WWI USMC Scope Case... [Archive] - Jouster2 Shooting Forums

cplnorton

07-29-2017, 03:58

I'm still on the fence on these named cases. The problem it's so hard to prove who put the name on it, and when. And how do you know if the name was a Marine, soldier, civlian, or faked 20 years ago by some humper?

The other problem in this is every WRA A5 case, automatically becomes a WWI USMC sniper case when shown online. Because everyone always thinks only the MArines had A5 snipers. But that isn't true in anyway shape or form. All the stuff the Marines received in the A5 program, was recieved by others as well. Nothing was exclusive to the Marines in the WWI Sniper program. You name, the Army had it as well. Besides others.

Like for example these cases. The US Army and the Marines received a total of 2550 Leather cases in 1917/18. And really that was only a calendar year. What they received before this, and after I have no clue. I don't have the documents on that. I only have wartime production. Also WRA was providing A5 cases to other countries. I have no clue how many were shipped, bc I didn't pull those orders. But I know they shipped them to other countries. So that is a lot of unkowns to try to say exactly what any of these cases are absolute.

Now this is my other problem. I do believe the Mariens did have some eight loop cases, but I think they had a lot of different variations of cases, and way too many to prove 100 years later, what was used when and how. And say even if you have a named case with a hit to a WWI Marine. How do you know if it's not a soldier with the same name, a civilian, or someone in another country. Or someone shady didn't fake the name altogether. See what i'm saying?

This is the other thing and what was discussed in the post that Clintonhater brought up. I found the actual A5 contracts for the Marines. I located them at a private archives, then Andrew Stolinksi found thousands more of sniper docs at the National Archives.

Anymore I believe in what I can prove. This is the only rock solid description of a Marine contract A5 case I have ever located. Like I said I do believe some 8 loops were used. A couple WWI era pics have been posted of 8 loops. But I disagree where the pics are stated to have been taken.

In the actual contract the overall lenght is said to be 16 1/4'' and it mentions it has six loops to attach the web strap. It was argued in the post above that they meant the body of the scope case had 6 loops and the cap had another 2. For a grand total of 8. Instead of my argument that the whole scope case had a total of six loops. But no one compared the actual measurements. I didn't have the cases at the time to measure but have since got the measurements.

First the original document I located at the Achives. It says the length is 16 1/4'' and it has six loops.

http://i.imgur.com/6R1imWJh.jpg

Here is a 6 loop case and 8 loop case side by side, notice the 6 loop is not form fitted and simplier to manufacture. IT looks like wartime production and most telling it is shorter.

http://i.imgur.com/jtSBzBzh.jpg

Here is the body of the 8 loop case. That was the argument above. That the document meant 6 loops on the body, and 2 on the cap. Even thought it doesn't say that in the document. But the argument was they meant 2 more on the cap for a total of 8. But when you measure the body of the 8 loop case, the overall lenght is 17 1/4''. With the cap I measure 17 1/2''. It is over an inch too long for the Marine contract. Here is the measurement of a 8 loop case body.

http://i.imgur.com/as6LlV0h.jpg

Here is actually a 6 loop case, 4 loops on the body, 2 on the cap. For a total of six. It is named on the inside to a name that matches a WWI Marine from Missouri. But again it could have been a name of a soldier, or civilian. Who knows? Just because it matches a Marine name, I cannot prove 100% it was a Marine case. But it is the correct 16 1/4" lenght that is mentioned in the Marine docs. And it has the 6 loops mentioned in the docs. But like I said the Army got these 6 loop cases too, I can prove it 100%. I have the docs. So the MArine document above is NOT IN ANYWAY EXCLUSIVE to the Marines.

http://i.imgur.com/pCqx8RJh.jpg

cplnorton

07-29-2017, 04:04

I know the info above is a lot, I'm just hoping to clear up the air on this whole case discussion with the actual measurements of the cases and the original document.

The takeaway on this is, the Marines probalby had a lot of variations of cases over the years. But not one was ever exclusive to just the Marines. So what would make it a Marine case is if you could prove the name on it was a Marine. Now how do you prove it is 100% applied by a Marine?

It's a grey area I guess what I'm saying. The case above might be legit, but I just don't ever feel comfortable anymore on this stuff saying anything absolute it's Marine. These cases were used by everyone.

But what I would do first, I was trying to read the name and my eyes suck. What is it? Let me check the Marine rosters to see if there is a match. Again that's not to say a Army Soldier didn't have the same initals and last name, or even a civilian. That's just my point in all this.

But it's for sure a WWI era WRA A5 case. I just disagree if anyone says it's a for sure USMC one. Even with a hit to the name to a Marine.

cplnorton

07-29-2017, 05:03

I've never posted this or told anyone other than my friends this. This is why it gest so confusing for some people. Because this has never been made public before. What I'm saying nothing is exclusive to the Marines. Everything the Marines got from WRA including the A5 snipers, the Army got as well.

But this is the actual Marine and Army contracts side by side. These are just two to show the they are identical. The one on the left is the MArine, the one on the right is Army. Both of these contracts did ship, but on different dates. They were just ordered on the same date.

But I wanted to show they are identical, just going to different places, and billed to the different branches and these were different WRA contract numbers. Here in a second I will take a 6 loop case and compare every single measurement on these contracts to show it matches this contract.

http://i.imgur.com/KubGQlh.jpg

cplnorton

07-29-2017, 05:27

Lets just go measurement by measurement, just so there is no confusion. And you can tell from looking at the pic above that this case is different dimensions than the 8 loop case. Numbers are taken off the Army and Marine Sniper Sniper Case contracts above.

Overall Length 16 1/4''. 6 leather loops to attach web strap

http://i.imgur.com/6nnLkU6l.jpg

Inside diameter at base 1 7/8''

http://i.imgur.com/VQIQ9HNl.jpg

inside Diameter at Top 2 1/2''

http://i.imgur.com/AcsxkSNl.jpg

Leather Cap 2 7/8" Diameter

http://i.imgur.com/8eQwemYl.jpg

Leather Cap 2 1/4'' deep

http://i.imgur.com/OkpR1Adl.jpg

clintonhater

07-29-2017, 06:27

Until it's been determined that the man was in the service during the years A5 were being issued, the cart is getting way ahead of the horse.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-04-2017, 02:08

A friend of mine recently came across a WWI era case for the Winchester A5 scope. There are no markings on the piece apart from a name that's stenciled on the carrying strap. We've been told that this type of case was used by the USMC in WWI. Is there a list of Marine snipers from that period? Any info would be greatly appreciated.

Could you post the spelling of the last name on the case? Thank you.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-04-2017, 02:41

I know the info above is a lot, I'm just hoping to clear up the air on this whole case discussion with the actual measurements of the cases and the original document....

I think the only person confused may be you. You have absolute faith in a document found in the archives, yet you deny the extant examples by claiming them to be fakes. A document is just that, a piece of paper. You are unable, or incapable, of explaining the existence of the many existing examples of 8-loop "Penguin" scope cases, most of them inked to actual living Marine WWI snipers, with some of them traceable back to the families that originally sold them. You claim that no "Penguin" scope cases were ordered - where in your one document does it so state? Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

No one disputes your document, it is what it is. Despite that document, the existing scope cases tell a different story, and I believe my eyes over any document, and so will most of those who read these posts. And the dimensions? What is the dispute over dimensions?

cplnorton

08-04-2017, 03:29

I think the only person confused may be you. You have absolute faith in a document found in the archives, yet you deny the extant examples by claiming them to be fakes. A document is just that, a piece of paper. You are unable, or incapable, of explaining the existence of the many existing examples of 8-loop "Penguin" scope cases, most of them inked to actual living Marine WWI snipers, with some of them traceable back to the families that originally sold them. You claim that no "Penguin" scope cases were ordered - where in your one document does it so state? Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

No one disputes your document, it is what it is. Despite that document, the existing scope cases tell a different story, and I believe my eyes over any document, and so will most of those who read these posts. And the dimensions? What is the dispute over dimensions?

Yes I have 100% faith in the actual detailed contracts from WRA. On these I can actually trace when they were paid, how much they cost, the dates they shipped, and some of them where they actually shipped to.

As far as an argument of dimensions. It wasn't an argument about dimensions. Our argument was what was the WWI sniper case and most specifically what this document actually states. When I first shared this document with you in the beginning, I stated the actual contract in WWI was for a 6 loop case. And whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases are, it's not detailed in the WWI docs. When I presented the contract to you as proof, you argued that I read the document wrong and this document was proof that you were right.

You stated that they meant there were an additional 2 loops on the cases that are not mentioned. Therefore this document proved you were right and they meant 8 loop cases. We had like over 10 pages of arguing what this document actually meant. Me arguing the document meant 6 and you arguing it meant 8. A large part of our argument was this document and what it meant. lol

That is why I posted the dimensions of the cases side by side, to prove the WRA contract was for a 6 loop case, not a 8.

Whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases, now someone needs to find the actual documents. Because there was nothing that happened back then without a papertrail.

cplnorton

08-04-2017, 03:57

Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

The Marines received 1650 cases in about a calendar year during the war. The Army received 900. That is over 2500 cases total.

I forget how many named 8 loops you claim to know of, like 10 or something. I know of three named 6 loop cases now.

Regardless that is a crap ton of missing cases. So that really doesn't tell you anything.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-04-2017, 04:42

Yes I have 100% faith in the actual detailed contracts from WRA. On these I can actually trace when they were paid, how much they cost, the dates they shipped, and some of them where they actually shipped to.

Assuming you have such documents, no problem here.

As far as an argument of dimensions. It wasn't an argument about dimensions. Our argument was what was the WWI sniper case and most specifically what this document actually states. When I first shared this document with you in the beginning,...

You did no such thing. Someone else sent me that document.

...I stated the actual contract in WWI was for a 6 loop case. And whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases are, it's not detailed in the WWI docs. When I presented the contract to you as proof, you argued that I read the document wrong and this document was proof that you were right.

I did state you misread the document. You presented the contract as proof of what exactly?

You stated that they meant there were an additional 2 loops on the cases that are not mentioned. Therefore this document proved you were right and they meant 8 loop cases. We had like over 10 pages of arguing what this document actually meant. Me arguing the document meant 6 and you arguing it meant 8. A large part of our argument was this document and what it meant. lol

Our disagreement is whether, or not, the original snipers were issued 8-loop or 6-loop scope cases. I can, and have, produced photos of numerous (I have more) sniper scope cases, and all are 8-loop scope cases. You can't produce even one, even though you maintain hundreds were issued. Produce some examples. I have always maintained that nothing is written in stone when it comes to '03's. Until then, the weight of evidence is in favor of the 8-loop scope case. It is as simple as that.

That is why I posted the dimensions of the cases side by side, to prove the WRA contract was for a 6 loop case, not a 8.

Thank you.

Whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases, now someone needs to find the actual documents. Because there was nothing that happened back then without a papertrail.

There are a myriad of instances where paper military trails are flawed, or downright incorrect, or missing entirely. You don't want to go there. Actually, I hope someone does find the 8-loop paper trail. I don't do this for my benefit, I do it (argue my points) to keep people from establishing incorrect history. I do the same thing with Confederate history, but a hundred years of BS rewritten history has made that cause very difficult. I lucked into a time capsule of WWI Marine sniper history, thanks to a Marine at Camp LeJeune. Over 200 pages of who did what, why they did it, where they did it, and when they did it; complete with photos I have seen nowhere else. To date, nothing stated in those documents has been refuted by anyone. Sadly, those documents do not mention the origin of the scope cases, but the pictures depicting snipers, with scope cases, are all of 8-loop scope cases.

Keep looking.

cplnorton

08-04-2017, 10:27

1) You did no such thing. Someone else sent me that document.

2) I did state you misread the document. You presented the contract as proof of what exactly?

3) Our disagreement is whether, or not, the original snipers were issued 8-loop or 6-loop scope cases. I can, and have, produced photos of numerous (I have more) sniper scope cases, and all are 8-loop scope cases. You can't produce even one, even though you maintain hundreds were issued. Produce some examples. I have always maintained that nothing is written in stone when it comes to '03's. Until then, the weight of evidence is in favor of the 8-loop scope case. It is as simple as that.

4) There are a myriad of instances where paper military trails are flawed, or downright incorrect, or missing entirely. You don't want to go there. Actually, I hope someone does find the 8-loop paper trail. I don't do this for my benefit, I do it (argue my points) to keep people from establishing incorrect history. I do the same thing with Confederate history, but a hundred years of BS rewritten history has made that cause very difficult. I lucked into a time capsule of WWI Marine sniper history, thanks to a Marine at Camp LeJeune. Over 200 pages of who did what, why they did it, where they did it, and when they did it; complete with photos I have seen nowhere else. To date, nothing stated in those documents has been refuted by anyone. Sadly, those documents do not mention the origin of the scope cases, but the pictures depicting snipers, with scope cases, are all of 8-loop scope cases.

Keep looking.

I numbered your areas that I respond to below.

1) I quoted parts of the document to you in our argument, and sent an original copy of the document to Tom Jackson. Tom then shared the original docment with you, and then you put it out on Jouster.

2) The detailed WRA Contracts for A5 leather sniper cases from WWI all state they are for a 6 loop case. There is not one Winchester contract in 1917/18/19 that details a 8 loop case being shipped to the Marines or Army from Winchester. So as of right now, no one knows where the 8 loop cases came from, or when they were received.

3) I think your timeline of the first shipment of WRA Marine sniper rifles is not correct, and I think that is why we disagree so much.

4) You can never find the complete story in one location. You have to hit many locations so you can docment it from all sides. In all honestly, I have the Marine documents on the A5 program, and the Army actually does a better job of detailing it, than the Marines do.

But that is because the Army duplicated the entire WWI Marine A5 sniper program in 1918. The Army was waiting for the WRA Model of 1918 sniper and WRA was taking too long, and with a shortage of Warner Swaseys, the Army purchased the exact same "Marine Model" A5's off WRA.

So the Army highly detailed the WWI Marine sniper program, because they wanted to copy it.

Most of the A5 research I've read on this forum and in books, is actually not Marine. It's actually info from the Army program that has been mistaken as being Marine Corps. Just no one knew the Army had WRA produced "Marine" A5's.

Just wait a little longer Jim and it will all be made public.

cplnorton

08-04-2017, 10:32

Smokeeaterpilot

08-04-2017, 10:55

And I do want to say something. Andrew Stolinski spent many weeks pulling every WWI Sniper document in the Archives for me. If it wasn't for those, much of the A5 story would still be missing.

So thank you Andrew for that. I know that was a lot of work.

You're gratitude is very much appreciated. It was my pleasure to help.

But I would like to point out I hardly pulled every document. Just hit several locations of interest that I thought may be of use to you. There's a lot more.

All the best!
A/S

cplnorton

08-04-2017, 11:27

You're gratitude is very much appreciated. It was my pleasure to help.

But I would like to point out I hardly pulled every document. Just hit several locations of interest that I thought may be of use to you. There's a lot more.

All the best!
A/S

Well you found a huge amount of documents for me. I am very grateful. :)

If you think there is more than you have already found, I say lets hit some more boxes. lol

clintonhater

08-05-2017, 08:18

Could you post the spelling of the last name on the case? Thank you.

Since the OP has apparently lost interest in the matter, it appears to me to be "Derrey."

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 08:48

Since the OP has apparently lost interest in the matter, it appears to me to be "Derrey."

I looked up the Derrey name. I don't see any hits with an initial of ?. W. Derrey. There is a Marine named Richard W. Derry that was pre WWI. But his name is spelled Derry, not Derrey and it looks like 1916 is the last date for him in the musters.

I thought it might be Denney too. The first initial, I'm not positive on, but the second is for sure a W. There were a ton of Denney's that served in the Marine rosters, but no hit for a ?. W. Denny in WWI that I see. There is a D.W. Denney in the late 1800s, and random W. Denny's in WWII. But none that seem to have an initial that could match that first one.

I only spent about 10 minutes looking, but I'm not seeing a hit to a WWI Marine named that. I will spend more time today when I get time.

But now that we know the Army had A5 snipers too, A LOT of them. I did a quick 2 minute search in the Army files and saw this. I didn't look anymore into him at all, but this could be a hit for that name. That is the problem with a name on the case, especially when it's initials and a last name and nothing else. Prove it's Marine, Army, Civilian or what.

And since everything has only ever been considered as being Marine, and no one knew the Army had them too. All this data needs to be scrutinized to see if there are Army hits with the same name.

http://i.imgur.com/1pmxKiIl.jpg

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 08:54

There was also a R.W. Derrey who served in the Navy in WWII on the USS Gridley. And I have Navy documents that detail A5's used by the Navy on board ships even that late.

And no one knows this at all, because I have never disclosed this to anyone other than John Beard. Because I was trying to document what happened to them before I went public. But there were A5's purchased by the Navy in WWI before the MArines. A huge shipment of them actually. I just have no clue what they did with them, but they shipped from Winchester.

So heck this could even be a Navy hit from WWII for all we know. lol

It's an aboslute nightmare to go just by a name on a case. Because is it Army, Navy, or Marines? A civilian? Or stamped by someone later even? It's just too many possibilities to say 100% what it is. Especially when it's just a name and initials.

http://i.imgur.com/QtY7vbHl.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-05-2017, 10:10

...3) I think your timeline of the first shipment of WRA Marine sniper rifles is not correct, and I think that is why we disagree so much.

I presume you have a document that specifically states it is the first shipment and that shipment was after March of 1918?

...Just no one knew the Army had WRA produced "Marine" A5's.

Actually, it has long been a well known fact that the Army had copies of the Marine sniper rifles. I think the subject is even discussed in Pegler's book, but it may have been one of the others.

Just wait a little longer Jim and it will all be made public.

I'm not going anywhere.:hello:

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 11:48

I presume you have a document that specifically states it is the first shipment and that shipment was after March of 1918?

This is not correct. I do have the March 1918 documents. Both from WRA and the Army. Andrew found them at the Archives.

The first shipment of WRA A5 mounted rifles that went to the Marines predates your date by several months.

The first Army order of Marine Mount A5's was completed on March 19, 1918, and even this was the 2nd actual shipment of completed rifles the Army received, which was for 135 rifles.

You are confusing Army shipments with Marine.

clintonhater

08-05-2017, 01:15

I thought it might be Denney too. The first initial, I'm not positive on, but the second is for sure a W.

Don't think it's Denney. First initial is "R".

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 01:26

Don't think it's Denney. First initial is "R".

Yeah I sort of think you are right. I think it's R.W. Derrey.

I think that WWII Navy hit to that destoryer is probably the most logical answer of all the names I saw. I went back and looked and the Navy recieved over 500 in WWI.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-05-2017, 02:10

This is not correct. I do have the March 1918 documents. Both from WRA and the Army. Andrew found them at the Archives.

The first shipment of WRA A5 mounted rifles that went to the Marines predates your date by several months.

You might want to review what I stated. I stated the rifles were initially issued in March, 1918. I do not know, nor do I care, when they were shipped. I do know their final destination, where they were first issued to Marine candidates for the OSD sniper school scheduled to be completed in mid-1918.

The first Army order of Marine Mount A5's was completed on March 19, 1918, and even this was the 2nd actual shipment of completed rifles the Army received, which was for 135 rifles.

I have known for years that the Army received A5 rifles from WRA. I had no reason to chase those down. My goal is, and always has been, the serial numbers of Niedner's 150 rifles. I do wonder what happened to the Army rifles, but I know of no evidence any of them have surfaced to date.

You are confusing Army shipments with Marine.

I am doing no such thing. You are confusing what I said, with something you think I said. When I advised you to be careful when reading old documents, I should have included my posts.:evil6:

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 02:33

You might want to review what I stated. I stated the rifles were initially issued in March, 1918. I do not know, nor do I care, when they were shipped. I do know their final destination, where they were first issued to Marine candidates for the OSD sniper school scheduled to be completed in mid-1918.

Acutally I do not agree with this either. The location of where the first WRA MArine A5 rifles shipped is mentioned in the USMC, WRA, and Army documents. There is no mention that they were shipped or used by the Marines at Sniper School. And where they actually shipped, it is highly illogical the Mariens sent them back.

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 02:56

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-05-2017, 07:12

You have to understand there were 3 different makers of the A5's just in about a Calendar year.
The first 150 were mounted by Niedner, until he was fired bc the FBI opened an investigation on him as a potentianl German Saboteur. His rifles were also considered highly suspect of sabotage.
After Niedner is fired, a couple days later the contact to mount 500 was given to the WRA company in July 1917. These were completed much earlier than anyone thinks.

I am not sure how you know what everyone thinks, but I think it took less than 30-days to complete.

Also in July 1917, Marines were sent to School at WRA to learn how to mount scopes themselves. These Marines finished the actual school for sure by December 1917. Then the Marines 2nd contract was just for A5 scopes that were to be delievered starting April 1918. These scopes were not to be mounted by WRA, but were instead to be mounted by the Actual Marines.

You have now affirmed what I have said all along. The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade. I can document the Marines making tapered bases in 1916. A nagging question, in my mind, has been why the Corps chose Niedner to make the first 150 rifles.

You have a document that states Marine were going to mount A5 scopes on '03's? My question is why? They already had more sniper rifles than they would need to equip both the 4th and 6th Brigades with rifles left over. Subsequent orders of sniper rifles would be senseless, and the Corps did not waste money. I can see them buying spare scopes to offset scope attrition, but assembling more sniper rifles makes no sense at all. Not at all.

My personal opinoin the rifles you see in the Sniper School pictures are probably mounted by the MArines themselves.

Your opinion, like mine, carries no weight. Let's stick to documents, photos, and existing equipment and forget supposition. I believe the first shipment of rifles came from WRA, and they had tapered bases installed by WRA (ignoring the Niedner rifles).

Just how long was this training session at WRA? How many men were trained, and exactly what were they trained to do? Where did they go once they completed their training? Can you support this claim using the Muster Rolls?

This is only the data on the Marines. Now you must add the Army and Navy into the equation as well.

You can document the Army and Navy ordering A5 sniper rifles in mid-1917? Remember, the Marines had all the sniper rifles they would ever need by the end of 1917. Probably more, since organized combat use of snipers by the Marines in WWi is a bit sketchy, particularly after Belleau Woods. Trench warfare was a heaven for snipers, but after Belleau Woods, the type of walking assaults the Marines used to take enemy positions did not lend itself to hidden snipers supporting the troops. The Marine assaults were so fast a sniper would have to shoot on the run.:icon_exclaim:

cplnorton

08-05-2017, 08:07

1) I am not sure how you know what everyone thinks, but I think it took less than 30-days to complete.

2) You have now affirmed what I have said all along. The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade. I can document the Marines making tapered bases in 1916. A nagging question, in my mind, has been why the Corps chose Niedner to make the first 150 rifles.

3) You have a document that states Marine were going to mount A5 scopes on '03's? My question is why? They already had more sniper rifles than they would need to equip both the 4th and 6th Brigades with rifles left over. Subsequent orders of sniper rifles would be senseless, and the Corps did not waste money. I can see them buying spare scopes to offset scope attrition, but assembling more sniper rifles makes no sense at all. Not at all.

4) I believe the first shipment of rifles came from WRA, and they had tapered bases installed by WRA (ignoring the Niedner rifles).

5) Just how long was this training session at WRA? How many men were trained, and exactly what were they trained to do? Where did they go once they completed their training? Can you support this claim using the Muster Rolls?

6) You can document the Army and Navy ordering A5 sniper rifles in mid-1917?

1) John Beard told me that in the beginning he sent you a copy of my July 2nd 1917 initial order to WRA. On that order they quote they will mount the 500 rifles and ship them within 30 days. But it didn't happen that way. It was longer than 30 days, and they were shipped in at least 2 lots. But they were completed in 1917. The Marine order of 500 was done several months before the Army ordered their first contract in January 1918.

2) In my reasearch Niedner is the one who mounted the rifles in 1916 for the rifle teams. You have those documents as well. The Philly Depot was not operational yet to mount them in house. Hence probably the reason Niedner was initally used.

3) From day one, the target number of sniper rifles by the Marines was 1650. That was always the plan even when Niedner was involved in the beginning, and even after Neidner was fired, the 1650 number remained intact. I have counts at the Philly Depot leading into WWII that show the majority of these still existed. But not in the way you think they did.

4) I can now prove the Marines and Army "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchester had Clamp screws for the mounts. I have the orders for replacement clamp screws becasue they were getting lost in the field. The Tappered Mann Niedner bases do not clamp screws (Thumb Screws). But the Winchester Springfield Marine bases did, and those rifles are the rifles photographed in the detailed original WWI WRA records. That is also the rifle pictured in late 1917 in France.

5) The training session started in July 1917 and was for sure finished by Dec 1917. But it actually probably ended a fuzz earlier. I just can confirm it was done in December because WRA mentions they were filing all the docuemnts from the program as it was done. They probably trained along with Winchester as WRA mounted the 500 rifles for the Marines. And once the 500 rifles were complete, it appears they left WRA at roughly the same time. They trained not only on how to repair the A5 scopes, but how to mount them. I can confirm this on the WRA side and the Marine side. And it makes sense. The Marines were screwed over by Nieder, and they decided to learn to do it themselves and not rely on others. Plus it cost money to pay Niedner and WRA to mount scopes, so it saved money as well to have them mounted in house

6. The Navy order was in 1917, and it was over 500. That is a rabbit hole I haven't down yet. They might have been used on some type of Naval weapons on a ship. I have no clue. I just can confirm they were bought and paid for and where they were shipped. The Army rifles were all mounted by WRA and all shipped in 1918, starting in Feb 1918 to be exact.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 03:10

1) John Beard told me that in the beginning he sent you a copy of my July 2nd 1917 initial order to WRA. On that order they quote they will mount the 500 rifles and ship them within 30 days. But it didn't happen that way. It was longer than 30 days, and they were shipped in at least 2 lots. But they were completed in 1917. The Marine order of 500 was done several months before the Army ordered their first contract in January 1918.

I do not have a copy of that order.

Note: I went back and reviewed all my correspondence with John, and John did send me a copy of a notation of the order from a WRA ledger, but not the order/contract itself. I just want to clarify a quick answer.

As I recall, the first shipment was 350 rifles.

2) In my reasearch Niedner is the one who mounted the rifles in 1916 for the rifle teams. You have those documents as well. The Philly Depot was not operational yet to mount them in house. Hence probably the reason Niedner was initally used.

The Corps was making tapered bases in 1916. According to an article in the Marine Gazette, Philly wasn't operational as an armory until 1919.

3) From day one, the target number of sniper rifles by the Marines was 1650. That was always the plan even when Niedner was involved in the beginning, and even after Neidner was fired, the 1650 number remained intact. I have counts at the Philly Depot leading into WWII that show the majority of these still existed. But not in the way you think they did.

The Corps was about 10,000 men before the war, and received a mandate to increase strength to 75,000 men for the war. They maxed out at 75,101 men in 1918. They were expecting a long drawn out war of attrition in trench warfare. When they stopped the Huns at Belleau Woods with a record number of casualties, they knew they had to change tactics and go to "Indian Tactics". They also had the problem of Gen. Pershing not wanting them in France. They knew the 5th Brigade was their limit in the war. The first order of 500 rifles had filled the need for their sniper program. They would need no more sniper rifles. Now you are telling me they assembled another 1150 rifles? I presume you have solid evidence those contracts were filled?

For the upteenth time, you have no idea what I think. The rifles existed as around 937 A5 surplus scopes at Philly. Show me evidence that all those scopes were purchased in 1918. Before you say, "Aww heck, Jim. They wouldn't purchase scopes they didn't need after WWI." Especially, since you are telling me they assembled over a thousand sniper rifles they didn't need in 1918.

4) I can now prove the Marines and Army "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchester had Clamp screws for the mounts. I have the orders for replacement clamp screws becasue they were getting lost in the field. The Tappered Mann Niedner bases do not clamp screws (Thumb Screws). But the Winchester Springfield Marine bases did, and those rifles are the rifles photographed in the detailed original WWI WRA records. That is also the rifle pictured in late 1917 in France.

First of all, I have never seen one shred of evidence that photo was taken in France in late 1917. If you have it, produce it, otherwise it is just a BS claim on your part.

I look forward to seeing any evidence you have that links those WRA photos to the first order of sniper rifles for the Marines. Since WRA made the #2 bases, I am certain they pushed their use by the Marines, and I would expect to find a copious number of pictures of 1903's with #2 bases in WRA's files, as well as the Corps's.

Do you have any idea how many A5 scoped rifles the Marines had on hand with #2 bases? They didn't throw them away. Nor did they cease R&PT training in WWI. They actually set up a program to train the wives of Marines to shoot. I even have the pictures to prove it. So, unless that order is somehow linked to the sniper program in your documents, it means squat.

5) The training session started in July 1917 and was for sure finished by Dec 1917. But it actually probably ended a fuzz earlier. I just can confirm it was done in December because WRA mentions they were filing all the docuemnts from the program as it was done. They probably trained along with Winchester as WRA mounted the 500 rifles for the Marines. And once the 500 rifles were complete, it appears they left WRA at roughly the same time. They trained not only on how to repair the A5 scopes, but how to mount them. I can confirm this on the WRA side and the Marine side. And it makes sense. The Marines were screwed over by Nieder, and they decided to learn to do it themselves and not rely on others. Plus it cost money to pay Niedner and WRA to mount scopes, so it saved money as well to have them mounted in house

I can show the Marines were making tapered bases as early as 1916. They never did have to use Niedner. The choice to use Niedner was based on factors that may be considered a bit strange.

One more time - the Corp drained itself of armorers outfitting the 5th and 6th Regiments. OSD was not operational in 1917. The Recruit Depots were filled to the max training Marines to outfit the 5th Brigade. The Corps was stretched to the limit as it increased in size by a factor of 7.5 which demanded the Corps use a whole lot of outside resources. It made perfect sense, and still does in today's Corp, to use commercial armories to help train their armorers. Who better than WRA? The Corps had been making tapered bases and mounting A5 scopes for a long time, and didn't need WRA to show them how, they just needed them to train armorers. If you are going to fight a war, you had better have one ass load of armorers on hand, or like David, learn to throw stones. I would wager the Corps sent Marines to Ford Motor Company to learn to fix vehicles, but it still doesn't have squat to do with the sniper program.

6. The Navy order was in 1917, and it was over 500. That is a rabbit hole I haven't down yet. They might have been used on some type of Naval weapons on a ship. I have no clue. I just can confirm they were bought and paid for and where they were shipped. The Army rifles were all mounted by WRA and all shipped in 1918, starting in Feb 1918 to be exact.

I am sure you have perused Pershing's wires. If so, you know that Pershing condemned the WS scopes early in 1918, and demanded better equipment from SA. So the Army order makes perfect sense, but I know nothing about that order and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Townsend Whelan had condemned the WRA #2 mounts and bases as crap long before the war started, just before the Corps started using tapered bases. I seem to remember Crossman condemning them also. Captain Fay was a close friend of both men, as was Daulty Smith. Do you think the change to tapered bases was a coincidence? Now you tell me the men who made that change were going to reverse themselves and buy sniper rifles with crap mounts and bases? That was never going to happen.

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 06:40

1) As I recall, the first shipment was 350 rifles.

2) The Corps was making tapered bases in 1916. According to an article in the Marine Gazette, Philly wasn't operational as an armory until 1919.

3) They would need no more sniper rifles. Now you are telling me they assembled another 1150 rifles? I presume you have solid evidence those contracts were filled?

4) For the upteenth time, you have no idea what I think. The rifles existed as around 937 A5 surplus scopes at Philly. Show me evidence that all those scopes were purchased in 1918. Before you say, "Aww heck, Jim. They wouldn't purchase scopes they didn't need after WWI." Especially, since you are telling me they assembled over a thousand sniper rifles they didn't need in 1918.

5) Do you have any idea how many A5 scoped rifles the Marines had on hand with #2 bases? They didn't throw them away. Nor did they cease R&PT training in WWI. They actually set up a program to train the wives of Marines to shoot. I even have the pictures to prove it. So, unless that order is somehow linked to the sniper program in your documents, it means squat.

6) I can show the Marines were making tapered bases as early as 1916. They never did have to use Niedner. The choice to use Niedner was based on factors that may be considered a bit strange.

One more time - the Corp drained itself of armorers outfitting the 5th and 6th Regiments. OSD was not operational in 1917. The Recruit Depots were filled to the max training Marines to outfit the 5th Brigade. The Corps was stretched to the limit as it increased in size by a factor of 7.5 which demanded the Corps use a whole lot of outside resources. It made perfect sense, and still does in today's Corp, to use commercial armories to help train their armorers. Who better than WRA? The Corps had been making tapered bases and mounting A5 scopes for a long time, and didn't need WRA to show them how, they just needed them to train armorers. If you are going to fight a war, you had better have one ass load of armorers on hand, or like David, learn to throw stones. I would wager the Corps sent Marines to Ford Motor Company to learn to fix vehicles, but it still doesn't have squat to do with the sniper program.

7) I am sure you have perused Pershing's wires. If so, you know that Pershing condemned the WS scopes early in 1918, and demanded better equipment from SA. So the Army order makes perfect sense, but I know nothing about that order and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

8) Townsend Whelan had condemned the WRA #2 mounts and bases as crap long before the war started, just before the Corps started using tapered bases. I seem to remember Crossman condemning them also. Captain Fay was a close friend of both men, as was Daulty Smith. Do you think the change to tapered bases was a coincidence? Now you tell me the men who made that change were going to reverse themselves and buy sniper rifles with crap mounts and bases? That was never going to happen.

1) The 350 number is not correct. The actual real number was 500 for the first shipment.

2) The article you are talking about is from Dec 1925. The article does not mention they were producing tapered Marine bases in 1916. But it does mention they were created and made at the depot. Which is what the evidence from Winchester shows as well, as WRA never had anything to do with the tapered bases. There were parts of the Philly Depot that were operational for weapons in 1918. Tim Plowman found proof of this at the DC Archives. There was also another location that was utilized as well that has not been made public.

http://i.imgur.com/9USlUmB.jpg

3) Yes I have the evidence of those numbers.

4) The 937 number you are quoting is not correct, the actual number was 887. But that was just one count on scopes that is qouted in Senich. When you actually see the Quartermaster documents, there were many counts done. Not only on the scopes at difference periods of time, but for the actual rifles and parts of the sniper program has never been made public.

5) Yes I numerous counts of the scoped rifles that date from about 1911 to 1951. I do have the purchase orders of the Marines buying them pre WWI. I can track two purchases in 1911 and 1916. There were not as many as you think.

6) The rifles purchased with the tapper blocks in 1916 were mounted by Nieder. You have these documents as well, so if you check the date you will see this is correct. There is not any evidence the Marines was producing tappered blocks in 1916. If you have that evidence please provide it.

7) Yes I have a copy of the Pershing Wires. They are also available online to view. The Army orders are extremely important for what we are discussing, because you need to place the Marine orders and Army orders side by side to see what was going where. You have confused some of these Army orders and shipments as being Marine. And it's easy to do. It wasn't till I had all the WRA contract numbers and all the Army docuemntation that it finally made sense on what was actually Marine and what was Army. Because some of the shipments were at the same time.

8) Actually this is not correct either. Townsend was in charge of many of the sniper trials and testing that was done by the Army, and what you are quoting is from one of his books that are available online that is from post WWI. I can go back and post if need be his comments. But he said he did prefer the Mann Niedner tappered bases, but the Winchester #2 mount was very effective as well.

The Army in 1918 was actually happy with the "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchesters from WWI, and they are again discussed in the about 200 page Sniper trials by the Army in the early 20's.

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 07:02

First of all, I have never seen one shred of evidence that photo was taken in France in late 1917. If you have it, produce it, otherwise it is just a BS claim on your part.

Yes I can prove it was taken in 1917 and was taken in France. When you actually look at the pictures around it, that are also numbered, you can tell where the picture was taken and narrrow it down to about Dec 1917.

The Springfield Marine mount rifles from Winchester had arrived in France by this time. This is a picture of one of those rifles

If you look in the lower left corner there is a Army Signal Corps number. I copied the backside of the pictures to authenticate my claim.

I also found a new version of this picture that no one knew existed. So there is actually two of these pictures in the Archives. I will post both, as well as the backsides.

First Picture 4337 and the back of it.

http://i.imgur.com/v7bmJ5ml.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/EedFEoYl.jpg

This has never been published or made available online. It is a darker version of Picture 4337. Here is Picture 4338

http://i.imgur.com/eb6BMH5l.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/g6EdfxVl.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 12:50

1) The 350 number is not correct. The actual real number was 500 for the first shipment.

Are you certain it wasn't broken into two lots?

2) The article you are talking about is from Dec 1925. The article does not mention they were producing tapered Marine bases in 1916. But it does mention they were created and made at the depot. Which is what the evidence from Winchester shows as well, as WRA never had anything to do with the tapered bases. There were parts of the Philly Depot that were operational for weapons in 1918. Tim Plowman found proof of this at the DC Archives. There was also another location that was utilized as well that has not been made public.

No, the article is not from 1925, it is from 1916. You are terrible about making unfounded assumptions.

Norton, how can you say the other location has not been made public when you are referencing public records? I know of another location also. Odd that you should mention it at this particular time.

"Known as the taper block Marine Corps type" is an interesting phrase. We will be discussing it in the future, no doubt.

3) Yes I have the evidence of those numbers.

4) The 937 number you are quoting is not correct, the actual number was 887. But that was just one count on scopes that is qouted in Senich. When you actually see the Quartermaster documents, there were many counts done. Not only on the scopes at difference periods of time, but for the actual rifles and parts of the sniper program has never been made public.

I stated I didn't remember the exact number, but I was referencing a letter, not Senich, although I think the letter is published in Senich.

5) Yes I numerous counts of the scoped rifles that date from about 1911 to 1951. I do have the purchase orders of the Marines buying them pre WWI. I can track two purchases in 1911 and 1916. There were not as many as you think.

Yet again, you pretend to know what I think. I can assure you that you are wrong.

6) The rifles purchased with the tapper blocks in 1916 were mounted by Nieder. You have these documents as well, so if you check the date you will see this is correct. There is not any evidence the Marines was producing tappered blocks in 1916. If you have that evidence please provide it.

You are wrong again. There is definitive evidence that the Marines were producing tapered blocks as early as 1916 and, yes, I have a copy of it.

7) Yes I have a copy of the Pershing Wires. They are also available online to view. The Army orders are extremely important for what we are discussing, because you need to place the Marine orders and Army orders side by side to see what was going where. You have confused some of these Army orders and shipments as being Marine. And it's easy to do. It wasn't till I had all the WRA contract numbers and all the Army docuemntation that it finally made sense on what was actually Marine and what was Army. Because some of the shipments were at the same time.

I have confused no such thing. I have repeatedly, even within this thread, said I don't know didly about those shipments, other than the destination of one particular shipment. I don't even know its point of origin. If you can prove that first WRA shipment was for 500 rifles, there may have been a waypoint.

8) Actually this is not correct either. Townsend was in charge of many of the sniper trials and testing that was done by the Army, and what you are quoting is from one of his books that are available online that is from post WWI. I can go back and post if need be his comments. But he said he did prefer the Mann Niedner tappered bases, but the Winchester #2 mount was very effective as well.

Yet again you pretend to know what I am thinking when you have no clue whatsoever. No, I am not quoting any book of Townsend's. Post all you wish to post. If it is not dated 1916 or earlier, you are not posting my source, in which Townsend specifically states the WRA #2 mounts and bases will not return to zero after removal and replacement. Others found the same problem, which precipitated the Corps rifle team switch to tapered bases, as the Corps' consensus was that the #2 WRA mounting system was useless to a sniper. Yet you now claim they ordered 500 rifles with those "useless" mounts and bases - utter nonsense.

The Army in 1918 was actually happy with the "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchesters from WWI, and they are again discussed in the about 200 page Sniper trials by the Army in the early 20's.

There is a huge difference between "Marine Mounts" and tapered bases. Remember "tapered bases Marine Corps type"? More on this later.

What you are calling a "Marine Mount" is actually the WRA commercial bases required to mount an A5 on an '03 on 7.2" centers, regardless of who owned the rifle, to this day.

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 01:29

1) Are you certain it wasn't broken into two lots?

2) No, the article is not from 1925, it is from 1916. You are terrible about making unfounded assumptions.

3)Norton, how can you say the other location has not been made public when you are referencing public records? I know of another location also. Odd that you should mention it at this particular time.

4)You are wrong again. There is definitive evidence that the Marines were producing tapered blocks as early as 1916 and, yes, I have a copy of it.

5)Yet again you pretend to know what I am thinking when you have no clue whatsoever. No, I am not quoting any book of Townsend's. Post all you wish to post. If it is not dated 1916 or earlier, you are not posting my source, in which Townsend specifically states the WRA #2 mounts and bases will not return to zero after removal and replacement. Others found the same problem, which precipitated the Corps rifle team switch to tapered bases, as the Corps' consensus was that the #2 WRA mounting system was useless to a sniper. Yet you now claim they ordered 500 rifles with those "useless" mounts and bases - utter nonsense.

6)There is a huge difference between "Marine Mounts" and tapered bases. Remember "tapered bases Marine Corps type"? More on this later. What you are calling a "Marine Mount" is actually the WRA commercial bases required to mount an A5 on an '03 on 7.2" centers, regardless of who owned the rifle, to this day.

1) It was. But not with a shipment of 350. There was a 360 shipment that was Army. And again Jim I have little doubt you are confusing Army A5 shipments and records as Marine. This is why I keep stating you have to know what the Army shipments were. Becase there is no way to track the Marine shipments without knowing the Army ones.

2) The only Tappered blocks in 1916 I have seen documented were purchased off Nieder. I do not believe there is evidence that the Marines were producing the tappered blocks in 1916. If you have something that is definite proof of this, and contradicts my statement, please post it.

3) I am only referencing "Some" Public records. The records form the National Archives are public. But what you don't know is there are "private" archives as well, where you have to have to pay to publish their research. So I am quoting some copyrighted documents as well.

4) Please post it. Because I am not aware of anything that will specifically say the Marines were producing tappered blocks in 1916. The Marines were "Using" Tappered blocks in 1916. I will agree 100% with that statement, but I honestly doubt they made the tappered blocks in 1916.

5) Again please post your proof. I have provided a lot of proof on the A5's to back up my claims in all our various Internet Arugments over the years. But you will very seldom post anything that provides evidence to your claims. I know of mentions from Townsends books. But the others, of which I have the sniper trial reports that Townsend was a part of, do not state this. The Army in 1918 was actually very happy with the Springfield Marine mounts which used Clamping screws. They were just not happy about them being lost in the field.

6) Everyone was copying the Mann tappered blocks back then. They were used by the Army, the Marines, and everyone commercially. The only two bases produced by WRA in the WWI era for the 1903 Springfield, were the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center and the Sprinfield "Marine" which was a 7.2'' on center.

What you probably haven't thought of, only the military, or a member of a NRA shooting club had access to the 1903 Springfields till post WWI. NO ONE else had access to the 1903 Springfields when WRA started to produce these bases. This was till about 1919/20 when the laws changed and the 1903's could be sold to anyone and you no longer had to be a member of a shooting club.

So when Winchester produced the "Springfield" and "Springfield Marine" bases they developed them for the military in mind. And actually the Army is the one who nicknamed the WRA Springfield bases "Marine." They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.

The Army kept on asking for the "Marine" mount, because that is how the Army identified it. They wanted the same identical rifle as the Marines had received from WRA. Because the Army had trialed the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center earlier and HATED them, because they said it didn't provide enough strength to the Scope mounted on the rifle.

So the Army is actually the who nicknamed the WRA "Marine" bases and the name just stuck after that. The Marines and WRA before the Army nickname in 1918 called them the "Special" base with #2 mount. Because they were "Special and new" over the old 6'' Springfield base that was first made for sniper use.

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 02:00

You know I can see this heading right towards all of our other discussions.

The discussion has changed from the 8 loop case that first started this and I am getting ready to leave for vacation shortly. When I get back I will actually take all my research and compile it. Most of it is already written out as I made a cheat sheat to research.

I do want to shoot it over to a Magazine, just to make sure they won't publish it first. But if they pass, I will just go ahead and post it ALL on a new topic and we can discuss it.

Sorry to the OP for raining on your post. Jim and I disagree on this topic, and are both very passionate on it. And both of us believe the other is full of crap and making stuff up. :)

On a side note I'm taking my kids to Florida. So everyone have a great week!

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 03:20

Yes I can prove it was taken in 1917 and was taken in France. When you actually look at the pictures around it, that are also numbered, you can tell where the picture was taken and narrrow it down to about Dec 1917.

I believe it was taken in 1917, but what about the picture makes you think it was taken in France? You do realize that the SC staged a lot of their photos? "Through the Wheat" is an excellent example. It was staged here in the states.

You don't see the prominent flaw in your assertion that the picture is of a Marine in France?

By the way, with hundreds of SG photographers working at the same time, there is absolutely no way the pictures can be in chronological order. In addition to that, the SC number is supposed to be 6-digits, and those two are 4-digit numbers.

The Springfield Marine mount rifles from Winchester had arrived in France by this time. This is a picture of one of those rifles

How in heck could you possibly know either of those statements to be true? Are you clairvoyant? Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

If you look in the lower left corner there is a Army Signal Corps number. I copied the backside of the pictures to authenticate my claim.

A picture of Gen Pershing eating popcorn and reading a Playboy on the back of those photos would not "authenticate" your claims. It is nothing but a picture of a Marine aiming a rifle with #2 WRA mounts, of which we all know the Marines had a'plenty. If this is the kind of "evidence" you have, you have a long row to hoe.

lyman

08-06-2017, 04:41

thank you both for keeping the discussion civil!!

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 04:47

1) What about the picture makes you think it was taken in France? You do realize that the SC staged a lot of their photos? "Through the Wheat" is an excellent example. It was staged here in the states.

2) You don't see the prominent flaw in your assertion that the picture is of a Marine in France?

3) Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

5) It is nothing but a picture of a Marine aiming a rifle with #2 WRA mounts, of which we all know the Marines had a'plenty. If this is the kind of "evidence" you have, you have a long row to hoe.

1) Are you really going to argue that the picture titled "Marines in France" wasn't taken in France?

2) The Marines didn't start wearing Army Uniforms or Puttees until early 1918. I think there are still pics of Marines wearing Marine uniforms till around March 1918 in Photos. You would have to ask a WWI expert like Stever Girard or Kevin Seldon for sure on when the last pics are.

3) Yes

4) I agreed with only one thing you have said in this statement. It is the #2 mounts on the A5. But that is what the Marine Contract states they were. I strongly disagree with your statement they had a Plenty of those rifles before WWI

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 04:52

In addition to that, the SC number is supposed to be 6-digits, and those two are 4-digit numbers.

You are not correct in this statement. There are even 3 digit numbered Signal Corps Photos. Here is a whole page of 4's. And there are many more pages after this of 4 digits as well.

Including the 2 pics above which are listed in this AEF Catalouge, and published in March 1918. Actually Credit goes to Tim Traxler on this find. :)

http://i.imgur.com/IScPqT9l.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 06:29

... And both of us believe the other is full of crap and making stuff up. :)

Again you claim to know what i think, and again you are wrong. I don't think you make it up at all. I think you connect isolated documents to form a scenario you want to be true. It's like the photo of the marine you posted above. if you go back in time, the first time you saw that picture you were convinced it was the official Marine sniper rifle because you wanted the rifle you had purchased to be one and they looked alike If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

I hope your family has a pleasant vacation.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 06:44

1) Are you really going to argue that the picture titled "Marines in France" wasn't taken in France?

Can you tell me how many SC pictures were staged? Is there anything in that picture that reminds you of France?

2) The Marines didn't start wearing Army Uniforms or Puttees until early 1918. I think there are still pics of Marines wearing Marine uniforms till around March 1918 in Photos. You would have to ask a WWI expert like Stever Girard or Kevin Seldon for sure on when the last pics are.

The uniform is not the issue (except for the campaign hat).

3) Yes

I am speechless.

4) I agreed with only one thing you have said in this statement. It is the #2 mounts on the A5. But that is what the Marine Contract states they were. I strongly disagree with your statement they had a Plenty of those rifles before WWI

I guess that issue would depend on the meaning of "a'plenty". In this instance, it only has to be one.:icon_lol:

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-06-2017, 07:32

1) It was. But not with a shipment of 350. There was a 360 shipment that was Army. And again Jim I have little doubt you are confusing Army A5 shipments and records as Marine. This is why I keep stating you have to know what the Army shipments were. Becase there is no way to track the Marine shipments without knowing the Army ones.

I need to make a rubber stamp of this reply. I am not confusing any shipments because I don't know didly about the shipments.

2) The only Tappered blocks in 1916 I have seen documented were purchased off Nieder. I do not believe there is evidence that the Marines were producing the tappered blocks in 1916. If you have something that is definite proof of this, and contradicts my statement, please post it.

I will in the near future. Like you, I am getting my ducks in a row.

3) I am only referencing "Some" Public records. The records form the National Archives are public. But what you don't know is there are "private" archives as well, where you have to have to pay to publish their research. So I am quoting some copyrighted documents as well.

You think I am not aware that private archives exist? The last fifteen years of my life was spent doing research on thermophillic digestion. I would wager I know of more "for profit" archives than do you. Why do you continue to claim you know what I think or what I know? Is it a compulsion?

4) Please post it. Because I am not aware of anything that will specifically say the Marines were producing tappered blocks in 1916. The Marines were "Using" Tappered blocks in 1916. I will agree 100% with that statement, but I honestly doubt they made the tappered blocks in 1916.

Doubt what you wish.

5) Again please post your proof. I have provided a lot of proof on the A5's to back up my claims in all our various Internet Arugments over the years. But you will very seldom post anything that provides evidence to your claims. I know of mentions from Townsends books. But the others, of which I have the sniper trial reports that Townsend was a part of, do not state this. The Army in 1918 was actually very happy with the Springfield Marine mounts which used Clamping screws. They were just not happy about them being lost in the field.

I have seen you post spurious items that everyone already has or is of no value in proving anything, but you avoid publishing items like the contracts and shipping documents you claim to possess.

6) Everyone was copying the Mann tappered blocks back then. They were used by the Army, the Marines, and everyone commercially. The only two bases produced by WRA in the WWI era for the 1903 Springfield, were the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center and the Sprinfield "Marine" which was a 7.2'' on center.

If you didn't make such off the wall statements such as the last one, I might be more inclined to believe some of your garb. You cannot possibly know that WRA did not make a tapered base during or before WWI. Like you said, everyone was copying the tapered block, and you are going to tell me WRA just sat back and did nothing to protect their turf? Come on, get real.

What you probably haven't thought of, only the military, or a member of a NRA shooting club had access to the 1903 Springfields till post WWI. NO ONE else had access to the 1903 Springfields when WRA started to produce these bases. This was till about 1919/20 when the laws changed and the 1903's could be sold to anyone and you no longer had to be a member of a shooting club.

You do realize that any community of any size had a shooting club in those days?

RUBBER STAMP! (for your knowing what I have thought of, or haven't thought of)

So when Winchester produced the "Springfield" and "Springfield Marine" bases they developed them for the military in mind. And actually the Army is the one who nicknamed the WRA Springfield bases "Marine." They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.

I suspect when about the third customer walked in and ordered an A5 to be mounted on his match rifle on 7.2" centers, WRA whipped those bases out within 24 hrs.

I am just amazed when you claim to know why someone did something 100 years ago with nothing to back up your assertion. Please don't tell me you have a document that states why WRA developed the long spacing bases, or that you have another document that verifies the Army nicknaming the bases, etc. You make this stuff up and present it as fact. Stick a "In My Opinion" in front of those sentences and you will sound more credible.

When you say "They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.", are you telling me the bases and mounts are not specified in the orders? I would expect to see "modified #2 mounts and bases" or something similar.

The Army kept on asking for the "Marine" mount, because that is how the Army identified it. They wanted the same identical rifle as the Marines had received from WRA. Because the Army had trialed the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center earlier and HATED them, because they said it didn't provide enough strength to the Scope mounted on the rifle.

So the Army kept asking for the "Marine" mounts? Remember a few posts back when I said we would get back to those "Marine mounts"? Once again, I am leaning towards a big misunderstanding of nomenclature as the root of our disagreements. Exactly how did the Army describe those "Marine mounts"?

So the Army is actually the who nicknamed the WRA "Marine" bases and the name just stuck after that. The Marines and WRA before the Army nickname in 1918 called them the "Special" base with #2 mount. Because they were "Special and new" over the old 6'' Springfield base that was first made for sniper use.

What did WRA and the Marines call the modified #2 mounts and tapered bases? I presume you have the contracts for those orders, do you not? If only 150 of them were ever made, how do you account for the hundreds known to exist today? I have four of them myself, and they aren't rare at all. They show up on eBay on a weekly basis.

Enjoy your vacation. I am going fishing with my "new" 9-0 Penn reel and 160 lb rod. I hope Bobby Ray didn't forget to plug up the hole in the beaver dam.

Smokeeaterpilot

08-06-2017, 07:57

Jouster has gotten more posts on this thread in the past several days than the entire forum has in the past several months between you two.

I, for one have enjoyed this heated exchange.

clintonhater

08-06-2017, 08:27

6. The Navy order was in 1917, and it was over 500. That is a rabbit hole I haven't down yet. They might have been used on some type of Naval weapons on a ship...

Are you thinking of the "bore-scopes" used to bore-sight naval guns by means of bronze bushings around the tube that centered them in the gun's bore? Would assume these were purchased without mounts. These were still being sold by surplus dealers into the '30s (for next to nothing!), complete in their fitted wooden cases.

clintonhater

08-06-2017, 09:07

Townsend Whelan had condemned the WRA #2 mounts and bases as crap long before the war started, just before the Corps started using tapered bases. I seem to remember Crossman condemning them also...

Actually it was Crossman who had the harshest things to say about the A5, esp. its internal design, but all the published comments by Whelen that I've run across were on the whole pretty favorable. In The American Rifle, however, he observed that failure of the clamp-on mounts to return to zero could be a significant problem--sometimes amounting, he said, to an error of 2 MOA (an extreme case, I think). For that reason, he strongly recommended Niedner's tapered mounts.

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 09:11

Are you thinking of the "bore-scopes" used to bore-sight naval guns by means of bronze bushings around the tube that centered them in the gun's bore? Would assume these were purchased without mounts. These were still being sold by surplus dealers into the '30s (for next to nothing!), complete in their fitted wooden cases.

I will comment on your's Clarence before I leave, I will save Jim for when I get back from Vacation. We just argue back and forth anyways. So I will reply to your comments Jim when I get back. :)

But no these were actual real A5 scopes. The only thing that is weird about the order. On one document it lists they were a combination of A5, B5, etc. Then on another doc they only list it as A5 scopes. But over 500 were shipped, it was actually 513 to be exact.

Some of them appear to have been available for sale post WWI. But I do have counts of some still in service on ships into WWII. So they didn't sell them all.

I honestly don't know what they were used for. But they were for sure going to the Navy and not the Marines or Army.
It is very clear on that. I will wait to post the WRA contract because it also details other contracts on the same page.

But I will post this. This is where they were for sale post WWI. They were advertised in that Man at Arms or Arms and the Man, or whatever that magazine was. I always screw up it's name, without looking back at my notes.

I was in the process of trying to figure these out and just off the cuff mentioned it in the exchange.

You been doing well by the way, I need to hit you up on something else I'm researching for the 1903A1 Unertls for an aricle I'm writing and I want your opinion on it. I will email you when I get back.

But here you go.

http://i.imgur.com/7LbwJMTl.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 02:03

]
http://i.imgur.com/7LbwJMTl.jpg

Interesting that it doesn't mention the type of mounts and bases, especially since we know some of them had the modified mounts and tapered bases. The depot sales were the source of the scopes with the modified #2 mounts and tapered bases we see on today's market. The A5's, if they had unmodified mounts, should have red letters if they are of WWI vintage. All A5's had red lettering until May of 1923. Of course, the Marines, or anyone else, could have painted them white, but it would be simple enough to remove the white paint with a solvent to see if there is red paint underneath.

Stay tuned. It will get even better. My goal is the serial numbers of the Niedner rifles; so this discussion is something of a distraction for me. But any good researcher will search for the truth and everything else be damned.

Take the modified #2 mounts found on Niedner's rifles. Someone spent a lot of time and money modifying those mounts. Niedner didn't do it because Michael Petrov told me Niedner's knurling tool was distinctly different from the one used to make the knobs, and Michael should have known, because he owned Niedner's knurling tool. Were they made with the sockets already milled off for easy attachment to the tapered bases? Or did Niedner mill the sockets off and then attach his bases? Why make only 150 modified mounts if WRA already had a contract to assemble rifles with plain Jane #2 mounts? If they made the modified mounts with the sockets intact, why has no one ever seen such a mount on a rifle, or even a picture of one, in over 100 years? If the Corp was so determined to avoid the #2 mount and its re-zero issue, which is a huge issue for a sniper, why order 500 of the suckers when the solution was already being installed at the time by Niedner at Philly Depot.

A bigger question now arises, if you believe Norton's fantasy. If they only made 150 modified mounts (the ones Niedner installed), just where the hell did the hundreds of A5 scopes with modified mounts and tapered bases we know to exist come from? I have four of them, and I have friends who have even more. They are for sale on eBay on almost any given day. There are two partial sets for sale on eBay right now. So what is the answer?

Let's look at nomenclature. What were the modified mounts called by WRA and/or the Marines? I started calling them "Modified #2 Mounts" (please note that no one else does) because that is what they are and I couldn't find any other name for them in all these wonderful documents we have. Would it make sense to call them "Marine Mounts"? They were made for the Marines. They are modified #2 mounts, so maybe we just call them by their real name, "#2 Mounts". How about "Marine #2 Mounts"? Seen any of those names before? I have a growing sneaky feeling that Norton's "Marine Mounts" and my "Modified #2 Mounts" are the same mount. If that is the case, he and I agree in every respect, except for their physical appearance.

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

41639

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?:evil6:

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.:1948:

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 03:27

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

41639

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?:evil6:

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.:1948:

And Jim who's research is this? You have once again take something I found in a PRIVATE archives and posted it publically implying it is your research. You did not ask my permission to post this. You did the same thing when I provided a document to Tom Jackson and Tom Jackson sent it to you. You are exactly why I watermark my research now, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Earlier in this Post I said John Beard provided you a copy of this document, in an argument you had with John Beard in Private when he told were not correct in what you think happened with the Marine A5's. So he sent this this ONE document, in the hopes that you would understand. Which in this post you lied and said John Beard didn't sent it to you. THEN YOU LITERALLY POST THE DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED FROM JOHN AFTER YOU DENIED GETTING IT.

I found this document, and PAID TO USED THE RESEACH BECAUSE IT IS COPYRIGHTED. So I hope you know you are posting copyrighted info that you didn't pay to you the reseach. THIS IS NOT FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

You have no idea how any of this is because you didn't find, nor do you have any of the companion documents that go with it, and you don't have a clue where it even came from. And even if you had a clue where it came from, you would have never found it.

I think it's an absolute insult that you have to post my research online in this way. I provided this document to John Beard in private. I did not send this to you. And John has apologized to me for sending this to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And you know how I can prove it's my document, I edited it and cropped it. So if you found this, which I know you didn't. POST THE ENTIRE PAGE IT CAME FROM. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T FIND IT.

AGAIN YOU ARE POSTING COPYRIGHTED INFO THAT I AM THE ONE WHO PAID TO USE. YOU DIDN'T. IT'S VERY DISPRESPECTUL TO POST RESEACH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND OR MADE PUBLIC BY ANYONE, AND THEN IMPLY IT IS YOURS.

THEN YOU EARLIER CLAIM I CANNOT PROVIDE ANY NEW INFO. AND ALL MY INFO IS OLD RESEARCH AND NOT WORTH ANYTHING. BUT THE ONLY THING OF VALUE YOU EVER POST IS MY RESEARCH.

REMOVE IT JIM AND YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 05:07

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Does this mean you aren't gong to respond to the post?

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 05:33

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 05:39

I have never seen the actual contract

This is the only correct statement you have said on this post. But you will tell anyone you know what the Winchester rifles were and where they went.

Without seeing the actual contract?

You have been making stuff up for years Jim.

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 06:41

I have no dog in the fight regards to Sniper Rifles, but I do happen to know something about research, ethics, etc.

We have one party, calling themselves a "good researcher", who hasn't provided any documents because he believes traits and pictures are more important.

A document is just that, a piece of paper

Ignoring physical documentation of contracts and correspondance of the Marine Corps using the 6 looped cases, uses a logical fallacy as a point. It's like trying to prove God doesn't exist.

Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

Then, when pictures are posted, claims they are staged (with no evidence at all to suggest that). I mean, it was captioned as France. This is getting to conspiracy levels of denial.

First of all, I have never seen one shred of evidence that photo was taken in France in late 1917. If you have it, produce it, otherwise it is just a BS claim on your part.

Then there's the plain conjecture. How are you going to say "your opinion carries no weight, I BELIEVE..."

Your opinion, like mine, carries no weight. Let's stick to documents, photos, and existing equipment and forget supposition. I believe

Surely something like this could be documented in a correspondence from the 4th Marine Brigade, or AARs, no? Or more conjecture?

Remember, the Marines had all the sniper rifles they would ever need by the end of 1917. Probably more, since organized combat use of snipers by the Marines in WWi is a bit sketchy, particularly after Belleau Woods. Trench warfare was a heaven for snipers, but after Belleau Woods, the type of walking assaults the Marines used to take enemy positions did not lend itself to hidden snipers supporting the troops. The Marine assaults were so fast a sniper would have to shoot on the run.

I thought this was supposed to be rock hard research?

I believe my eyes over any document

I think the letter is published in Senich.

I don't know didly about those shipments, other than the destination of one particular shipment. I don't even know its point of origin

So which is it???

Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade

The post who made this claim has posted absolutely nothing however, ironic.

but you avoid publishing items like the contracts and shipping documents you claim to possess

Why can't you have a discussion without being rude?

if you believe Norton's fantasy.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

The best part of this is Post #47 where this researcher POSTS SOMEONE ELSES RESEARCH WITHOUT PERMISSION. Very ethical research there.

I don't claim to know much of anything about sniper rifles. But I know some seriously flawed research and arguments when I see them.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 06:48

By the way to everyone else who is reading this post. This is WRA contract 25900, which were the only 500 rifles that WRA mounted A5's on Marine rifles for the war.

Anyone who has the actual Marine documents has the companion document with the detailed description that accompanies this.

Also Winchester actually took pics of these rifles in WW1 and they are in a private archives I found. So yes I have the companion doc to this and have the actual WRA detailed factory pics of the rifles.

The Army copied the contract 25900 in WRA contact R315 which was ordered on Jan 15th 1918 and delivered by March 19th 1918. These were the identical rifles in everyway as contract 25900.

And that was not the only Army contract of mounted rifles from WRA. The Army had more Marine mount A5's from WRA than the Marines

Every one including Jim has mistaken R315 as Marine. That is why their timetables are always off on what really happened.

Jim will be on shortly and say I don't know what he means and he has evidence thst proves me wrong but he will never post it.

But he can't prove me wrong on this. He's never seen the documents. ;)

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 06:52

Thank you Kaliman. I greatly appreciate your response.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 06:58

I'm not going to argue with Jim anymore. I will publish my research soon and it will speak for itself. He's a lost cause anyways. He has made up his mind and even if I showed him irrefutable proof. He would still argue it.

If Jim makes any statements or makes claims of knowledge. I would ask for proof. I wouldn't believe anything He said unless I can see it in black and white

Also there are are many of who research this stuff and have lots of info that we would share. But it costs a considerable amount of money and time to find it. And many of us publish this info in magazines. Including myself.

A lot of us would share more but people like Jim are dishonest and will post it implying it is there's. In some vain attempt to prove they are an expert. Which makes the rest of us not want to share our info in public and makes us keep our info private. Which is sad.

We should be policing our own on this. It's dishonest. And there would be so much more willingness to share research if we confront this when it happens.

It's unacceptable to me.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 07:30

It means you have now admitted what I already have know since the first week I researched the A5's. That you have never seen the actual real documents from the Winchester Sniper program. But for years you have claimed to be the expert on this forum and have detailed you knew all about them. But you have always posted info thst was false.

Anyone who has the real documents from the Marines or WRA has the companion document to this contract 25900 that is detailed.

You just outed yourself Jim. You have been making claims for years without any real documents to back them up.

From now on guys when Jim posts somehting ask him for proof. If he doesn't provide it you know what is going on.

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

Norton, I have been on this forum for years, and I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. If you had bothered to read my posts, I have repeatedly stated I didn't have a copy of the contract. To be honest, I have never had to deal with someone like you. For whatever reason, you will make the most absurd accusations without hesitation. You also make claims we all know to be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

I do have one question. Why did you tell my Cody researcher the documents I was looking for (the very contracts we are discussing) weren't in the Cody files? If you deny it, I will post his email. Why would you lower yourself by lying to the man? Does all this mean that much to you? I see you posting on every forum I know of, and some of it is accurate, but I see you making claims I know you can't back up. I am yet to see you post any document that definitively backs up your side of this issue. I seriously believe you have misinterpreted the documents you have. Maybe not. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

As for posting what I have, not too long ago I decided to post everything I had, and started the process. I stated I would provide anything I had that anyone wanted to see. I started posting my information, but after days of posting, or preparing posts, I had not a single inquiry for any backup data for what I was posting. Not a word or a question from you. I decided I was doing a lot of work for nothing. That deal is now off the table. So please tell me what part of that series of posts you had seen before on or in any venue.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 07:38

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 07:52

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 09:30

I spent thousands and six months of my life finding the Cody documents. You couldn't find thrm and you wanted me to tell you the exact locations whee I found them while at the same time trashing me on this forum saying I know nothing. And you had already stole some of my research at that time and posted it as yours.

Whoa, dude. I offered to split the cost from the beginning and you refused (still got the emails). So I hired my own researcher who spent a week doing gosh knows what and then you tell him that the documents I am searching for aren't at Cody and he quits and bills me $1000. The ledger entry I posted came from Cody. You told me you used a female employee as a researcher and now you are claiming to have found them yourself?

Please enlighten everyone as to what research of yours I have posted and claimed to have found myself, as well as the post where I claim you know nothing.

You might get some people to believe your wild accusations, but people who have been reading these posts all along know better.

I'm not giving you any research anymore. What did you expect me to tell you where to find it, when you couldn't?

What research have you given me? Do you have me confused with someone else or have you lost your mind?

You tell me all the time what a great Researcher you are and I'm a beginner. So I figured you could find it yourself. ;) I certainly did.

Produce one single example of where I made such a statement. And in case you are still on this planet, neither one of us had found anything in the archives. We pay others to do it for us.

And I didn't lie. I told your researcher the documents you really want are at the archives. Which they are

Are you telling me that ledger entry came from the DC archives when you just posted that they came from Cody?

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 09:46

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

Who might you be? If you are referring to the ledger entry, I got that from JB, not Norton, and I haven't used it for anything. Covering what tracks? You obviously have not been reading the posts.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

I haven't seen any of your statements previously. Since it is obvious you are talking nonsense, I presume you are a friend of Norton's. You need to learn to spell before you start making goofy claims. Research is defined by the use of other people's efforts. You ever read a technical paper? Unfortunately, nothing Norton has ever posted has been any use to me, since my sole goal is the serial numbers of Niedner's rifles. So tell me what research Norton has done to further that goal?

Making wild claims does not enhance one's credibility. If you are going to attack me, be specific for the sake of the other forum members.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 09:56

Jim I did use a female researcher and what does it matter in any of this?

I told you many, many times. Almost everything I found at Cody, I found at the archives. So your money would be more well spent at the archives. But spend your money how you like.

The problem with your researchers and why you never find anything Is a researcher is only as good as the person giving them directions on where to look. So you havr to pinpoint exactly where you want them to look through

The exception to this is Andrew Stolinski. I don't need to tell Andrew which box to look in. I just tell him what I want and he finds it.

But Andrew is the only researcher I have ever used that has found me stuff without telling them specifically what boxes to look in.

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 10:13

Jim, my spelling is fine, are you confused ? And it's obvious you're coming from a position of weakness if my spelling is something you are trying to use against me.

Research of course can be a combination of efforts. How we, you fail in major areas that any successful research requires to be successful. The first is ethics. You've used other people's research without credit. Ever notice how authors cite sources in the back of the book? The next is peer discussion. You refuse to participate. Instead of having a professional discussion about findings and theories, where both parties are open to differing opinions, you seek to continually discredit anyone that does not agree with you. That's not how research works in academia (have you not heard of that word?).

The only one not reading here is you, Jim. I've posted multiple examples of you contradicting yourself and being plain close minded. Those are not signs of good researches. You then take it a step further and decide to personally attack people. Jim, do us a favor and take your own advice - making wild claims [or inflammatory statements] does not enhance ones credibility.

Maybe you can start acting like an adult. I won't hold my breath.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 10:22

Who might you be? If you are referring to the ledger entry, I got that from JB, not Norton, and I haven't used it for anything. Covering what tracks? You obviously have not been reading the posts..

John gave you that document but also told you he got it from me. And you used it as the only form of credibility you have in this post other than what you can research in a Google search. In fact I don't know if I have ever seen you post anything you didn't acquire from another researcher or that can't be acquired in an online archives or google.

Kalman is a huge Marine Collector and a Marine.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 10:29

...You've used other people's research without credit....

Cite any instance of my using anyone's research without credit.

I wont bother to address your other comments, as you obviously are speaking of things you know little about..

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 10:36

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 10:57

I wont bother to address your other comments, as you obviously are speaking of things you know little about..

My reply, in your own words.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Does this mean you aren't gong to respond to the post?

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 11:04

Cite any instance of my using anyone's research without credit.

I wont bother to address your other comments, as you obviously are speaking of things you know little about..

Jim you have stolen my research many times. Tom Jackson and John Beard both told you that the documents that they gave you were mine. Both times you posted them because you don't have any real research to back up your claims, and tried to pass them off as yours.

The only other real research I've seen you have that isn't acquired by google is the Niedner docs which Michael Petrov gave you.

At this point, even though you have claimed for many years to have all this documentation and research, I don't believe any of it.

You found a niche marked with the A5 and claimed expert status and other than John Beard no one could fact check you. And John is too nice a guy to expose you.

Well you exposed yourself by saying you don't have the docs. So why are you even commenting or arguing what the WRA rifles are?

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 11:28

The highly touted picture showing the Marine sergeant kneeling down and aiming a sniper rifle in France is staged in my opinion (a common practice with the Signal Corps) for several reasons. First, there were no sergeant snipers; and second, he is wearing his campaign hat. The rifle may indeed be a rifle team rifle used to stage the picture. As far as Norton dating the picture using the SC numbers, just take a look on the back of the second picture, which is actual the same picture with a different contrast, and note when it was taken and when it was turned in to the Signal Corps for cataloguing. Taken in 1917, received on 5 Feb 1918. How many hundreds if not thousands of SG pictures rolled in during that interval? Chronological order is most definitely out the window. By the way, if you go to the Signal Corps web site, they specifically state the SC is a six digit number. It appears someone added several digits to the SC number of this picture. So we only know it was taken in 1917. Note the two pictures, although the same picture, have different titles. It appears the "U. S. Marines in France" was added at a later date. I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from that picture.

I am going to post a page from one of the Marine documents I have previously referenced. I picked that particular page in that particular document because it addresses a lot of issues at once. It shows the date the rifles were first issued, it shows that only Privates could be snipers, that training began before OSD was opened, and it shows who issued the rifles. The picture attached is of one of the Marines who was issued a rifle that day. I know the serial number of that rifle and the man who currently owns the matching named scope and case. It is the A5 scope in modified #2 mounts and tapered bases in an 8-loop "Penguin" scope case.

I helped the current scope owner (some of you know him) trace the original sale of the scope back to the sniper's family. I have a collection of these, and all the rifles are the same. I have a copy of the course curriculum, pictures of the snipers, pictures of some of the instructors, and a picture of the training facility at OSD.

I think I am prepared to defend my position.4164041641

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 11:41

Jim you have stolen my research many times. Tom Jackson and John Beard both told you that the documents that they gave you were mine. Both times you posted them because you don't have any real research to back up your claims, and tried to pass them off as yours.

You are lying. Tom Jackson has sent me nothing. I haven't had contact with Tom in years. The ledger document I posted because you claimed JB sent me a copy of the contract, but he sent me a copy of a ledger entry (look at your post). You weren't mentioned.

The only other real research I've seen you have that isn't acquired by google is the Niedner docs which Michael Petrov gave you.

Are you in for a surprise, or what. Keep on making stupid and unfounded statements.

Michael Petrov asked me to find the serial numbers of the Niedner rifles and I agreed to do so. He was an old oil field hand as am I. I got into this arena as a favor to Michael.

At this point, even though you have claimed for many years to have all this documentation and research, I don't believe any of it.

Stay tuned.

You found a niche marked with the A5 and claimed expert status and other than John Beard no one could fact check you. And John is too nice a guy to expose you.

John Beard told you this?

Well you exposed yourself by saying you don't have the docs. So why are you even commenting or arguing what the WRA rifles are?

What "docs" are you ranting about? There are many documents I don't have, but I have never claimed to have a document I didn't have as you have. If you are referring to the contracts, I have stated for years, and in several places within this thread, that I do not have copies of the contracts. can you comprehend that statement? To be honest, I am getting tired of repeating myself.

I know you want to be the "expert" so bad you will go to any lengths. I am no expert, and you will never FIND ANY POST WHERE I MAKE SUCH A CLAIM. You keep repeating this over and over again. It really does disturb you to no end when someone disagrees with you, doesn't it? You are doing more damage to your reputation right now than anything I could do, and I have no desire to damage your reputation. You repeatedly lied to me throughout that Cody business. You purposely sabotaged my search and you cost me a lot of money. Why on earth would you do such a thing? You are one sad case, Norton. I will forget about Cody and let it pass. I'll even forget your unfounded and ungodly rude accusations that seem to stream out of your mouth. I just ask one thing of you. Read and think about each post you make. That is all I ask.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 12:12

Post #47 you post a photo of a ledger. Not once mentioning who or where it came from. Figured you would remember that because it is quite literally the only research you've posted here - and it's not even your own.

If you had bothered to read Norton's previous posts, you would know he had already stated how and from where I got the document. How are your clown college studies coming along?

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 12:21

Jim I did use a female researcher and what does it matter in any of this?

In your email, you claimed she worked for the Museum. The personnel at Cody told me no one there did research

I told you many, many times. Almost everything I found at Cody, I found at the archives. So your money would be more well spent at the archives. But spend your money how you like.

You found it? Come on. We both pay people to look for us.

The problem with your researchers and why you never find anything Is a researcher is only as good as the person giving them directions on where to look. So you havr to pinpoint exactly where you want them to look through

I never find anything? Why do you make statements like that? Seriously. You have no idea what I have found.

The exception to this is Andrew Stolinski. I don't need to tell Andrew which box to look in. I just tell him what I want and he finds it.

But Andrew is the only researcher I have ever used that has found me stuff without telling them specifically what boxes to look in.

I was using "find aids" before I ever heard of you, Norton. Once again, you are speaking of something of which you have no knowledge whatsoever. Why do you continue to do that?

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 02:47

Jim the person I used did work at Cody
And she no longer works there. And who cares? I found the documents and paid to use them.

The only research you have listed worth anything came from me. And then you can't even admit you stole them and posted them.

I could screen shot my conversation with Tom Jackson that he gave you the 6 loop contract from WRA. Which you posted on another thread and claimed as your work. But what does it matter? You would just lie some more or ramble on somehting else that means nothing.

You just argue to argue and never post any real research of value.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 02:49

Again guys from now on when Jim makes claims ask for the proof.

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 03:49

If you had bothered to read Norton's previous posts, you would know he had already stated how and from where I got the document. How are your clown college studies coming along?

You never referenced the source in your original post. So you are saying your citation is that Norton called you out on your BS? That is so delusional it is actually funny.

Also Jimmy, once again let's please act like adults and refrain from the personal insults. The only one here acting like a clown is you.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 04:59

You never referenced the source in your original post. So you are saying your citation is that Norton called you out on your BS? That is so delusional it is actually funny.

Also Jimmy, once again let's please act like adults and refrain from the personal insults. The only one here acting like a clown is you.

I realize you, in your own pitiful way, are trying to help out your friend, Norton. if you are going to involve yourself, please try to grasp what is being stated. Instead of using off the wall comments like "So you are saying your citation is that Norton called you out on your BS?", try to grasp the situation and be more explicit in your juvenile comments. You see, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

The procession of the event was Norton erroneously claiming JB had sent me a copy of the WRA contract. I replied that I didn't have any such copy, and I don't. Stay with me here, as I am purposely going slowly so a clown such as yourself can grasp what is being stated. JB sent me a copy of a ledger entry noting the contract (not the contract as Norton claimed) and JB did tell me it was from Norton. This was nothing unusual, as members of this forum have been exchanging data for years. Neither JB nor I were expecting Norton to break down over such a simple exchange. I had no use for the data (I am not writing a book), so it has lain in my inbox until today. I posted what JB had sent me, and anyone but you that had been following the discussion would be aware it was the clip from JB. I did comment on the ledger entry, but unless your brain is on leave, I stole it from no one. Understand? Or do you want me to repeat it about a dozen times?

By the way, Norton also said Tom Jackson had sent me some of his (Norton's) data, and that Tom had told me it was Norton's data. Tom Jackson has sent me nothing, and I am certain Tom will agree he sent me nothing. That means your friend Norton, the one with so much integrity, is lying - period. So where is your integrity in regards to this issue? You gonna' call Norton out on his BS? I suspect not.

After Norton's retrograde teeny bobber tirade of streaming insults, you actually have the slimmy gall to tell me to refrain from insults? At least Norton is trying to find answers, you are just trying to stir up trouble. Are you a troll?

Whatever it is you are trying to do, you are certainly not doing it very well.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 05:50

Jim I could post my exchange with Tom. But that isn't right to Tom.

It's not worth it Kaliman arguing with Jim. He finally has exposed himself as a fraud. Anyone who reads this can see what is happening.

Hes finally admitted hes been saying a lot of stuff without any documentation to back it up.

Almost everything he has said in this post is not correct.

Ed Byrns

08-07-2017, 06:15

clintonhater

08-07-2017, 06:38

The bottom line is that we are Gentlemen,and discuss in a manner that befits us.
Respectfully submitted
Ed Byrns

You're absolutely right, but even Gents can get carried away.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 06:49

Jim I could post my exchange with Tom. But that isn't right to Tom.

Tom, I would appreciate it if you intervene here.

It's not worth it Kaliman arguing with Jim. He finally has exposed himself as a fraud. Anyone who reads this can see what is happening.

Yes they can. Got any more unfounded accusations, Norton? You are doing yourself a lot of ill with your tirade. I don't think I have ever seen a grown man react as you have.

Hes finally admitted hes been saying a lot of stuff without any documentation to back it up.

I suppose it is a waste of time to ask where your found that admission? You are neither a gentlemen nor a scholar. I find your actions and comments to be distasteful.

Almost everything he has said in this post is not correct.

Then prove me wrong. That is what eats your guts, isn't it? You and I both know you can't back up all your wild claims. You say you have uncovered all the secrets of the WWI sniper program, that all the books and those who have preceded you have it all wrong, but I have seen nothing to substantiate your claim. Nothing.

I told JB when you pulled that Cody crap that you were a loser. In over ten years on this forum, you are the only person who has lied to me.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 06:59

There is so much noise that I'm amazed the lady downstairs isn't hitting her ceiling with the broom handle.
You guys could wake the dead,which isn't easy here.
Look,I know most of you and this is a Gentleman's forum and has been .
I have spent a good while in the land of documents ,and there can be differing opinions to
how data is interpreted.
The bottom line is that we are Gentlemen,and discuss in a manner that befits us.
Respectfully submitted
Ed Byrns

Hello, Ed. You are right and I know it. Thanks for reminding me that I need to be above all the name calling and accusations. I was just stunned to see such a public meltdown. I hope he finds that for which he is searching. He certainly is paying a price for whatever it is. As for the little Troll, I could care less.

I hope your wife is doing well, and you too. And thank you for the wake up call.

Kaliman

08-07-2017, 07:32

Jim, I'm not some little troll. Actually, you are just calling me that because I've repeatedly posted numerous examples of you contradicting yourself, and using poor logic in place of legitimate research. I have stated multiple times that I know little about sniper rifles, but much about how research should be conducted. I've asked you multiple times, in vain, to act respectfully and simply address the issues. You have not. You've resorted to name calling and personal attacks while also ignoring any points I've made in regards to the topic at hand. And I have made those points respectfully, while you have failed to do so, and I have provided examples below.

Again, I'm no troll. I'm a Marine Infantry combat veteran. Steve is a friend and a brother Marine, and I'm not going to stand by while some keyboard warrior feels the need to talk down on him, instead of simply having a rational discussion.

Here are my examples of your poor attitude.

the little Troll

public meltdown

in your own pitiful way

Norton's retrograde teeny bobber tirade of streaming insults, you actually have the slimmy gall to tell me to refrain from insults?

Keep on making stupid and unfounded statements.

You are one sad case, Norton

How are your clown college studies coming along?

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

Never once have I personally attacked you. I've simply found obvious fallacies in your argument, while also questioning why you cannot just have a civil discussion. You've decided I'm a troll because of that instead of simply defending your 'research'. Please post any examples of me insulting, or attacking you as a person. I have not.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 07:34

Yet again we are back to verbal attacks by Jim against anyone who's says he's not correct and still no evidence has been posted to this post other than mine.

By the way the Marines did have campaign covers in France

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 07:48

I kept this discussion to just facts till Jim posted a copy of my reasearch because he knew I would take it personal. Which I do.

He needed to devert the discussion away from facts because he doesn't have the documents to post to argue what I'm saying. And I keep posting documents that dispute what he says.

Ed and Clarence you are both researchers and I know Ed has had research stolen before. We have talked about it. And I'm sure you probably have as well Clarence.

It takes so much money and time to find that stuff. Especially when it has never been published before and for someone to just throw it up on a forum when they didn't find it. It's wrong.

I am always very careful to cite where I get a doc. Especially when it comes from another researcher.

Jim is the reason I watermark everything anymore

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-07-2017, 08:39

....I'm a Marine Infantry combat veteran. Steve is a friend and a brother Marine, and I'm not going to stand by while some keyboard warrior feels the need to talk down on him, instead of simply having a rational discussion....

I am a 90% service connected disabled Marine Vietnam veteran. I renewed my placard this morning. Calling me a keyboard warrior is about as cheap as it gets, but I am learning to expect that kind of response from you two. You have made a whole series of false accusations and statements, yet you seem to know little about the matter. I notice you avoid responding to my queries entirely. As I stated, you are just trying to stir up more trouble. Not a single post of yours has been about sniper rifles.

If you call Norton's ranting, spewing unfounded and untrue allegations a civil discussion, I want no part of it.

Kaliman

08-08-2017, 07:10

Jim, your service disability means nothing to me. Unless it was due to combat wounds, and even then I would not expect someone to brag about that, or use it as a qualifier.

Calling me a keyboard warrior is about as cheap as it gets

You've earned it. You cannot respond to someone questioning your research without launching personal attacks. I've literally posted examples of that. You ignored that post.

You have made a whole series of false accusations and statements

Almost every post I've made has contained quotes of yours to ensure my accuracy.

yet you seem to know little about the matter

Have you read my posts? Apparently not. I've stated multiple times I not very little about the Sniper Rifles. I do know about research ethics, and also how to have a debate while acting like an adult.

you are just trying to stir up more trouble

If asking you to post research to validate your claims, or asking you to keep it professional is stirring up trouble, then I don't know what to tell you. Please post quotes of mine 'stirring up trouble'.

I notice you avoid responding to my queries entirely. As I stated, you are just trying to stir up more trouble. Not a single post of yours has been about sniper rifles.

When have you asked me anything? Actually, I've posted pretty well thought out responses which have been met with silence from you.

If you call Norton's ranting, spewing unfounded and untrue allegations a civil discussion

Norton may be ranting because he gets riled up. No issues there. But you are the only one who has been posting personal insults, seeking to discredit people, and being genuinely rude. It's very clear you have ZERO desire to advance research or the hobby, you just want to be the king. Any good researcher welcomes the opportunity to challenge their theories and sharpen their argument, professionally.

a civil discussion, I want no part of it.

Jim, you haven't discussed this civilly since page 5. I'll repost this once again because you continually act like it doesn't exist.

the little Troll

public meltdown

in your own pitiful way

Norton's retrograde teeny bobber tirade of streaming insults, you actually have the slimmy gall to tell me to refrain from insults?

Keep on making stupid and unfounded statements.

You are one sad case, Norton

How are your clown college studies coming along?

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

Hopefully you realize maybe you shouldn't be involved here unless you can play nice with others, then we can actually discuss the issues and advance the hobby as adults.

clintonhater

08-08-2017, 08:36

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-08-2017, 06:49

Everybody's GOT to have the last word, otherwise others will think they "can't take it"; I know the feeling well. But the details of this dispute are far too complicated, ambiguous, & contradictory for me to follow, and I doubt that many others can either.

I've always wanted one of the commercial A5 cases, but after getting beat out in many auctions years ago, I gave up. (Suspect the bidders always beating me out were probably crooks intending to turn them into fake "sniper" cases.)
At this point, I'm glad I never got one, as now, it would be just one more thing to worry about liquidating in the very near future.

It's OK Clarence, they can have the last word. Norton's meltdown appears to be over, and Kaliman has nothing to offer but nonsense, and I choose not to deal with classless people.

I've never seen a faked case, but I don't doubt they exist. Before the days of Ancestry, the named ones would have been very difficult to fake, if not impossible. All the named ones I have seen can be traced to actual snipers to whom we can validate were issued sniper rifles. I have traced most of them back to the families who sold them. They were all shocked to learn of their current value. I have one myself, but I would be embarrassed to tell anyone how much I paid for it (way too much).

Have a good one, Clarence.

cplnorton

08-09-2017, 05:16

I've never seen a faked case, but I don't doubt they exist. Before the days of Ancestry, the named ones would have been very difficult to fake, if not impossible.

This is not correct either. The Marine rosters have always been accessible at the National Archives. That is where ancestry copied them and published them online. Which they have been on ancestry for many years now.

Before the days of ancestry there were uniform collectors who had copies of the rosters. I used to write one collector and ask him to look up names for me. So copies of the Marine rosters have been floating around for a long time before ancestry. You just had to know the right guy.

As far as serial all you have to do is get a Marine name from the rosters and then order his service record book. Which usually they detail a rifle serial number in his book that you could put in the case.

The problem with this many of those rifle serials, even in sniper SRB's seem to be standard rifles like the one issued in boot camp. I have pulled a lot of sniper SRBs and I have never seen one detail the rifle had a telescopic sight. And most sniper SRB's only detail one rifle serial number which all were issued a standard rifle in boot and should have another rifle serial entered when they switched rifles. So their books should show multiple rifles but I havent seen one yet that shows this.

Just seeing serial ranges of the rifles in their books, and also the dates they went to boot, and knowing when the sniper rifles actually shipped. I now even wonder if a sniper rifle serial was put in their SRB. Or it was just their standard rifle issued in boot.

I'm starting to wonder if the sniper rifles were just like say Machine guns and the serials were kept at a company or unit level and not put in a individual Marines SRB. I'm actually looking for docs at the archives to address this.

Anytime there is money involved some humper is going to hump stuff. And anything Marine Sniper related is worth a lot of money.

clintonhater

08-09-2017, 08:38

Almost every Winchester scope sold on ebay, inc. the B models, is described as a "sniper scope." Who's paying such high prices for them except those intending to build a fake "sniper-rifle"? Any substantially original '03 turned into such a fake is in the same category as the sporterized '03s built by Sedgley and others, except for the critical difference that Sedgley was doing his work at a time when the supply of original '03s seemed inexhaustible.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-09-2017, 08:48

I believe the Marines didn't transfer their personnel records to NARA until late 1995. I also had the personnel files searched for their 782 cards for the serial numbers of the sniper rifles. As you have discovered, we found not a single entry for sniper rifles, just their initial issue rifles. It got expensive and I took another tactic. I believe I know where the sniper rifle serial numbers are recorded, but I haven't the physical ability to do it myself, nor the money to pay someone else to do it because I have been building a Land Speed Racer (I do have other interests). Your blanket search will most likely turn them up eventually, but there are 41,000 cu ft of Marine records at NARA. I suggest a compromise. I tell you where to look, and if your guy finds them there, we share the data.

I realize we have been throwing a lot of nonsense at each other, but I am willing to overlook that. I am no slouch at research, particularly figuring out where to look for the data I need. To back up my assertions, and in good faith, I present a sample of my bona fides. The YouTube Video, originally broadcast on PBS and selected stations in NC, resulted from my selection for Voices of North Carolina due to my successful research in the area of thermophillic anaerobic digestion of animal wastes.

The SBIR grants are the most highly sought after grants in the country, and being awarded one is like finding the Holy Grail. I was Principal Investigator for a team we put together consisting of Orbit Energy, Inc and North Carolina State University to investigate if we could produce methane from animal wastes using atmospheric plasma. We were successful in producing methane, but the process was uneconomical. I can provide more examples if needed.

Such a coalition would save you time and money, and I might get more serial numbers. I believe we are all learning that the sniper program was a bit more complex than we originally thought, and it is obvious neither of us has the complete story. My interest is in the Niedner serial numbers only, and I believe those serial numbers will help me further isolate same.

Your response?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZqqUW8ovxw

https://sbirsource.com/sbir/firms/23157-orbit-energy-incorporated

The second website requires a password, but it sometimes goes straight to the information
This is the page

41674

(https://sbirsource.com/sbir/firms/23157-orbit-energy-incorporated)

Promo

08-10-2017, 07:17

Despite the ongoing conflict I need to mention that it had been a very long time since I have learnt so much on a forum and seen so many documents. Steve, thank you for a great educational hour and enjoying these original documents. It made the night very short but I simply couldn't stop reading.

cplnorton

08-11-2017, 01:34

Thanks Promo.

Jim, if you provided a location and I found the serials, yes I would give you a copy. But there is probably a good chance that the location you have, we proably have already hit.

See the WWI era Marine docs are at the DC Archives. And there are not many for the 1917-1919 time period. There are a lot 1919 and up. But the WWI era docs, there isn't that much there that deal with weapons. I have copies of all these docs. It was one of the first locations that actually Tim Plowman hit and hit hard looking for info on them.

In fact it appears a good portion of them were never actually acrchived, are at a different archive location, or something happened to those USMC WWI files.

I had heard they might be in the back and not accessible to the public, as a lot are. So I filed freedom of info act, after freedom of info act on the WWI Marine docs, till the head of the ARchives personally got so pissed at me and wanted me to shut up. So he sent a whole team of researchers to look for all the original WWI docs once and for all. He came back with all the locations his researchers turned up, which we had mostly already hit, but we didn't find the serials.

That is why I spent so much time at Cody. I found early on, where the Marine serials were filed at WRA in WWI. So I can tell you exactly where they were filed at WRA. But it appears they never made the transition to the Cody archives.

If the serials exist, they have to be in some weird location. There are some smaller regional locations I have a hunch on. But I haven't hit all of them.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

08-11-2017, 02:17

Well, I'll chance it, and I fully realize you may have already hit this location.

The snipers were part of the Intelligence Section (G2 at Battalion level), and were conscripted when needed. The snipers were carried on their respective company roles. The sniper rifles were the property of the Intelligence Section under the command of the Intelligence Officers. If we are going to find those serial numbers, they should reside in the G2 files. If you have already searched G2, I fear they are lost to history.

Note there was a Regimental Intelligence Section, a Battalion Intelligence Section, but not a Company Intelligence Section. I have no doubt there was a Brigade Intelligence Section. Each Section had its own Intelligence Officer who were Lieutenants and Second Lieutenants. There were an element of Headquarters Company, although the exact connection is not apparent. There would later be a push to expand intelligence activities. There should be an intelligence file somewhere in those 41000 ft3 of files. I would expect it to be massive in size.

Good luck to your searcher. There will be approximately 8-serial numbers per rifle company. As an added bonus, there should be a notation as to whom each rifle was issued. I wouldn't object to having those names. I might point out that the 13th Regiment G2 files may be more complete. There should be about 360 serial numbers for the two Brigades.:1948: