OK, Here We Go

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I am going to present my opinion of the series of events that led up to the WWI Marine Sniper Rifle, rather than download some humongous file. I will start my clearing up one item that I would like to see a resolution. The picture below has shown up in several places on various forums, but it was cropped for some reason (discussed by CplN previously). This is a copy of the original photo as I found it on a Russian website long ago. Today, I verified it is correct by finding it (looked at a lot of photos in the process) on the site from which the Russians pulled it. The photo is a picture of a Marine Sergeant holding a scoped 1903 Springfield. The scope is an A5 in a commercial #2 mount on Springfield Marine Bases, which just means it is on 7.2" spacing. The reason I think those are #2 mounts is that I think I can see the Grasshopper. If that is a Grasshopper, then the rest must be true.

How does one date the picture? One of the pictures I downloaded had a caption that had a date of 1917. The captions didn't transfer with the photo. But take a look at the photo. If that photo was taken in France, it could only have been taken in 1917. Why do I think that? Because of the Marine's uniform. He is wearing something he would not have been wearing in 1918 in France (unless he was giving Pershing wrap-arounds). Why is that significant? Because the WRA rifles had yet to be assembled. We know it isn't a Niedner rifle, because there would be no Grasshopper and the scope would have those big knobs. What, I believe, we have is a Marine holding a scoped team rifle, probably in France, even though there is some evidence the Marines did not take their rifle team rifles to France, and we know the Marines rifle teams were using scoped '03's with both spacings for years before the war. There is a chance it is a posed picture taken in the states, as we know posed pictures were common during WWI.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39067&stc=1

If anyone can show evidence that I am wrong, please do so. "He/She said that" won't cut it. If you disagree, please do so in a civil manner.

You are going to howl over the next few installments. We are going to visit the "Four Horsemen".

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Take a good look at this photo. That is Captain Charles Augustus Doyen sitting between Lt. Philip Michael Bannon and Lt. Newt Hamill Hall. I do not recognize the Colonel standing behind them. Take note that Newt is holding Charles's left hand, and Charles's left hand is behind Philip's a$$. Charles's sitting position can only be described as "sweetness". I am not certain of the date of the picture, but one thing is clear, the 1st Recipient of the Navy DSM and the 1st Marine to command an Army Division may have had a secret he kept to himself and "close" friends. Doyen would later organize and take the 4th Marine Regiment to France as the Commander of the 2nd Division (RA) until 8 Nov 1917, when Pershing sent him home, with a host of other old timer generals, as being physically unfit for war duty.

Gen. Doyen was the man used by the "Four Horseman" as the required authority to organize and run the Corps sniper program. The general with the stern look must have had a soft spot in his heart. Of course, there could have been another reason, closer to home, he acquiesced to their demands.

Next - the "Four Horsemen".

Jim:1948:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I almost forgot. We need to define the items we will be discussing. Unless we all agree on the definitions, we cannot progress. I presume we can avoid the 6-loop and 8-loop scope cases, as I think we pretty much hashed that one to apoplexy:evil6:.

First we will define the scope base. There are many types of scope bases, but the all have one thing in common - they are the attachment point for the scope, or another way, they are the means of attaching a scope and it's adjustment mechanism to the rifle (or pistol or whatever). We are only concerned with two bases in this discussion, as we will ignore the 6" spacing bases as they add nothing to the conversation.

1. The Springfield Marine Bases - The bases discussed in Brophy, used to space an A5 at 7.2" and which require an unmodified #2 mount with Grasshopper. The modified mounts as installed by Niedner will not fit these bases.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39094&stc=1

2. The Mann-Niedner bases - These are the bases that fit the modified #2 mounts with large knobs and no Grasshopper that Niedner installed on the first 150 sniper rifles. The slot is taperer-fit and requires no screw to mount the scope.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39096&stc=1

Similarly, we are, I hope, only concerned with two scope mounts - the mount being the rectangular device that contains the adjustment mechanisms.

3. First was the commercial #2 mount with red dial markings. This mount was the "go to" commercial mount for WRA, who only had to manufacture bases for differing rifles to use the mount, thus beginning the proliferation of bases for commercial rifles. The purpose of the base was two-fold, as it attached the scope mount to the weapon, and resulted in a scope whose centerline was parallel to the centerline of the rifle bore.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39095&stc=1

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39110&stc=1

4. The Modified #2 Mount (or Marine Mount) which is a commercial #2 mount modified to fit the Mann-Niedner bases. The adjustment knobs are noticeably larger, and the elevation adjustment is in inches, a click-pointer is added, and there is no Grasshopper. It is a marvelous mount, and one which I use on my hunting rifle (A5 scoped Sporter). Much ado has been made about having to use a drift to drive the scope and mount off its bases. Not true. There is an enlarged ring around the scope at the objective end. All one has to do is push the scope to the rear until this ring touches the stop ring, bump the end of the scope with your hand, and the scope comes off its bases. No need for hammer or drift, regardless of what you may have read:icon_rolleyes:.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39097&stc=1

All the mounts and Corps applications used the same WRA A5 scope.

Now if we can all agree these are the items we will be discussing, we can proceed. If not, let's discuss the issues in a civil manner. If you disagree, post your contrary evidence and we can hash it out. If you just disagree on principal, you can do that too; although I am not sure what that accomplishes. But I am game:headbang:.

Jim:)

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39128&stc=1

The 1916 USMC Rifle Team was arguably one of the finest rifle teams ever assembled. It was the original Dream Team of the shooting world. They won more matches than any team in history. There was a good reason for their success, and that was the combination of their team Captain and their Team Coach. Their Team Captain was Captain William Garland Fay and their Coach was Captain William Dutly Smith, both outstanding shots in their own right, and both either were, are would be, Distinguished Shooters.

As the winds of war stirred, it was not by chance that the United States Marine Corps would have one of the finest sniper rifles, ever conceived, to issue to their snipers in WWI. Those superb sniper rifles did not appear to be the product of a group of gregarious old-line officers, sitting around a table, smoking fine Cuban cigars and planning a great war. The very fine Winchester A5 scoped 1903 Springfield sniper rifle was indeed the conclusive product of lofty thought, and a great deal of experience behind a trigger. This is the story behind the 1903 Springfield with a Winchester A5 scope mounted in a highly modified #2 mount (known as the Marine Mount) on Mann-Niedner bases.

The picture on the left below is of Garland Fay, and on the right is Dulty Smith in his sitting position.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39129&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39130&stc=1

If one searches through the leaves of history, one will discover that in August of 1916, Marine competitive shooter and Rifle Team Coach Captain William Dulty Smith, Distinguished Shooter in 1913, had Winchester A5 scopes mounted on two 1903 Springfields by America’s premier gunsmith, A. O. Niedner of Malden, Massachusetts, utilizing the new Mann-Niedner tapered bases. That same month, Marine Distinguished Shooter Captain William Garland Fay, the Marine Rifle Team Captain, had Niedner mount a Winchester A5 scope on a 1903 Springfield on Mann-Niedner tapered bases. As a Lieutenant, Garland Fay had won the President’s 100 trophy in 1916 with a score of 290. Major Smith would soon become the Commander of the Rifle Range Detachment at the Quantico Overseas Depot, under whom all future AEF Scout Snipers would train. Major Fay would become Range Officer and Commander of Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and would personally train the first hundred snipers chosen from the 9th Regiment for the Overseas Depot Scout Sniper School for a period of two months prior to their arrival at the Depot. The very first WRA assembled sniper rifles, with the highly modified Marine Mounts and Winchester A5 scopes on Mann-Niedner tapered bases, along with 8-loop A5 russet scope cases, would be issued to the prospective snipers by Captain Fay at Guantanamo Bay on 4 March 1918.

Nothing had happened by chance.

Captain Fay was an interesting guy, coming from a very prominent family in high society. His father was Wirt Fay. Captain Fay, gentlemen farmer, would man some of the nicest duty stations in the Corps, and attain rank at a very rapid rate. He would Captain one of the finest rifle teams in history. Captain Dutly Smith was Fay's best friend socially, and Captain Smith was an outstanding rifle team coach. What made the two different from previous team leaders were their innovative teaching techniques, and their absolute dedication to team shooting. One of their finer innovations was to use scoped rifles in trigger pull practice to minimize "shake" during the trigger pull. They had noticed that magnification of the target also magnified the effects of shake. Their favorite scope was the 5-power A5 in #2 mounts modified for Mann-Niedner bases (not the modified Marine Mounts). They both had noticed the same thing their good friend Townsend Whelen had noticed, that removal and replacement of a scope mounted in Mann-Niedner bases did not result in loss of zero, a very important characteristic for paper punchers – and snipers. Both became life-long advocates for the Mann-Niedner system of mounting a scope. Below is an excerpt from an article written by Townsend Whelen.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39133&stc=1

Both Fay and Smith became customers of A. O. Niedner. Their devotion to detail, and the use of the finest equipment available, paid off by enabling one of the best rifle teams to ever take the field. Much ado has been made about the delicacy of the A5 and its narrow field of view, but the team shooters knew that 95% of the shots, a sniper had to make, was but a few hundred yards across No-Man’s-Land; and sniper’s didn’t use their rifles for clubs in combat. In their minds, the criticisms were just a bunch of drivel from the unknowing.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39134&stc=1

This is a page from Niedner’s Work Book (courtesy of the late Michael Petrov), showing transactions with both Fay and Smith. There were other transactions with various Corps rifle team members. I suspect it wasn’t long before the Rifle Team armorers could duplicate Niedner’s work, although there may have been patent or other issues preventing such work. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else living. The 1916 Rifle Team had their telescopic sights installed by Niedner.

As war loomed on the horizon, the two men realized sniping would play a decisive role in the coming conflict. Believing they could make a significant contribution to any war effort, they began to conceive a sniping program that would train the finest snipers in the world. The two Captains would join forces with two other officers in an effort to equip the Marines with the finest sniper rifle possible, plus they would provide the best training they could for the Marine snipers before they were committed to the trenches.

The question being, how did two lowly Marine Corps Captains pull off such a deed and maintain control over the process?

Horsemen 3 & 4 up next.

Jim


PS
It appears this thread is of little interest to anyone. Posting these dang pics is a pain in the rear for me. If no one is interested, I have better things to do.

[Jim in Salt Lake]

If you keep posting this stuff, I'll keep reading it. Can't say about others but I like your posts. Put enough of yours and others together and there's a book. It seems that in any war up to and including Vietnam, sniper programs grew from the bottom up. In such a top down organization (US Military), it always amazes me what low level officers and non-coms can get accomplished and I like reading about these stories.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Outstanding, Jim. Hang on, as it gets better. I thought about writing a book, but I am getting old and I know I will never do it. The least I can do is try to keep bad info from being disseminated as fact. I will provide my info freely, no water marks or blurred or cropped photos. I got a lot of help in my project, and the least I can do is use what I do have to help others. My only hope is that I can present it all in a manner that others can understand and follow the process.

Jim

[PWC]

Looking forward to the next iteration of this string. Please don't feel that because no one has rushed to comment, that your 'stuff' isn't appreciated. Although I'm listed as a junior member, I have been reading this site for more than 20 years. I never missed posts from the Major and Gunny Fisher. Yours have a similar 'feel'.

Maybe why you may feel there isn't a big response (yet) is because it is hard to argue /comment against facts and a well thought out presentation. I believe you have the silent majority's attention.

[p246]

Keep going I'm reading and soaking it up

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39144&stc=1

Meet General Thomas Holcomb, Commandant, and veteran of Belleau Woods, who was and is prominently identified with the development of rifle shooting, and served as Inspector of Target Practice in the Marine Corps from October 1914 to August 1917. While serving in that capacity he was promoted to the rank of Major in 1916. He was a member of the Marine Corps Rifle Teams of 1901, 1902, 1903, 1907, 1908, and 1911, and of teams representing the United States in the Palma Trophy Match in 1902 and 1903, as well as being a Distinguished Shooter.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39145&stc=1

Holcomb’s best friend was Lt. Col. Douglas C. McDougal, yet another Distinguished Shooter, who early in his career was ordered to Headquarters Marine Corps where he served until the early part of 1911. His principal duty while at Headquarters was an instructor in rifle marksmanship, and he was Captain of the first Marine Corps Rifle Team to win the National Match.

From August 1917 to July 1918, then Major McDougal was assigned to Headquarters Marine Corps as Inspector of Target Practice, replacing Holcomb in the position. In July 1918, he was ordered to Quantico, Virginia, for duty with the 13th Regiment, and in September of that year sailed for France, as second in command. He returned to the United States in August 1919, and from September 1919 to January 1921, was in charge of ordnance material at the Depot of Supplies, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

One of the keys to the success of their endeavor was control of the position of Inspector of Target Practice. To be honest, I am not certain why the appointment to this position was so important, as I could find very little information about the position; but Holcomb picked Fay and Smith to run the 1916 Rifle Team from this position. Holcomb and McDougal would give Niedner the job of assembling the first 150 sniper rifles from this position, as well as placing the first order for sniper rifles from WRA, and essentially controlling all communications with WRA. Somehow, the sniper program came under the purview of and became the responsibility of, the Inspector of Target Practice. As such, Holcomb and McDougal had almost total control of the sniper program from top to bottom. If they could influence Doyen to use his position to ensure the transfers of each of them to their "key" positions, the die would be cast.

The two officers would join Captain’s Fay and Smith to form a coalition to design and get constructed a sniper rifle that would give the Marine snipers the best equipment that could be fielded. They constituted a focused and determined group of advocates for the sniper rifle they themselves conceived. Each man was known for his superior intelligence and dedication to the Corps, particularly Fay and Holcomb. Their inter-communications were unusually precise and concise.

You have now met the “Four Horsemen”, the men responsible for the USMC A5 sniper rifle of WWI. Next, convincing Doyen.

Jim

[clintonhater]

Please don't feel that because no one has rushed to comment, that your 'stuff' isn't appreciated.

Exactly. But knowing nothing about these arcane and esoteric matters beyond what I'm reading on this site, there's nothing of value I can add; but I'm definitely interested in them.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As it began to be evident that America would join the war in Europe, the “Four Horsemen” began in earnest to formulate a credible scenario to train snipers. They knew early on that the longest lead time would be the scopes. McDougal was chosen to interact with WRA to ensure the changes they wanted to make would be, at least, on paper – nothing official as yet. Holcomb would handle all issues dealing with Headquarters Marine Corps and acquisition. Garland would devise a training regimen and interact with Doyen, and Smith would assist Fay and design the ultimate sniper rifle using nothing but the best (available) components.

They devised a list of requirements for the rifle:
1. The rifle would be a 1903 Springfield of match quality (star gauged with quality inletting and trigger).
2. The scope would be the Winchester A5, the best scope physically available.
3. The scope would be mounted in Mann-Niedner bases, as the #2 had zero problems after a dismount .
3. Fay wanted the elevation click adjustments to be in “yards” instead of “minutes” to aid in training country boys.
4. All wanted bigger knobs and click adjustments due to issues all had during their past matches.
5. The stock would be marked in such a way as to quickly identify which barreled action it matched.
(Niedner’s mark was below the receiver bridge on the stock, WRA’s just in front of the crossbolt on the port side).
6. Every rifle would be identical in every respect.
7. The snipers would use match ammunition.
8. Each sniper would retain possession of his unique rifle until he was unfit for service, completed his enlistment, or achieved the rank of Sergeant Major.
9. Each scope would be issued with a case, dim light adapter, and a rubber eyepiece.

Holcomb and McDougal would oversee WRA’s assembly of the rifles to strict tolerances.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39204&stc=1

I hope Tom doesn't mind me using his icture, but it is such a beautiful set, and this is what a WRA rifle and scope, as issued, looked like.

Fay would convince Doyen to transfer each of them into a position from which they could best oversee the program. Fay wanted to transfer to Cuba to take advantage of the superior range and fine weather. He would only pick and train snipers who qualified as Expert. He would immediately commence their range training until such time as OSD opened for business. Snipers would be trained in small 50 to 100 man batches to help maintain the quality of instruction.

Dulty Smith would be transferred to OSD to be in charge of the Rifle Range Detachment to oversee every facet of sniper training (there would be a delay). Holcomb was Inspector of Target Practice at Headquarters Marine Corps, and in perfect position to oversee the implementation of the sniper program. But Holcomb wanted to go to France, and had been promised Command of a battalion or regiment to be formed in the event of war. He would go to France as Commander of the 2/6. McDougal would replace Holcomb as Inspector of Target Practice if, and when, Holcomb departed for combat duty. All would depend on Fay convincing Doyen that the program was needed and the plan feasible.

Right in the middle of all their planning, America declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917. It was time to act.

So, why did the Horsemen pick Captain Fay to make the attempt to sway Doyen to not only support their plan, but to be an active participant in its implantation? The reason was very simple; Augustus Doyen was married to Claude Fay, Garland’s older sister. Another of Garland’s sisters was married to John Pendleton, the Marine for whom Camp Pendleton is named. Fay was confident he could convince Doyen to implement the sniper program as the Horsemen envisioned it. Doyen was aware he would command the 4th Marine Brigade when it formed as well as in France. Doyen not only agreed with the Horsemen, he thought the program to be of essence, and wanted his 4th Brigade to be armed with the same sniper rifles. Now you know why Niedner was picked to mount the 150 scopes on rifles prepped and supplied by the Corps. WRA was pressed for time, but would supply the scopes and modified mounts to Niedner as soon as they were completed so the 4th Brigade could be armed. The 4th Marine Brigade snipers were to be trained at the BEF sniper schools in France.

The game was afoot. Up next – Cubans.

Jim

[clintonhater]

What was the "dim light adapter"?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

What was the "dim light adapter"?

A device that fits on the eyepiece that had a yellow lens that gives more definition in poor lighting conditions. It is not easily installed or removed, in my opinion. You must remove the eyepiece lens to install or remove it. I just leave mine on all the time. I've only seen two or three of them in the last 10-years.

Jim

[clintonhater]

A device that fits on the eyepiece that had a yellow lens that gives more definition in poor lighting conditions. It is not easily installed or removed, in my opinion. You must remove the eyepiece lens to install or remove it. I just leave mine on all the time. I've only seen two or three of them in the last 10-years.

Jim

I've seen none in the last 50+ yrs! Nor even heard of them! I do, however, understand the principle, because Leica made a yellow lens accessory that was a friction-fit over the range-finder lens for use on cloudy days. Had one on my pre-war Leica III, and it made a noticeable improvement under such conditions. Should have been equally feasible to mount such a lens in a separate cap that fitted over the A5 eyepiece.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

How about a photo of one? I don't have a document for it, you will just have to take my word that I'm not faking the photo!:evil6:

Jim:1948:

[p246]

So would you remove the eye piece lens, screw the dim light adapter on, then place the eye piece lens back on? I could see how that might be a pain in poor conditions. Thanks for the picture. I've seen plenty of pictures of A5 scopes but this is also the first I've heard of the dim light adapter.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The adapter is actually in two pieces that screw together, clamps around that little knurled flange on eyepiece. And you thought that little knurled flange was just for looks, heh?:)

Jim:1948:

[p246]

I thought the knurled flange was well.....for looks. Looking forward to the rest of the story as Paul Harvey use to say. Thanks for that last pic even a big dumb animal like me gets it��

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I thought the knurled flange was well.....for looks. Looking forward to the rest of the story as Paul Harvey use to say. Thanks for that last pic even a big dumb animal like me gets it��

That is the reason for this thread. If you have a question, ask it. If I know the answer, I'll give it.

Jim

[clintonhater]

So would you remove the eye piece lens, screw the dim light adapter on, then place the eye piece lens back on? I could see how that might be a pain in poor conditions...

Hard as it is to believe, I think Rube Goldberg must have been hired as a consultant by WRA or USMC to come up with this needlessly complicated idea. And then, to dream it up in the rush of wartime production! Yellow glass filters are almost as old as cameras, but this is the most bizarre application of the idea I've ever seen.

Would have been mfg. by WRA? If so, company didn't think it a good enough idea to offer on the commercial market after the war, and they were right.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Actually, it was a brilliant idea for the snipers. To my knowledge, it was made by WRA, but I don't know for sure. It was supplied, to be issued with the scope, at the behest of the Horsemen. It is well made, but has no markings on it at all. The lens is held in by a snap ring similar to how the eyepiece is retained in the scope. The information I have does not go into that much detail. One of the photos of A5 scoped rifles, that keeps getting posted lately, has a scope with the attachment installed on the scope.

Jim

[clintonhater]

Actually, it was a brilliant idea for the snipers...

Jim

But there should have been a simpler way to achieve the same result; since the yellow glass can be inserted anywhere in the optical system, an easily-removable cap holding the yellow glass and shaped to fit over either the eyepiece or objective seems a better idea to me.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I don't know the answer for certain, but the Horsemen were wealthy, well educated men accustomed to the best in life. In my mind, they would never have settled for anything less than the strongest, sturdiest device possible. This puppy is built like a brick sh*t house, approaching overkill. But that is just my opinion, and surely there is a document somewhere that explains it all.

Don't forget, the A5, which we continually hear is too delicate for sniper work, was the best rifle scope of its day. These guys handled scoped rifles on a daily basis (check out their individual shooting bona fides), and they knew the foibles of the A5, yet continued to use them, even demand them, for the rifle teams. Their desire was to produce a sniper rifle that would place shot after shot in the same spot, every day, in all weather conditions, in all light conditions, even if the scope had been pulled and replaced in position for any reason. They knew, from their own experience, that the #2 mount with its Springfield Marine Base would not do the job. The very idea of ordering rifles to be so equipped would have been an anathema for them. How much money would they have saved on a 400 rifle order (1st order)? A $1 a mount at most. So for $400 or less, these wealthy men, to whom $400 was chump change, compromised their magnificent plan and settled for a base system they knew would not do the job required? No way in hell.

Jim

[clintonhater]

The adapter is actually in two pieces that screw together, clamps around that little knurled flange on eyepiece. And you thought that little knurled flange was just for looks, heh?:)

Jim:1948:

Clarification, please, Jim: scope in this photo is NOT same one shown mounted on rifle? Or if it is, the original eyepiece has been removed, and this adapter substituted? Because at first I was thinking the adapter was used in conjunction with the standard eyepiece, but that doesn't look possible on closer inspection.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The adapter is used in conjunction with the eyepiece. To install, one unscrews the eyepiece and removes the little cowling and puts it aside. The (looking at photo) right half of the adapter slides onto the eyepiece from the right. It will lodge against that knurled rim. The left half of the adapter then screws over the left half of the adapter until it is tight. At that point, the eyepiece is clamped between the two adapter halves. Screw the eyepiece back into the scope and you are good to go. You are left with the little cowl that was originally on the eyepiece. Store it securely if you ever want to take the adapter off. Once assembled, it looks quite normal. It takes me less than one minute to install.

Jim:1948:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Clarification, please, Jim: scope in this photo is NOT same one shown mounted on rifle?....


No, the scope in the last photo is one of mine. The scope on the rifle belongs to Tom, but was originally issued to a sniper/instructor named Gunner Steve Estock.

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Major Garland Fay was transferred to Marine Base, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Command the 9th Regiment. Major Fay immediately set about to re-qualify every Marine in the 9th Regiment. From a pool of Expert shooters, he would initially hand-pick 50 Marines to attend the first OSD Sniper School. He would issue the rifles as soon as they arrived, and begin an intensive range training program for the snipers-elect. No one selected could have a rank above Corporal, with the majority to be Privates. Excellent sniper prospects with greater rank would be given the opportunity for voluntary rank reduction in order to join the program. The sniper program would be voluntary. Captain Fay would pick 50-snipers at a time and range-train them for the SOS School at OSD (Over Seas Depot), Quantico, Va. Keeping each group small would be of great benefit in training. Captain Fay wanted each sniper to feel “married” to his rifle, to know it inside and out. His goal was to train men to place their first shot dead on target, regardless of range or conditions.

The WRA rifles arrived the last week in February, 1918. Major Fay assembled his hand-picked sniper-prospects on 4 March 1918 and issued each his WRA sniper rifle with Mann-Niedner bases attached, a WRA A5 scope in the highly modified #2 scope mounts (known as Marine Mounts), a “Penguin” 8-loop scope case, a yellow dim-light adapter for the scope, and a rubber hood for the scope eyepiece. Sniper range-training commenced the next day. Each sniper-prospect was instructed to put the zero and range data for his individual rifle onto a circular film glued into the lid of his individual scope case. Anyone using that rifle would then have its zero and range data, for both leaf sights and scope, readily available for use.

We have arrived at the point we have sought. How does one prove the rifles utilized Mann-Niedner mounts, and the scope cases to have 8-loops total, 6-loops on the case and 2-loops on the case lid? We will first examine the order for the cases.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39285&stc=1

This explanation has been presented previously, but I will explain a second time. Note that the order differentiates between the scope case and the scope cap (lid) – “….each case to be supplied with a leather cap….”. Case and cap, two separate entities. Once that sinks in, it is obvious the order is for scope cases with a total of 8-loops – “….each case to be fitted with six leather loops….”. As we all know, the cap has 2-loops, for a total of 8-loops. Anyone who has ever dealt with government bid contracts or orders for materials understand they are written by very adept individuals who typically do not make mistakes. This order is for 8-loop scope cases.

But….that order is not for the “Penguin” scope cases issued on 4 March. Note the date on the order. Anyone can see the dimensions given in the order come nowhere near matching the dimensions of the 8-loop “Penguin” case. I could find no “order” for scope cases of any type in the “Horsemen” communications, yet 8-loop “Penguin” scope cases were issued on 4 March 1918 to 50-sniper prospects at Deer Point. I do not know the source of the “Penguin” cases, nor does anyone else, apparently.

Was the “Penguin” scope case even made for the A5 and its Marine Mounts? Actually, it is a perfect fit in every detail and manner. The case is the exact length (see pictures) to house the A5, the base of the case is the exact diameter for the scope to snugly fit inside, and the upper portion of the case is a perfect fit for the scope and rear mount. They are a perfect match.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39253&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39255&stc=1

Now we will look at a few scope cases that have surfaced through the years, that belonged to snipers present that day in March, 1918. Every single one of them is an 8-loop scope case that contained an A5 scope in a Marine Mount indicating the rifle had Mann-Niedner bases attached. There is a scope case that appears in Brophy that is attributed to a sniper named Pvt. Gilbert C. Chandler, who was trained at OSD very late in the program, that is pictured as a 6-loop case. The picture in Brophy does not show any name on the case, nor the zero film in the inner lid. It is no more than a curiosity at this point, but is included in the spirit of fair play.

As you gaze at the number of scope cases, each traceable to a specific sniper that can be traced using the USMC Marine Muster Rolls on Ancestry, try to envision the effort to fake them all, as has been claimed by one pseudo “expert”. Such a claim is as ridiculous as it is laughable. These scope cases all have different origins, and came to daylight at different times, some decades apart. I traced two of them back to the sniper’s family member who sold them. One of those was the elderly son of the sniper who sold the scope and case for $200 to a man going door to door looking for WWI paraphernalia, which I found very interesting. A good friend of mine now owns that scope case and scope (by chance). The second family I traced doesn’t live very far from Emri. Try it. Anyone can do it.

Let’s look at some known scope cases. With the exception of one or two, these snipers were at Deer Point that day. These scope cases were issued on 4 March 1918, before the “order” discussed above was placed.

Since my quest is to find serial numbers, I will obscure all serial numbers I deem not in the public domain.

Scope case #1: Issued to Melvin H. Vancamp and was featured on a recent Julia Auction YouTube video. Melvin was indeed a Marine sniper.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39256&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39257&stc=1


I reached my limit of 5-pics per post, will continue in next post.

Jim:1948:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Scope case #2: Issued to Gunner Steve Estock. It is now owned by our Tom Jackson, a premier collector. Where is Tom, by the way? I miss Tom’s posts of his magnificent collection.


http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39258&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39259&stc=1


Scope case #3: Issued to Pvt H. S. Smith

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39260&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39261&stc=1

Continued on next post.

Jim:eusa_wall:

[cplnorton]

Jim that order for the 1000 Marine cases is one I own the copyright to, because it's actually my picture I took of the original document. I have not given you a copy of that picture, nor given you permission to use it. Please take it down.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Scope cases #4 & #5: The first one was issued to Pvt. Max Brunstein, current owner has the original matching rifle. The rarest of all 1903 variations in a compete set and almost a neighbor of mine. The second case is from a scope and case sold on eBay that had the rifle serial number on it. For those PhotoScape challenged, the SN is 6511XX.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39264&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39268&stc=1







Scope case #6: Issued to Pvt. William Wallace Ipson
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39266&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39267&stc=1


Continued in next post.

Jim:icon_scratch:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Scope case #7: Issued to Pvt. T. A. Stuckey

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39270&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39269&stc=1






Scope #8: Issued to Pvt. John Kennedy

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39275&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39276&stc=1



Continued in next post.

Jim:eusa_boohoo:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Scope #10: Issued to Pvt. Gilbert C. Chandler

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39280&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39281&stc=1



Scope #11: Issued to John R. Kurtz (one of the only two brother snipers)
http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39277&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39278&stc=1

There are more, including the scope cases of Pvt. Lester B. Demlow (#12 - misspelled in Senich, correction, that was Damerow), Pvt. L. D. LaValley (#13), and Pvt. Percival R. Burrell (#14), whom would all become instructors at OSD. So we can account for 25% or more of the scopes and cases issued that day, or the following month for a couple of them (the respective sniper rifle serial numbers are on the cases). Anyone want to wager that the other scopes, rifles, and cases looked exactly like these? Those 50-men were half of the 1st OSD Scout, Observer, Sniper (SOS) class of 100-men held beginning 14 June 1918.

And this from Senich, and please note he is talking about the 8-loop “Penguin” scope case and Mann-Niedner “Marine Mounts”:

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39282&stc=1

They total to 28% of the rifles issued that day. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of statistics knows this one is a lock, “documents” be damned. Particularly since there is only one possible example of a 6-loop case with no visible sign of any specific sniper on, or attached to it. There are numerous examples of these same 8-loop “Penguin” scope cases found over the net with no decipherable names. Promo has three of them in a single photo. By the way, any idea that promotes the notion that the snipers bought the scope cases themselves is idiotic nonsense. The Marine pay scale at that time would prohibit it, as would their remote location, unless Cuban made. By the way, all these cases came with their Mann-Niedner based (Marine Mount) A5 scope, which means the matching rifles had Mann-Niedner bases.

Continued in next post.

Jim:1948:

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

(continued)

They total to 28% of the rifles issued that day. Anyone with even a modicum of knowledge of statistics knows this one is a lock, “documents” be damned. Particularly since there is only one possible example of a 6-loop case with no visible sign of any specific sniper on, or attached to it. There are numerous examples of these same 8-loop “Penguin” scope cases found over the net with no decipherable names. Promo has three of them in a single photo. By the way, any idea that promotes the notion that the snipers bought the scope cases themselves is idiotic nonsense. The Marine pay scale at that time would prohibit it, as would their remote location, unless Cuban made. By the way, all these cases came with their Mann-Niedner based (Marine Mount) A5 scope, which means the matching rifles had Mann-Niedner bases.

Next is a picture of Gunner Steve Estock on the OSD rifle range with his “Penguin” 8-loop scope case (pictured above) over his shoulder (look under his left hand). It’s got to be neat to own a piece of history and have a picture of it being used “in the day”. Congratulations, Tom.

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39283&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39284&stc=1

As I stated, the scopes had Marine Mounts, the rifles had Mann-Niedner bases, and the scope cases were “Penguin” 8-loop scope cases that appear to be made specifically for the A5. On the 6-loop side of the discussion, not a single 6-loop scope case bearing any name, serial number, or other information indicating it was assigned to any sniper rifle or sniper has surfaced in the last 100-years. That alone should be enough physical evidence to convince any reasonable person.

If you aren’t convinced at this point that the sniper rifles issued on 4 March 1918 utilized scopes with Marine Mounts in Mann-Niedner bases with 8-loop “Penguin” scope cases, it is my fault for a poor presentation. The evidence is certainly there, with a total lack of evidence for the contrary position. What you have seen is only a tiny portion of the data I have, but I am soaking up bandwidth.

Convinced - or not convinced? Either way, now you may understand why I do not accept the “documents, I have documents” nonsense; especially when those documents are never presented, presented in an abbreviated form, or presented only to individuals “highly regarded”. It is total BS, and no one becomes an expert by just collecting documents. I use documents also, but great care needs to be taken when examining any document to ensure it is interpreted correctly, and its “place in time” is understood. In the final analysis, no document can change historical fact.

Thanks to Jeff for letting me present this. Ask any questions you may have.

Jim:1948:

[1903fan]

Well Mr Jim, I'd say you have made a very clear, well thought out case sir, and one that makes a heck of a lot of sense. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the fruits of your research, and appreciate that there are no instances where "mental gymnastics" are required to come up with a certain conclusion. One thing I notice, those A5 sniper rifles the Marines got were sure close in serial number range!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Well Mr Jim, I'd say you have made a very clear, well thought out case sir, and one that makes a heck of a lot of sense. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading the fruits of your research, and appreciate that there are no instances where "mental gymnastics" are required to come up with a certain conclusion. One thing I notice, those A5 sniper rifles the Marines got were sure close in serial number range!

Yes, they were.

Jim

[1903fan]

Well as a crusty ole vet myself, I'm glad this is all settled and we can get on with looking for new rifles out there that fit the bill as a Marine WWI sniper rifle :icon_salut:

[clintonhater]

The 5 cases offered by WRA in the order of their introduction, left to right. 39372

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I almost forgot about this photograph, which is of a 13th Regiment Marine Sergeant taken in France in late 1918. Please note the 8-loop "Penguin" scope case hanging from his left hip. As an added caveat, look closely at the eyepiece of the scope and you will see the dim light adapter attached to the scope. I can identify this Marine with no doubt whatsoever. The rifle has the Marine Mounts which means it has Mann-Niedner bases, and is a WRA rifle. I also know the serial number of this rifle and who owns the scope case and scope.
Jim:1948:

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39376&stc=1

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The 5 cases offered by WRA in the order of their introduction, left to right. http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39372&stc=1

Nice picture, clintonhater (me too). I knew someone would eventually find one. Looks like the "Penguin" is a WRA scope case after all and was around before the 6-loop!

Jim:1948:

[1903fan]

Very clearly a Mann-Niedner Marine block sniper rifle with 8 loop case in that picture, what a wonderful example!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

From the moment I first saw this photograph, I knew I was on the right path. The rifle on the far left in the stack has an A5 scope in Marine Mounts (Mann-Niedner bases). Check out the big, knurled knobs, and one can even see the tip of the clicker-pointer. I believe the Marine on the left is the sniper, due to his gear and position. His uniform looks dark in color, which I believe is due to newly issued uniforms (British French, AEF??) versus the others' sun faded duds. I remember we could spot a newbie in boot the same way. The snipers are probably fresh out of an English sniper school, which is why they have their Brodies. The date of the picture would be late 1917 as all the Marines are wearing Marine uniforms, canvas leggings, and their campaign hats. After January, 1917, the canvas leggings and campaign hats would have been gone. That would make this rifle one of the original Niedner rifles, as the WRA rifles had yet to be delivered. This isn't new ground, as I believe everyone concedes the Niedner rifles went to the 4th Brigade. As JB once pointed out, I think the Marine on the right has pilfered the Brodie from the sniper, as you can see his campaign hat just to the side of his right leg.

Jim:1948:

http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39406&stc=1http://www.jouster.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=39408&stc=1

[TDP0311]

I'm having a hard time seeing anything but an M1903 scoped with an A5. Perhaps the photo uploaded a bit pixilated?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I'm having a hard time seeing anything but an M1903 scoped with an A5. Perhaps the photo uploaded a bit pixilated?

The photo must be less than a certain size to upload to Jouster, so some definition is indeed lost. The photo in question is available on the net in high definition. The picture is part of the Keystone View Company Set of 1917 - 1918, picture #66 in the set of 100. Grab a copy, and using any of the many photo manipulating programs, one can enhance the photo for a more clear view. If I post my enhancement, I might get accused of faking it. If you email me, we can discuss the matter.

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim that order for the 1000 Marine cases is one I own the copyright to, because it's actually my picture I took of the original document. I have not given you a copy of that picture, nor given you permission to use it. Please take it down.

I didn't want to get into this before everyone had a chance to read the thread, but sufficient time has passed. You are claiming a copyright of a picture of a document that is public domain that you copied and cropped. Good luck on that one. But just for the sake of accuracy, post your copyright, because I don't believe you. You do realize you have to apply for one, right? I posted a picture that had been transferred over the net to me. You can't prove that picture is yours, as anyone can take a picture of a public document.

Your claim that you can get a copyright of a picture of the wording of a document without having the copyright on the document itself is just BS. There is nothing intellectually unique about a crop of a document that is not held by the original document.

You have repeatedly published a picture that I took, and you don't hear me whining like a little schoolgirl. Grow up.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Sufficient time has passed for anyone to ask any questions they may have had about what I have posted. I am a bit surprised no one even asked the origin of the material, which I would have happily posted. I most certainly would have asked how I knew the date the rifles were issued. I had prepared a series of posts on the rifles themselves (pictures, and in some cases pictures of the snipers with their rifles - I did post one), but since no one was asking questions, this seems a fitting end.

At this point I believe I have presented the case for the 8-loop scope cases and the WRA rifles, so I will cease and desist, as these posts are a pain to do. There is still a host of info and data I did not present. Maybe next time.

Jim

[Promo]

Jim, who is the owner of the bases as pictured in your 3rd post in this thread? The blued ones look like reproductions, while the phosphated ones look exactly identically to the ones I have (staked screwhead markings).
The scope pictured below that bases is clearly a British A5 scope. The Brits also put a lot of red colour on those scopes plus someone even filled the markings on the screw with colour (something what I sniper would never do), hence I wouldn't be too sure if this still is original Winchester.

Tom's rifle looks marvellous, I'm really envy of that piece! And I wouldn't mind seeing a picture showing the inletting of the handguard to make the scope removeable, since there seem to be quite some variants. Are the bases on his rifle phosphated or blued?

I have a yellow lense adaptor myself which seems to be for WWI British scopes, since it came with a British scope I had bought. I however believe they wouldn't be that much of a help, but it might had been worth the try...

[clintonhater]

The scope pictured below that bases is clearly a British A5 scope...

Well, not completely clear to me, though color in the index markings of that rear mount is much too bright to be original Winchester paint. The British-issued scopes had the serial number of the rifle to which they were matched scrawled along the tube with an electro-pencil, with red paint smeared in the scratches; ugly.

[Promo]

I may lead your view on the markings on the scope foot - the broad arrow and the crown over F9 marking more than clearly indicate the British usage of this scope.

And as a small side note: to my knowledge, collection and other sources most British scopes EITHER have the rifle serial number on the scope tube, OR the British acceptance proofs on the scope rings. Which of those two methods was the earlier one I am unable to tell.

[clintonhater]

I may lead your view on the markings on the scope foot - the broad arrow and the crown over F9 marking more than clearly indicate the British usage of this scope.

Sorry, you're absolutely right of course--didn't notice those.

[Promo]

I looked it up and found this statement of Roger Payne regarding British A5 scopes:

They are of two varieties; firstly some scopes bear the broad arrow & Enfield inspector's mark on the mounts; secondly some bear a boldly engraved SMLE serial number on the top of the scope tube (the engraving was originally filled with red paint or kwikfill type material, though this has often come out over the years). I have never seen a scope bearing both military acceptance stamps AND a SMLE serial number together.

He additionally mentioned the scopes were purchased in 1915/16 and the total was 907 scopes.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim, who is the owner of the bases as pictured in your 3rd post in this thread? The blued ones look like reproductions, while the phosphated ones look exactly identically to the ones I have (staked screwhead markings).

I don't know. I have downloaded dozens of pictures over the years. The purpose of the picture was to show what a MN base looked like and that one filled the bill. I might point out that Niedner's bases were quite different from WRA's. The one rifle I have seen I believe to be an original (of the 150), has its bases soldered onto the rifle. You can just see the silver line.


The scope pictured below that bases is clearly a British A5 scope.

Yes it is. Still the same mount.


The Brits also put a lot of red colour on those scopes plus someone even filled the markings on the screw with colour (something what I sniper would never do), ....

Not true.:eusa_dance:


....hence I wouldn't be too sure if this still is original Winchester.

I have no idea what you mean by this comment. Please explain.


Tom's rifle looks marvellous, I'm really envy of that piece! And I wouldn't mind seeing a picture showing the inletting of the handguard to make the scope removeable, since there seem to be quite some variants.

All the originals I have seen are identical, Niedner and WRA. The variance comes from later day fakers not knowing what an original looked like.

Tom's rifles are remarkable. Tom is a nice guy and I miss his posts.


Are the bases on his rifle phosphated or blued?

Neither, if they are original.


I have a yellow lense adaptor myself which seems to be for WWI British scopes, since it came with a British scope I had bought. I however believe they wouldn't be that much of a help, but it might had been worth the try...

I use mine on my hunting rifle, and it works extremely well. I am good for 30 min after sunset and 30 min before sun rise. The scope combination is excellent in my opinion. The British may well have used them, but so did the Corps.

[Promo]

Hello Jim,

I had hoped that you could tell me where the pictures of the bases are from - too bad you don't have the source! I had both seen bases which are phosphated and which are blued, and I always had wondered what belongs to which period. A part of your answer seems to say that they had neither of those two finishes. Would you then let me know what according to your opinion was the finish chosen for the bases, if neither of them? Or were they left in the white?

As written in my second reply in this thread the 907 scopes which were in the British contract from Winchester were either British marked on the bases, or the rifle serial number filled with red colour on the scope tube. Therefore this is definately true, but we might just spoke of different things.

Note that I split my postings in several passages. Therefore when you cut out a single sentence it might loose the original meaning. If you read it within the whole passage, it is clear to what it is referring to.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Howdy, George.

The original Corps M-N bases were all casehardened with no other finish applied. You can easily tell the Niedner made bases from the WRA bases (I am speaking of the Corps sniper rifles only).

I agree with you about the British A5's. I cut out each topic so I can be assured I answered all your questions as best as I could.

As for the source of the pictures, I have hundreds of them, some sourced, some not. Besides, there is no way to tell when a finish was applied. It might have been last week. It has always been a side mission of mine to thwart fakers, so I have always been reluctant to supply information I thought was not generally available. That practice has paid off, as I have identified one individual who seems to have made a living faking these rifles. What really burns me just as bad is seeing someone authenticate an outright faked rifle.

You take care, George.

Jim

[Promo]

Jim, might sound stupid but why do you know they were casehardened and without any other finish? Is this due to the finish on Toms rifle?

I had always thought the phosphated bases to be the later type, especially since at the time of the introduction they were still using blued finish on rifles and that would fit to it, but I think I had also seen blued bases (not only in your picture).

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I missed this post somehow. I hope I am not too late.


Jim, might sound stupid but why do you know they were casehardened and without any other finish?

Not for the reason you might think. It was to facilitate removal of the scope.


Is this due to the finish on Toms rifle?

No.


I had always thought the phosphated bases to be the later type, especially since at the time of the introduction they were still using blued finish on rifles and that would fit to it, but I think I had also seen blued bases (not only in your picture).

Either phosphate or blued soft steel could possibly make scope removal a nightmare. I have seen M-N bases made by people other than Niedner or WRA. I have also seen multiple finishes. Niedner casehardened the bases he installed on the 150 rifles. I am looking at five sets of M-N bases right now, and each of them is different. Even Niedner made variations. For commercial work, Niedner often left the bottom rear base particularly wide (wings), but on military work, he cut down the bottom of the base to match the top portion. He did this to keep from obscuring the rifle's serial number, a big deal in the military ranks. It didn't matter on commercial work, but he still would stamp the obscured SN into the base between the screw holes, including the respective armory initials (RI or SA). To compensate for lost stability with the narrower military base, he would often soft solder them on, including the screws. Niedner was a true craftsman and had a reason for everything he did. He even compensated for barrel taper on the front mount, which I have not seen on M-N bases made by other entities. My personal favorite is the M-N base to replace the WRA "Marine Base" without drilling a third hole in the receiver.

Niedner was the man.

[1903fan]

Hey JT, did the Marines make their own M-N bases, or did they only get them from WRA or Niedner himself?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Hey JT, did the Marines make their own M-N bases, or did they only get them from WRA or Niedner himself?

Niedner made all the bases for the original 150 Niedner rifles, and he also made the bases for for the WRA rifles with work starting in Aug 1916.
jt:1948:

[JWM]

Hello Jim,

Just dropped in and came across this most interesting thread. I'll have to spend more time at a later date to digest what is being discussed. For the moment, though, would you explain to me where you got the picture you're using on the first page of the thread marked in part as Big Al? Reason I ask is because it appears to be one that I took of one I owned that was sold to one of our esteemed members of this forum.

Best,

James

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Hello Jim,

Just dropped in and came across this most interesting thread. I'll have to spend more time at a later date to digest what is being discussed. For the moment, though, would you explain to me where you got the picture you're using on the first page of the thread marked in part as Big Al? Reason I ask is because it appears to be one that I took of one I owned that was sold to one of our esteemed members of this forum.

Best,

James

Please excuse the delay in responding, I have been quite busy in other arenas. I cannot acertain which photo you refer to. Please give the date of the post and I will let you know all I know about it.

Jim