on numerous variables beyond the control of the manufacturer. It is called "force majeure", and such clauses are normally found in any contract, even today.


In the WRA documents they clearly state that the Marines had 6 loop cases. It is mentioned several times. So even though that ebay seller says 6 loop is commercial, the original Winchester documents are a much more reliable source of information than a Ebay seller.

Your documents do NOT say the Marines had, or ever possessed, 6-loop cases. It says 6-loop cases were ordered. Huge difference therein.

Are you saying the eBay seller does not know the origin of the case he is selling? What is the basis for that claim? Then go through the list of snipers names and show us one named "F. Allen". Good luck with that. I had already checked.


If they had 8 loop cases, you need to find a document like this Jim that proves it.

No I do not. First of all, I don't care what cases they had. Secondly, the preponderance of physical evidence will demonstrate what the Marines actually had. The cases are proof within themselves. All identical, snipers that can be traced through OSD SOS sniper school using USMC records, all from differing sources (families of the sniper for the most part), one source still living that will certify the case he sold belonged to his father who was an OSD trained sniper, and the fact that you cannot produce a single 6-loop case that can be connected to any sniper, certainly carries way more weight than your document.


A handwritten name is just not enough proof as you just said.

I said no such thing. Why do you make stuff up?


This is posted with written premission from the Cody Museum. These documents can not be used by anyone without written permission.

I had rather see the letter of "written permission".

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim,

All I am doing is pointing out some holes in your statements, that are not supported by the documents. When I do so, I usually post the actual Marine or Winchester document for everyone to read. You then take it personal and start making a lot of claims. Some I really question. It's just constructive criticism Jim. You shouldn't take it so personal.

I take none of this diatribe as personal, nor do I know of any of my statements I have made that you pointed out "holes", whatever that means. Maybe you can give us some examples. While at that task, please list a few of the "claims" I have made that you reference. You are the one who has made definitive claims, and I was giving the "constructive criticism". I can promise you, that in the future, I see you make statements like "ignore the WRA block of rifles", I will provide more constructive criticism. If you consider that "taking it personal", so be it. I call it having a differing opinion. When it comes to 1903 Springfields, my advice to you is never to say anything was not possible, or did not exist, or was "exactly as". Many of us have been guilty of such statements, and most of us paid a price.

What claim have I made that you "really question"? Rather than make cryptic CS comments no one can defend, be a man and spit it out.

I have noticed when I respond to your posts and raise questions, you ignore my questions entirely. Reason?

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim,

This has obviously become very personal to you as you are now resorting to personal attacks. In this post you have compared me to Hillary Clinton, implied you know way more than I could know, and are now accusing me of making stuff up.

I question a lot of the statements you make, and the evidence you say you have. But to argue it with you would not do any good. Even providing evidence that contradicts your statements, you will just say it's not correct, and then state your evidence trumps mine. But yet you never post your evidence so it can face peer review .

As for you saying I am making stuff up. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone that would make a claim like that against me.

Once it gets personal like this, I'm out Jim. I will not go into the gutter with you. So I will not respond to you anymore.

To the OP, Johnathon, sorry I was part of hijacking your post with all this nonsense. You have a wonderful collecting and something to be really proud of!

[Smokeeaterpilot]

[QUOTE=Smokeeaterpilot;475411]

Wonderful.



Good.



Noted.



Pure conjecture.



More conjecture on your part. You have looked at a few hundreds of documents and you can definitively state what would be contained in EVERY document? As a former Marine 0141 (I had 3-MOS's), I can assure you that is more BS.



I have it as well. What has that got to do with the subject at hand?




If you discount opinions, there would be no need for this forum. Opinions, or hypothesis, are the foundation of research. Try getting a research grant without an opinion.



You are assuming the shipping document precludes WRA from having used the rifles as a source for the sniper rifles. Please show me which statement in your document supports that possibility. If I were doing cancer research, and I used a sample a cohort was testing as a cure for the common cold and later published the fact that it didn't work; yet I discovered the sample cured cancer, are you telling me the sample didn't cure cancer because a document exist that states the sample was used for cold research? Your document proves what you stated, but negates nothing.



I respect that and thank you for your post. I have accumulated a lot, if not most, of the same documents you guys have collected. I like shipping documents because it is a "point in time". I am glad to see you guys doing this work, but others have preceded you. There was a time on the forum when we freely traded documents. I don't see much of that anymore. Like many others, I have a file cabinet filled with documents plus a few cardboard boxes. I am surprised you have no goal in mind. Having a premise to prove can make the hunt a lot more fun.

Again, good luck.

jt

I'll make this simple, your statements concerning the "Insp of Ordnance WRA Co" files were incorrect, simply because you did not have access to the document, period.

I was informing you of its contents simply because you lacked the means to access it. It does require time and money to access and review these files, so I don't share copies for free. I have provided posted the information that is contained within. Most of which was copy and paste.

Since you have not seen them, I'm not interested in arguing over its contents, since statements about them thus far have been incorrect. What is contained is detailed and concrete. If you have specific questions about what is documented and I have copies in my files (this or other scoped rifle files), the invitation is open since not everyone has quick access to the archives and I would be happy to discuss them.

But continuing an argument over something you haven't read. I am disinterested in continuing that.

Meeting adjourned.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

This has obviously become very personal to you as you are now resorting to personal attacks. In this post you have compared me to Hillary Clinton, implied you know way more than I could know, and are now accusing me of making stuff up.

You made up statements you say I made, but I made no such statements. If that isn't making up stuff, pray tell what is. I was not in any way referring to your collection of data.


"I question a lot of the statements you make, and the evidence you say you have. But to argue it with you would not do any good. Even providing evidence that contradicts your statements, you will just say it's not correct, and then state your evidence trumps mine. But yet you never post your evidence so it can face peer review.

What peer review? I have explained repeatedly that my interest does not include the arbitrary collection of data per se. My goal is to identify 150 specific rifles - period. I have formed opinions or have a curious interest in other aspects of the world we call 1903's. That is why I am a member of this forum. You seem to read into my statements things that don't belong there, and you have repeatedly claimed I have made statements I have not made. Now you say it is not worth the effort to argue about it because I would say my evidence trumps yours? Dude, what are you talking about? What evidence are you talking about? I have presented no evidence whatsoever. I have asked you repeatedly to show me where I made these statements, and you just ignore me.


As for you saying I am making stuff up. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone that would make a claim like that against me.

I am making that claim right now! You said I made statements I never made. That is making things up. Show me where I made those statements.


Once it gets personal like this, I'm out Jim. I will not go into the gutter with you. So I will not respond to you anymore.

That is your choice. I ask yet again. Show me where I made the statements you attribute to me, and tell me what evidence I gave.


To the OP, Johnathon, sorry I was part of hijacking your post with all this nonsense. You have a wonderful collecting and something to be really proud of!

Jon, I should apologize also. I hope I answered all your questions. This forum can be quite entertaining at times. I wish my wife had been more like yours. She sounds like a keeper for sure. jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I'll make this simple, your statements concerning the "Insp of Ordnance WRA Co" files were incorrect, simply because you did not have access to the document, period.

The only statement I made was the shipping document contains nothing that precludes WRA using the rifles as a source for the sniper rifles. I stand by that statement until someone proves me incorrect.

You have access to documents the rest of us don't have access to? Exactly what records would those be?


I was informing you of its contents simply because you lacked the means to access it.

What records do I lack the means to access?


It does require time and money to access and review these files, so I don't share copies for free. I have provided posted the information that is contained within. Most of which was copy and paste.

I know. I hire researchers to find records I want, and I can attest to the expense.


Since you have not seen them, I'm not interested in arguing over its contents, since statements about them thus far have been incorrect. What is contained is detailed and concrete. If you have specific questions about what is documented and I have copies in my files (this or other scoped rifle files), the invitation is open since not everyone has quick access to the archives and I would be happy to discuss them.

If you are referring to the National Archives, where on earth did you get the idea I don't have the means to access the records therein? I can leave my home in the early morning and be at the archives by noon. I have friends I visit in the DC area on a fairly regular basis. I even go to an occasional Orioles game.

As for my having seen the documents, you have no way of knowing if I have or haven't seen the, I will tell you now that I don't think I have seen that particular document, but it is not related to my area of interest.

You and Norton have been making a lot of unsubstantiated statements about what I know, say, and can do. Yet I don't think you know anything about me or what I have done. I have made no claims and presented no evidence, but I HAVE said that nothing in your document precludes the possibility WRA used rifles from that block to assemble the Marine sniper rifles.

{quote]But continuing an argument over something you haven't read. I am disinterested in continuing that.

I am not arguing over the contents of the document except for the statement made above. That can hardly be described as an argument. I have told you I have not read the document, nor do I have any plans to do so.


Meeting adjourned.

Well I'll be darned. You both retired without either of you answering a single question I asked. Your tactic is going to consist of accusing me of making wild statements I never made, ignore my requests for the location of the statement you claimed I made, then claim I am getting all personal, and then take the moral high ground and bow out of the discussion?

You know what that tells me? I am right when I say nothing in your document precludes WRA's use of rifles from that block to assemble the WRA Corps sniper rifles!

jt

[Promo]

Pretty simple ... since the SRS records for the ammo testing rifles date 1919, we can assume up to this date none of them had been turned into a sniper rifle. We do not know what happened to them afterwards, but up to that point we know they were no sniper rifles. That does not exclude other rifles in nearby serial ranges from possibly being shipped along with the "ammo testing rifles" for a factory conversion to a sniper rifle, but of course this is just a possibility among many others.

The discussed scope can with the 6 loops is very interesting in that the outer shape of it is unlike any I've seen before (talking on the can itself). However, the strap is similiar to the strap on known later USMC scope cans with 8 loops. So there are similarities between those two. The main difference are the inside dimensions, both the currently discussed 6 loop and known 8 loop scope are larger on the inside, hence they could have been made for the Mann Neidner modified scope rings (which are bigger). Considering that the scope can could had been commercially made, wouldn't make a sense to me - the scope would fall around on the inside if used with the commercial scope rings. Therefore I believe it to be of military origin, aside of the later added civil markings on it.

[cplnorton]

Therefore I believe it to be of military origin

There is a match in the Marine rosters to a F. Allen. His name was Forrest Allen. He was 2/6 and was in France pretty much the whole war. I have Marine Documents that say the 6th did have telescopic equipped rifles in France pretty early. So you never know, might have been his case. But I think it was military in origin as well.

If he didn't want so much for the package, I wouldn't mind owning it myself. It just sucks about all the additional writing. The name wouldn't bother me at all. But all the other stuff, that does.

[Promo]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me ;)

[clintonhater]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me ;)

Before either of you mortgages the farm to gain possession of this precious relic, take a close look at the range markings on the scope tube, and ask yourselves what it is that appears to be missing.

[cplnorton]

Before either of you mortgages the farm to gain possession of this precious relic, take a close look at the range markings on the scope tube, and ask yourselves what it is that appears to be missing.

Oh no I think there is a miscommunication. Those range markings aren't millitary. That is why I said above that the markings past the name bother me. I think the case was military and possibly the name could have been Marine, as there is a match. But a hand written name is circumstancial evidence at best, because anyone can add it.

The additional markings past the name is why I didn't want it. If it didn't have those and only had that name on it, I would probably make a play for it.

I do want a 6 loop case though.

[clintonhater]

Oh no I think there is a miscommunication. Those range markings aren't millitary.

"Non-military" isn't the problem; there should be red paint in the range markings to match the red paint in the index markings of the thimbles. (Red indicates manufacture before 1921 or '22.) In other words, the tube has been reblued. Even if paint had been reapplied to those markings (it's easy to do), tube looks far too pristine to have been used by a serious small-bore competitor, which the writing on the case top suggests was the user after Allen.

Looks like an excellent job of rebluing, but a non-original condition ought to be factored into the value.

[JWM]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me ;)

Georg, if you buy the package and Cpl Norton buys the case at a reasonable price, I'll give you a nifty profit the scope should you decide to sell, as it would be a perfect match for my Wincheter sniper rifle!!!!! :hello:

[clintonhater]

...it would be a perfect match for my Wincheter sniper rifle!!!!! :hello:

An A5 on a Model 70?

[JWM]

An A5 on a Model 70?

No, but on the first commercially produced high power bolt action rifle produced by Winchester, via special order, through the Shooting Promotion Division. It was advertised as the Winchester Sniper Rifle Type No. 2, which was built on the 1903 Springfield action. It's pictured here: http://jamesdjulia.com/item/3076-394/

Here is the only other Type 2 known to have sold back in 2010: http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-1032a-ultra-rare-winchester-springfield-armory-type-2-sniper-rifle-39207/

[JWM]

JRice79 - Magnificent collection you have there! Congratulations!

James

[clintonhater]

It's pictured here: http://jamesdjulia.com/item/3076-394/



Fabulous! (From this to the M.54, with it's BB gun trigger guard?)

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Did anyone else notice the changes in the listing for that scope case?

[Promo]

James, don't do this. Take a very close look at the markings around the patent dates! This is a British issued A5 scope - and I'm pretty sure it were the Brits too, who reblued the scope. Hence my interest in it.

[JRice79]

JRice79 - Magnificent collection you have there! Congratulations!

James

Thank you James.

[JRice79]

I've been keeping up with everyone's posts. I have not personally read any of the documents referenced nor would I know where to find them to do my on research. I do hope someone writes a book one day.

Million dollar question, do I have an authentic USMC sniper rifle or was it more likely an ammo testing rifle returned to the military in 1919? I'm going to pull the rifle out this weekend if there are any specific requests for pictures?

Jon

[clintonhater]

Take a very close look at the markings around the patent dates! This is a British issued A5 scope - and I'm pretty sure it were the Brits too, who reblued the scope.

You're referring to the 1910 patent date? I've seen this before, without understanding the reason for it, as the front mounts which bear it are no different from the ones with only the 1907 date. Do you know what the 1910 date refers to, or why it would have been applied only to export A5s ?

[Smokeeaterpilot]

I've been keeping up with everyone's posts. I have not personally read any of the documents referenced nor would I know where to find them to do my on research. I do hope someone writes a book one day.

Million dollar question, do I have an authentic USMC sniper rifle or was it more likely an ammo testing rifle returned to the military in 1919? I'm going to pull the rifle out this weekend if there are any specific requests for pictures?

Jon

Jon,

I hope my posts didn't discourage you. Others may be able to comment of to whether or not your rifle is a sniper rifle. I'm sure the consensus will be it's a genuine sniper rifle, however I am not the one to make that statement.

The data collected from the 1919 WRA documents are more neutral to your rifle being a genuine sniper rifle.

They do not make it more or less likely to be a sniper rifle. They also don't make it more likely to be used for ammo testing. Only the rifles contained within that list were used for that particular ammunition test. Perhaps there were more, but that wasn't stated in the correspondence.

Although, I can't state it definitively, I'm sure there are sniper rifles that exist around those serial numbers, I wouldn't doubt there are however, it would be more of coincidence since there's nothing linking the two together.

I was just merely stating that the WRA 1919 rifles mentioned above were not sniper rifles in March 1919. I don't think it hurts or helps your case, your rifle is just a sniper rifle that exists around rifles used for ammunition testing. That's what I meant the WRA 1919 rifles being neutral to your rifle's case.

You have a wonderful collection thanks so much for sharing!
Andrew

[cplnorton]

Jon,

From what I have seen, I'm in the camp that a lot of the info you see in books or online on the Marine A5 snipers, is not correct. It seems most of the known info in books and online today, seems to be based more off traits of rifles that are labeled as real by a expert, and not so much on the actual written documentation or pictures from back then. Reading the documents from back then and seeing what is written today, a lot honestly contradicts each other.

But if I say more it will just lead to a fight. But if you want to know my opinions of it, I would be more than happy to talk offline.

[Promo]

Jon,

while the serial number of your rifle is in a block of rifles shipped to Winchester, it's good that your rifles serial is not among them - because that would had ment by 1919 it was NOT a sniper rifle. But it doesn't exclude it from possibly being one, so a good factor!

When taking pictures of it, please make pictures of both the front and the rear scope base, the barrel markings and the bolt of the rifle. And anything that is unusual compared to other 1903s.

Edit: Clintonhater, you need to look closer. There is a broad arrow and crown marking right next to the markings on the scope rings. Broad arrow is left, other side is crown. Not very well stamped, but that is commonly found for the British.

[clintonhater]

Jon,

From what I have seen, I'm in the camp that a lot of the info you see in books or online on the Marine A5 snipers, is not correct.

Not many subjects to which that statement doesn't apply. Online is bad enough, but worse harm is done when misleading or incomplete
data is set down in black & white, because then it tends to be accepted uncritically.

[clintonhater]

Edit: Clintonhater, you need to look closer. There is a broad arrow and crown marking right next to the markings on the scope rings. Broad arrow is left, other side is crown. Not very well stamped, but that is commonly found for the British.

Hell, I just took that to be handling damage! But looking again, you're absolutely right!

I checked an old article I have which mentions the same thing, "British Sniping Equipment in the Great War," by Roger Payne. (Incidentally, before I read this, one of those British A5s crudely engraved with its rifle's ser. no. showed up on ebay--I thought it had merely been disfigured by some dopey owner!")

Still like to know the meaning of that 1910 date.

[cplnorton]

Not many subjects to which that statement doesn't apply. Online is bad enough, but worse harm is done when misleading or incomplete
data is set down in black & white, because then it tends to be accepted uncritically.


That is probably the truest statement I have ever seen on the internet. :) I know I used to be guilty of that. I would read it in a book and take it as the Gospel. Just by a fluke, I started to dig in the archives on a subject, and then it became a obsession.

The great thing is, you are seeing more and more people who are closing books and digging in the archives. Which that is a really, really good thing, as we haven't even scratched the head of the amount of info in all the archive locations. Half the boxes you pull records from, the researchers say no one has ever been in them. So you can only imagine what is laying in a box some where that would rewrite all we thought we know.

Heck smokeeaterpilot on this post, I have no doubt he will be the next Frank Mallory. I mostly focus entirely on Marine Corps documents, but he lives so close to the Archives that he is pulling everything. lol

[cplnorton]

Hell, I just took that to be handling damage! But looking again, you're absolutely right!

I checked an old article I have which mentions the same thing, "British Sniping Equipment in the Great War," by Roger Payne. (Incidentally, before I read this, one of those British A5s crudely engraved with its rifle's ser. no. showed up on ebay--I thought it had merely been disfigured by some dopey owner!")

Still like to know the meaning of that 1910 date.

I pulled all the US WWI documents from the Cody Archives as I was trying to find everything on the Marine A5's. But there is a whole folder on A5 scopes going to foreign contracts. I never pulled it as I was focusing on the US stuff. But if anyone wants to research that, get a hold of me, and I will point you towards it. God only knows what is in there. But I know I was told it had never been pulled.

[Promo]

Clintonhater, do you have a link to the scope with the engraving? Also via PM if wanted.
Steve, would be interested in that file. But can't go there so easy. Any other chance I could get those files? I know that the French also used Winchester scopes on their WWI Lebel snipers.

[clintonhater]

Clintonhater, do you have a link to the scope with the engraving?

Not for the one I saw on ebay, unfortunately, which was several years ago; it was so ugly (red paint smeared in the electro-pencil engraving!), that it hurt my eyes to look at it!

There's a pretty poor B&W photo of it in Payne's article, which appeared in Vol 3, No. 2, of Arms & Militaria Collector; don't have the publication, only a high-contrast photocopy someone sent me. Could copy it, but you're going to find resolution disappointing.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jon, The only way anyone can definitively state whether your rifle is one of the elusive WWI USMC sniper rifles is to somehow produce a reliable source of the serial numbers of the rifles themselves. At this point in time, all one can do is to state an opinion based on what each believes to be the characteristics of the original rifles based on whatever. To do that accurately, the evaluator would have to know what an original looked like when issued. Essentially the snipers themselves are typical 1903's that were selected by bore gauging and subsequent mounting of Winchester A5 scopes in highly modified #2 mounts in Mann-Niedner bases prior to being shipped to the Marines. When Michael Petrov originally asked me to find the 150 Niedner rifles, I started out doing the usual document search. All the documents being discussed recently are publicly available to anyone who pays for copies. There is nothing mysterious, exclusive, or secret about them. A lot of them appear in Senich's book, but no where near all of them. Countless people possess them. It's how one interprets the documents that leads to differing opinions. I found the document search to be a dead end, and took another tack entirely.

For example; I was surprised to see Smokeeaterpilot's last post. He stated exactly what I have been saying throughout this discussion, albeit one-sided. The document they possess DO NOT PRECLUDE any rifle in that block of serial numbers from being a sniper rifle (rifles NOT shown on that shipping manifest) except for the rifles on the manifest itself. It DOES NOT eliminate other rifles possibly sent in that group from having been converted to sniper rifles. What was Norton arguing about if they agree? Regardless, if you own a possible sniper rifle in that serial number range, you can relax.

Hell of a collection Jon.:1948:

[JWM]

My take on the WWI era activities between Winchester and Springfield armory mostly concerned improving the accuracy of existing Springfield rifles like the 1903 and 1917, for example, in order to get the most advanced sniper rifle that could be had for our European forces.

In my limited opinion, to do this would require the focus of such programs to include the testing of ammunition as has been so well noted, to include, the testing of different weight/length of barrels, and an awful lot of different fixed and telescopic sights of varying lengths, plus various mountings and bases for same. The era of telescopic sights was on a roll which is why Winchester got involved with them to begin with and obviously, they were in demand commercially and militarily during this era, right to this day and time.

In line with such rifle and sight tests would be to put the finished product in the hands of military men to get their opinions. In order to do this Winchester would have to know where to ship the finished products. At which time military units would have begun their tests. I and my fellow Marines back in 1961, I think it was, before the Corps adopted the M-14. Our test rifles were from a couple of different countries.

Back during the WWI era, it appears that some field testing was in order, with big contracts in the making, but apparently the end of the war stopped that, nonetheless, some of these rifles appear to have made it from the Winchester factory to the military from what I can gather from Brophy's book on The Springfield 1903 Rifles, and some other research material.

As for evidence of any kind, simply because one type of document does or does not mention that telescopic sights be included, one should not assume that such sights were not ordered to be affixed to the rifles in question. Especially where Springfield rifles are concerned, because their records appear to have left a lot to be desired, and from a historical standpoint, more often than not, existing Winchester records will not show special ordered sights either. That said, when involved in any sort of such research, evidence of any kind should be recorded and viewed and weighed on its own merit prior to making conclusions. To quote one of America's most gifted research scholars, Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Direct evidence may be clearer to grasp, but indirect evidence can carry equal or greater weight."

With this in mind, I don't expect anything at all will be solved until the evidence being discussed is published in it's totality, and referenced in such a manner that it can easily be verified by any interested party...just my two cents. I'm still very grateful to have the discussion being made by each of you fine folks on this forum.

James

[JWM]

Fabulous! (From this to the M.54, with it's BB gun trigger guard?)

Thank you very much! Isn't this stuff interesting?!

James

[JWM]

James, don't do this. Take a very close look at the markings around the patent dates! This is a British issued A5 scope - and I'm pretty sure it were the Brits too, who reblued the scope. Hence my interest in it.

You are absolutely right, Georg! Thank you for looking out for my best interests too! To tell you the truth, before I turned in last night, I checked on it again, and discovered the markings!!!!

Thanks again and good luck with obtaining it!

James

[cplnorton]

My take on the WWI era activities between Winchester and Springfield armory mostly concerned improving the accuracy of existing Springfield rifles like the 1903 and 1917, for example, in order to get the most advanced sniper rifle that could be had for our European forces.

In my limited opinion, to do this would require the focus of such programs to include the testing of ammunition as has been so well noted, to include, the testing of different weight/length of barrels, and an awful lot of different fixed and telescopic sights of varying lengths, plus various mountings and bases for same. The era of telescopic sights was on a roll which is why Winchester got involved with them to begin with and obviously, they were in demand commercially and militarily during this era, right to this day and time.

In line with such rifle and sight tests would be to put the finished product in the hands of military men to get their opinions. In order to do this Winchester would have to know where to ship the finished products. At which time military units would have begun their tests. I and my fellow Marines back in 1961, I think it was, before the Corps adopted the M-14. Our test rifles were from a couple of different countries.

Back during the WWI era, it appears that some field testing was in order, with big contracts in the making, but apparently the end of the war stopped that, nonetheless, some of these rifles appear to have made it from the Winchester factory to the military from what I can gather from Brophy's book on The Springfield 1903 Rifles, and some other research material.

As for evidence of any kind, simply because one type of document does or does not mention that telescopic sights be included, one should not assume that such sights were not ordered to be affixed to the rifles in question. Especially where Springfield rifles are concerned, because their records appear to have left a lot to be desired, and from a historical standpoint, more often than not, existing Winchester records will not show special ordered sights either. That said, when involved in any sort of such research, evidence of any kind should be recorded and viewed and weighed on its own merit prior to making conclusions. To quote one of America's most gifted research scholars, Elizabeth Shown Mills, "Direct evidence may be clearer to grasp, but indirect evidence can carry equal or greater weight."

With this in mind, I don't expect anything at all will be solved until the evidence being discussed is published in it's totality, and referenced in such a manner that it can easily be verified by any interested party...just my two cents. I'm still very grateful to have the discussion being made by each of you fine folks on this forum.

James


From reading them, I am really guessing they were probably used more for like a quality control. I have all the ammo orders the govt was making from WRA in WWI. And I've never really sat down and studied them, but it was just a massive amount of ammo the govt was ordering, and they were making these orders almost every month.

Like one month I rememember they ordered like 245 million rounds, and just a couple weeks before they had made an order for like a 110 million rounds. It was just a tremendous amount of ammo. I imagine they were using these rifles for testing samples from these massive orders. They kept round counts of the rifles on this list, and I know I remember seeing some in the 7000 to 8000 round range. So these rifles were shooting a lot of ammo.

But I guess the biggest thing I can say about this document, these rifles were the Property of the US Army. They were not property of WRA or the property of the US Marines. Winchester was ordered by the Govt during the war to always keep anything that was in anyway US Property seperate, and WRA was held accountable for it. So WRA always notated what everything was, such as Army or Marine, because the govt mandated it.

I guess the other thing I can say, these rifles were all still at WRA in March 1919. Almost a full year after the 500 Marine A5 mounted rifles had already shipped. It also says when a lot of the serials on this list first arrived at WRA, and many didn't even arrive until the Marine A5's rifles were long gone as well.

That is why I say I wouldn't read too much into these serial ranges of these rifles. They weren't Marine, and many didn't arrive until after the WRA Marine A5 mounted rifles had already shipped.

But no I totally understand what you are saying. And what you are saying is exactly right. I have a ton of sniper rifle test reports from SA and the Marines, and they are exactly as you describe. This one though, is just nothing like them.

If I really get motivated, I will get out the WRA correspondance from WWI and go through it. I probably honestly have the document that would detail the ammo tests these rifles were in. But it's just thousands of pages, and you go though it and it about makes your eyes bleed. Because it's so much to do about ammo, and it's soooo boring to read.

Semper Fi by the way!

[cplnorton]

Steve, would be interested in that file. But can't go there so easy. Any other chance I could get those files? I know that the French also used Winchester scopes on their WWI Lebel snipers.

Yeah I think we can get them. Remind me early next week, and we'll see what we can do.

Steve

[cplnorton]

James,

I might have found a pretty big clue. I just glanced through and noticed a chain of internal WRA memos starting around Oct. 1917.

They mention that they are hearing feedback of a "considerable" amount of 1903 Rifles are exploding. And they are worried the cartriages might have excessive pressure, or the primers are defective and causing hangfires, which detonate as the bolt is pulled back, destorying the rifle.

They also seem to wonder if it isn't the uncertaintity of the Case Hardened receivers and bolts, that are used in a upturn and Bolt-action rifle.

I'm missing the tail end of this conversation, so I can't say 100% for certain this lead to rifles to start coming in for ammo testing. But the timing is almost perfect for the very first handful of rifles received from the Army Depots. And then you see them come in random intervals after that, maybe to replace ones being worn out.

But you can tell they are really worried on why the rifles are failing, as they say soliders are getting extremely hurt. And they are very concerned it might be the ammo. Even like the VP of WRA, Mr. Brewer gets involved.

I just glanced through really quick, so I really didn't hit it too hard, but the timigin of it all, seems to really make a lot of sense.

[JWM]

James,

I might have found a pretty big clue. I just glanced through and noticed a chain of internal WRA memos starting around Oct. 1917.

They mention that they are hearing feedback of a "considerable" amount of 1903 Rifles are exploding. And they are worried the cartriages might have excessive pressure, or the primers are defective and causing hangfires, which detonate as the bolt is pulled back, destorying the rifle.

They also seem to wonder if it isn't the uncertaintity of the Case Hardened receivers and bolts, that are used in a upturn and Bolt-action rifle.

I'm missing the tail end of this conversation, so I can't say 100% for certain this lead to rifles to start coming in for ammo testing. But the timing is almost perfect for the very first handful of rifles received from the Army Depots. And then you see them come in random intervals after that, maybe to replace ones being worn out.

But you can tell they are really worried on why the rifles are failing, as they say soliders are getting extremely hurt. And they are very concerned it might be the ammo. Even like the VP of WRA, Mr. Brewer gets involved.

I just glanced through really quick, so I really didn't hit it too hard, but the timigin of it all, seems to really make a lot of sense.


Steve, very interesting information, thank you. From what you have noted it does indeed appear that the primary purpose for these rifles being at WRA had to do with ammunition testing for the Army, with one concern being safety issues as you state. That said, a lot of other activity regarding them might well have been accomplished, too.

One member mentioned that some docs referred to damaged stocks, which causes me to think about two issues, i.e. one being injuries due to firing the rifles like you make, and the other being broken stocks due to grenade testing from the kneeling position. Another note you make is that the rifles were still at WRA in 1919, which is to say, that should the Marines have ordered more sniper rifles while these rifles were at the subject company, then it would good make sense to accommodate such requests, if at all possible.

On authentic Marine sniper rifles in general. It is well known that the Marines used rifles made up for the purpose of sniping or those used for target shooting in combat, which is to say, that although the Marines did have dedicated special mounts and bases for sniper use with the A5 during WWI, they would have probably made use of any scoped rifles with regular commercial mounts and bases they had at that time like we did in WWII and the NAM, should there have been such a need.

Here's a couple of links regarding the safety issues you brought up about the 1903:

http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/

http://www.snipercountry.com/Articles/SpringfieldM1903.asp

Semper Fi,

James

[cplnorton]

Another note you make is that the rifles were still at WRA in 1919, which is to say, that should the Marines have ordered more sniper rifles while these rifles were at the subject company, then it would good make sense to accommodate such requests, if at all possible.


The Marines did make a 2nd order of A5 scopes during WWI. A Month after the last of the 500 Marine WRA mounted rifles shipped. The Marines ordered a second contract of 1000 A5 scopes and WRA mounts for the 1903 Springfield.

These were just the scopes and blocks though, and spare parts for the scopes. After Niedner had been accused of being a potential German Saboteur by the FBI in June 1917. The Marines then turned to WRA to mount the 500 Marine 1903's. While WRA was actually mounting the the 500, they set up a training program to teach Marines who had traveled to WRA, on how to mount them. So after the first 500 mounted at WRA, the Marines were now trained and could mount them themselves back at Philly in their new small arms section.

But even the 2nd Marine A5 order does show shipped while those Ammuniton testing rifles were still at WRA.

But hope this helps.

[JWM]

The Marines did make a 2nd order of A5 scopes during WWI. A Month after the last of the 500 Marine WRA mounted rifles shipped. The Marines ordered a second contract of 1000 A5 scopes and WRA mounts for the 1903 Springfield.

These were just the scopes and blocks though, and spare parts for the scopes. After Niedner had been accused of being a potential German Saboteur by the FBI in June 1917. The Marines then turned to WRA to mount the 500 Marine 1903's. While WRA was actually mounting the the 500, they set up a training program to teach Marines who had traveled to WRA, on how to mount them. So after the first 500 mounted at WRA, the Marines were now trained and could mount them themselves back at Philly in their new small arms section.

But even the 2nd Marine A5 order does show shipped while those Ammuniton testing rifles were still at WRA.

But hope this helps.


This is certainly the kind of knowledge interested parties would find useful where the subject sniper program is concerned. However, all of my posts have been focused upon the arguments that have been made including Jim's comments, that in no way can be dismissed by what has been presented in this thread...IMO.

[1903fan]

I've really enjoyed this thread gentlemen. I've seen pictures of the army using Warner Swasey sniper rifles in France but have never seen one of the Marine A5 snipers in a picture in combat. Does anyone know if there is one out there?

[1903fan]

I guess this would be a question for Marine A5 Sniper Rifle and cplnorton, it seems both of you have done a lot of research on this topic. Did the Marines use Warner Swasey sniper rifles in WWI? Or did they only use the Mann Niedner A5 sniper rifles?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I guess this would be a question for Marine A5 Sniper Rifle and cplnorton, it seems both of you have done a lot of research on this topic. Did the Marines use Warner Swasey sniper rifles in WWI? Or did they only use the Mann Niedner A5 sniper rifles?

No, the Marines did not use the Warner Swasey scopes on their sniper rifles. Bear in mind the 5th and 6th Marine Regiments went to France with only the rifles scoped by Niedner, and that 150 rifles more than met the needs of the two regiments. There seems to be a fairly common belief that they took a hodge-podge of rifle team scoped rifles with them, but everything I have uncovered indicates they did not. The powers that be, running the program, wanted consistency above all else, particularly one of them. They wanted all the sniper rifles to be identical in shape and form (they had a valid reason). The 150 rifles scoped by Niedner almost exactly fills the requirement for snipers for two regiments. It was not the habit of the Corps to pick their weapons randomly - still isn't. Besides, prior to the war, the Corps rifle teams predominantly used scopes on their rifles for training for a steady hold, and the occasional match. Some long distance shooters preferred 6" centers and some preferred 7.2" centers, but the most common scope used at the time, ante bellum, was the Stevens. The switch to the A5 was made just prior to the war, and there was a reason for that switch. The Corps may have used scoped rifles at Sea Girt and International matches, but there was a firm belief at that time that an open sighted 03 was as accurate as a scoped rifle. Records indicate the Corps kept their team rifles at home. So, in my humble opinion, the answer to your second question is "yes".

There is a picture of a Marine sighting a 1903 scoped on a 6" center that is commonly attributed as having been taken in France; but if one looks closely at the picture, and has a modicum of knowledge of Corps WWI history, it is obvious the picture was taken before WWI.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I've really enjoyed this thread gentlemen. I've seen pictures of the army using Warner Swasey sniper rifles in France but have never seen one of the Marine A5 snipers in a picture in combat. Does anyone know if there is one out there?

There are pictures of them being used in WWII, but I have never seen one being used in WWI. The Corps' habit of taking 60%+ casualties on the front lines most likely discouraged photo hogs from creeping up to the Corps front lines. There exist very few combat photos taken at Belleau Woods, but notice the complete absence of combat photos at Blanc Mont.

The Corps did not get bogged down in trench warfare, nor did any of the more aggressive Divisions like the 42nd.

jt

[cplnorton]

I guess this would be a question for Marine A5 Sniper Rifle and cplnorton, it seems both of you have done a lot of research on this topic. Did the Marines use Warner Swasey sniper rifles in WWI? Or did they only use the Mann Niedner A5 sniper rifles?

The Marines did have 1903 Warner Swasey Sniper rifles pre WWI. I have the purchase orders were they bought them from Springfield Armory. The Marines must have had them for a while as they were requesting parts for them in the late 20's from SA.

I have documents from France in early 1918 that list both the Winchester A5 and Warner Swasey rifles in inventory over there, and both the Marines and Army were both pulling from this Depot. So it's possible. In fact the Army used a lot of A5 rifles.

But what you have to understand that everything you see from this time is usually not specific. 9/10 times when you see a 1903 sniper Rifle up to korea in Marine documents. It is only described as a 1903 rifle with Telescopic sight. So Telescpic sight could mean Stevens, Winchester, Warner Swasey, and then later on, Fecker, Lyman, and Unertl.

It's just us a collectors see 1903 with Telescopic sights and they say well that must be a A5. Because that is all they had. But that isn't true at all. The Mariens had Warner Swasey's as well. And actuall had them in service for longer than the Army did.

[cplnorton]

You know, would you guys be interested in reading these documents yourself? Instead of just having someone tell you what is correct and not knowing if they are full of crap or not?

There is a group of us that for several years have been pulling out tens of thousands of documents. But the problem now is becoming, just the amount of documents is becoming too much. We had thought of maybe doing a book, but no matter how much you pull out, there are always more to go through.

The size of the Archives is something I don't think many understand. You could literally spend the rest of your life going through there and not find it all. And that is just one location. Then there are Regional Archive locations all over the country. So the amount of info out there accesible is just mind numbing, especially when new info is released all the time. And I would say 3/4 of what you find at the Archives either rewrites what is in the books, or is totally new info.

But we are coming to the realization that we will always be discovering new stuff. So even if we wrote a book on what we know know today, we could literally discover something new the next week in a new pull, that would rewrite it all. It happens all the time.

So we are now sorting of thinking of just publishing the documents themselves, not write a book, but start to do mass document dumps. So you guys can read it all yourselves and make your own conclusions. And we can cut out all the crap online and that has been published in some book.

The thing is we have spent a small fortune on finding this stuff, and we continue to spend a fortune on this stuff. So I think we would like to do something that would recoop some of the money we have spent, and most likely, the money we made would just be put back into finding more.

We have almost thought of finding maybe a subscription based website where you can pay a small fee and access the documents as we post them. That way people can go on there and read the stuff themselves. Our thoughts are, keep the price point very low, so you can bring in a Quantity of people. Instead of making it expensive and only having a few. That way we can just really spread the knowledge and let people read it themselves from first hand info.

If we could work out the logistics of this, which one problem is the amount of documents we have. I'm not sure how we can find something where we can put it all up? But if we could work it out, is this something you guys would be interested in doing? A low price subsription service where you guys can just read everything yourself?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The Marines did have 1903 Warner Swasey Sniper rifles pre WWI. I have the purchase orders were they bought them from Springfield Armory. The Marines must have had them for a while as they were requesting parts for them in the late 20's from SA.

I have documents from France in early 1918 that list both the Winchester A5 and Warner Swasey rifles in inventory over there, and both the Marines and Army were both pulling from this Depot. So it's possible. In fact the Army used a lot of A5 rifles.

But what you have to understand that everything you see from this time is usually not specific. 9/10 times when you see a 1903 sniper Rifle up to korea in Marine documents. It is only described as a 1903 rifle with Telescopic sight. So Telescpic sight could mean Stevens, Winchester, Warner Swasey, and then later on, Fecker, Lyman, and Unertl.

It's just us a collectors see 1903 with Telescopic sights and they say well that must be a A5. Because that is all they had. But that isn't true at all. The Mariens had Warner Swasey's as well. And actuall had them in service for longer than the Army did.

I think you will find the Corps used the Warner-Swasey scopes on Benet-Mercie machine guns, not 1903's.

jt

[cplnorton]

I think you will find the Corps used the Warner-Swasey scopes on Benet-Mercie machine guns, not 1903's.

jt

The ones I am referencing do say they are Star Guaged 1903 rifles.

[1903fan]

Thank you gentlemen, I guess I'm not surprised the answer is "complicated." The lack of photos makes perfect sense, such a horrible war.

[1903fan]

Are there any good examples of the Winchester A5 sniper rifle out on the web somewhere? It would be very intriguing to see one with modern photography.

[jgaynor]

You know, would you guys be interested in reading these documents yourself? Instead of just having someone tell you what is correct and not knowing if they are full of crap or not?

There is a group of us that for several years have been pulling out tens of thousands of documents. But the problem now is becoming, just the amount of documents is becoming too much. We had thought of maybe doing a book, but no matter how much you pull out, there are always more to go through.

The size of the Archives is something I don't think many understand. You could literally spend the rest of your life going through there and not find it all. And that is just one location. Then there are Regional Archive locations all over the country. So the amount of info out there accesible is just mind numbing, especially when new info is released all the time. And I would say 3/4 of what you find at the Archives either rewrites what is in the books, or is totally new info.

But we are coming to the realization that we will always be discovering new stuff. So even if we wrote a book on what we know know today, we could literally discover something new the next week in a new pull, that would rewrite it all. It happens all the time.

So we are now sorting of thinking of just publishing the documents themselves, not write a book, but start to do mass document dumps. So you guys can read it all yourselves and make your own conclusions. And we can cut out all the crap online and that has been published in some book.

The thing is we have spent a small fortune on finding this stuff, and we continue to spend a fortune on this stuff. So I think we would like to do something that would recoop some of the money we have spent, and most likely, the money we made would just be put back into finding more.

We have almost thought of finding maybe a subscription based website where you can pay a small fee and access the documents as we post them. That way people can go on there and read the stuff themselves. Our thoughts are, keep the price point very low, so you can bring in a Quantity of people. Instead of making it expensive and only having a few. That way we can just really spread the knowledge and let people read it themselves from first hand info.

If we could work out the logistics of this, which one problem is the amount of documents we have. I'm not sure how we can find something where we can put it all up? But if we could work it out, is this something you guys would be interested in doing? A low price subsription service where you guys can just read everything yourself?

I would be interested in subscribing to such a service or archive. You may want to repost this suggestion as a new topic so it doesn't get lost in the discussion.
In any case making the information available would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Regards,

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The ones I am referencing do say they are Star Guaged 1903 rifles.

Destined for testing? Or ordered in volume? I do know they were required to test the W&S.

Star gauging does not make a rifle accurate. Do they specify the limitations for the SG test? I am curious what Star Gauge results were considered desirable.

Your idea of a document repository for 1903 guys is commendable. I would certainly support such a plan, and I suspect you could make a business of it. I am surprised no one including me, has ever thought of such a plan before now.

jt

[clintonhater]

...the most common scope used at the time, ante bellum, was the Stevens.

Didn't know that, but it makes perfect sense, because Stevens was THE dominant US scope manufacturer until their perfidious stock holders (only 5 or 6 men, I think) sold out to NE Westinghouse in 1916 to mfg. the Ruski clunker.

[cplnorton]

Destined for testing? Or ordered in volume? I do know they were required to test the W&S.

Star gauging does not make a rifle accurate. Do they specify the limitations for the SG test? I am curious what Star Gauge results were considered desirable.

jt

There were multiple orders. They bought some for testing and then did order more.

The rifles were to be starguaged as close to .308 as possible.

[cplnorton]

Didn't know that, but it makes perfect sense, because Stevens was THE dominant US scope manufacturer until their perfidious stock holders (only 5 or 6 men, I think) sold out to NE Westinghouse in 1916 to mfg. the Ruski clunker.

Springfield Armory was testing the Steves vs the Winchester A5 scope as the replacement for the Warner Swasey, two different times before WWI. Decided both were not any better and then started to look at German Glass. Loved the German Glass, but then the war with Germany started. Which made them turn to the Model of 1918 from WRA. Which that was never completed in number.

There is a Steven's at the SA museum and it would fit perfectly to the 2nd test they conducted on them.

[1903fan]

So do no known examples exist of WWI Winchester A5 equipped sniper rifles?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There exist relatively few known examples, and most I know of are in no-public-access collections.

jt

[1903fan]

Whats the word on them JT? From what I've gathered on this page form you fine gentlemen most would be about the same from 1917 made rifles an mounted with the special wedge mountings?

[1903fan]

It is wonderful to see so many of you out there have done so much investigating on this topic. I have several books on the Springfield, and the Winchester A5 mounted rifles are just barely mentioned. Bravo for digging further!

[clintonhater]

There is a Steven's at the SA museum...

I've seen it; also the Krag with a Cataract; and everything else that three all-day visits would allow.

And I didn't miss seeing that brick building where the greatest American MCs were built.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

I would be interested in subscribing to such a service or archive. You may want to repost this suggestion as a new topic so it doesn't get lost in the discussion.
In any case making the information available would be a worthwhile endeavor.

Regards,

Jim

Jim,

Tried sending you an PM, but your inbox is full.