USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917 [Archive]

cplnorton

08-06-2017, 07:01

I just posted this in a discussion in the sniper forum on the WWI cases. But this deserves it's own post.

This picture is one of the most famous Marine A5 pictures, and is featured in many books, but the location and date was never known.

I have long made claims this was taken in France and was very late 1917. But this has always been challenged and I would like to finally clear this up. I have decided I'm going to start to make a lot of my research public because I can clear up a lot of misconceptions on the Marine A5's, and Marine Corps rifles in general. And I have finally decided I'm going to start to share stuff, instead of just sitting on it.

I actually found this picture in the archives in the WWI Army Signal Corps photos taken in France. The number in the bottom left of the picture is actually the Army Signal Corps number.

I also found a new version of this pic that has never been made public or shown online. The are actually two pictures of this Marine.

When you compare the numbers around this pic which are dated more clear, and the locations given, it appears this is most likely taken in December 1917.

So here you go guys. Hope you enjoy this. So now when you see this pic in books, you know when it was taken and where it was taken.

Image 4337 & the backside of the picture

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

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

Immage 4338 & the backside of the pic. This is a new picture and I don't think it's ever been published or posted. I didn't know it existed till I found 4337 at the Archives.

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

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

p246

08-06-2017, 08:14

Thanks for the info and all the research you do.

cplnorton

08-07-2017, 02:40

Hey thanks! I really love researching this stuff. It's a lot of fun. ;)

Fred

08-07-2017, 04:15

Thanks Steve!

danco101

08-08-2017, 09:54

Photo is in Brophys book on the 03. page 505

cplnorton

08-08-2017, 10:47

I don't have Senichs or Canfields book in front of me but I think it's all of those too. It's just never been identified of when and where it was taken.

Fred

08-08-2017, 01:06

Well it has now thanks to you Steve. Thanks! :1948:

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-11-2017, 07:14

Just when you think you have all the answers....:1948:

42180

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 02:18

I'm not sure what you are arguing Jim? Unless you are now making an argument with me saying the pic was taken around Dec 1917? I based that on the what was around the pic and the fact that it is dated 1917 on #4338.

But actually I think your new proof really doesn't change my initial statement.

All these numbers are the same pic. 4337, 4338, and your alternate number 1537. They are all the same pic. The dates taken on the back of two of these photos contradict each other. One of them is dated 1917 and one is dated 1918. So to me you can only go by the only concrete date, which is on 4338. Which it says it was received on Feb 5th 1918.

So that picture was received in the states on Feb 5th, 1918. It was published in a May 1918 book, so I really have no doubt the date of it being received of Feb 5th 1918 is correct.

So at this time it took on average 2 weeks for a boat ride back to the states, so you are talking if this pic was even was taken in 1918, it had to be in the first couple weeks of January 1918. And that is even without the contradiction of one pic being dated 1917.

Which again I said it was probably taken around December 1917. So I'm not what the argument even is? Unless you are trying to argue a couple weeks? Or do you have anything with a concrete date and just not a generic date of 1918?

This is the May 1918 publishing of the catalogue numbers being all the same.

https://i.imgur.com/89pE1PIl.jpg

bruce

10-12-2017, 03:55

Great picture. Question. Is that the best scope that was available for use by US forces in that era? Looks like it would be better suited to use on a .22 rifle. Sincerely. bruce.

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 04:30

Great picture. Question. Is that the best scope that was available for use by US forces in that era? Looks like it would be better suited to use on a .22 rifle. Sincerely. bruce.

Nah, the A5 was outdated even by WWI. Winchester was selling the Military on their Model of 1918 Sniper scope mounted on a Sporterized WRA 1917 rifle.

Springfield Armory was focused on going to German Glass (Zeiss and Goerz) on the M1903 until WWI started and fell on WRA as the backup. Which even to WRA they state the A5 was outdated as early as 1917 that I have seen. Winchester states many times during the war that we will sell you these A5's as a tempory filler until the new model of 1918 scope is finished.

But even the Model of 1918 scope by WRA was copied off the German Glass of the time. It's just the war ended without it being finished and Frankford Arsenal picked up the design off WRA but couldn't get a version that could pass the trials either. And it was finally scraped in the mid 20's.

But if WWI hadn't started so early. You would have seen a M1903 with German Glass as the sniper. They were focused on it till the war started.

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 04:37

By the way the biggest complaint coming back to WRA from the Marines and Army using the A5's in France in WWI. They weren't water proofed.

Which those scopes were never meant to be water proofed. So WRA was focused on trying to find a simple solution on the water proofing. But the war ended. And like I said WRA put minimal effort into the A5 during WWI. They were always sold as the backup, temporary rifle to be used till the Model of 1918 was fielded.

WRA was totally focused on the 1918 sniper. But they had huge orders of them. About 60k complete rifles and scopes. And 35k spare scopes. So nearly a 100k scopes was a huge order for WRA.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-12-2017, 05:57

I'm not sure what you are arguing Jim?...

https://i.imgur.com/89pE1PIl.jpg

Arguing? You said you like to see alternative thoughts on subjects, so here is mine. First of all, you and I both know the pictures are not filed in chronological order, so forget the bracketing idea for a valid date taken. After looking at many photos in the archives, I realized there was a whole series of photos with that "Marines in France" heading, yet most of them are taken by different photographers. Kind of odd they would all duplicate each other's heading. Taken as a whole, it appeared someone was putting together a publication, probably entitled "Marines in France", early in 1918, and they were handpicking photos from the files. Note we have absolutely no idea when the file numbers were added to the photos. The picture in question was most likely taken in the US in 1917, but it served the purpose for which whomever was cherry picking photos for a purpose - most likely a USMC propaganda publication. This was a common practice as we all know.

There is no way you, nor me, can accurately date that photo; and nothing about it indicates it was taken in France regardless of what you were supposedly told. Why three file numbers for a single picture? I think it was because it was used for propaganda purposes and was cropped.

That's my alternative thought.:1948:

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 07:29

Well this is what I know.

1) The actual number in the lower left hand corner of the photo is an Army Signal Corps number and was only put on photos taken in France.

2) The photo was first published in May 1918 in a book that was ALL photos taken in France.

3) The picture is filed at the National Archives in pictures taken in France in WWI.

4) The pic is one of a series of thousands taken in France, that actually are in pretty good chronological order date wise and also location wise. You can tell a
lot about the date and location when you actual see the order of photos.

4) The picture is Titled, "Marines In France."

5) The Marines Corps History Dept which details all the pics from France, says this picture was taken in France.

6) Steven Girard who is the best WWI Marine historian for WWI also details this picture as taken in France, and will detail where it was taken if you want to
ask him.

7) There are Marine photos in France with tents and wearing Marine uniforms with campaign covers at this same time. This isn't the only picture like
this.

Honestly there is absolutely no proof that this picture was taken anywhere but France. And if you have any proof, I would love to see it.

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 08:01

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-12-2017, 08:40

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 08:56

Anyone who spends time filing through the catalog will notice they are not in chronological order (they are or they are not - its like being pregnant). You might want to check out catalog entry 1537. It has no SC number on the picture, so according to your statements, it wasn't taken in France. The picture I posted is 1537. And if, as you say, they are in chronological order, pic 1537 was one of the earliest photos taken by the Corps.
:1948:

Actually no they are in chronological order. And anyone is more than welcome to investigate it themselves.

Your not reading the catalog right. 1537 doesn't exist on it's own. Because it looks like just the small size version of 4337. :) It's the same pic, different sized. That is why your pic is so small you posted.

Just like 1538 is probably the small version of 4338.

If you pull 4337 or 4338 they are the large size versions of the pics. When I pulled them they were basically 8x10's. Which anyone can pull these by the way. You just email them, and they will send you a copy in your email. Sometimes they charge, sometimes they don't.

But see the 1537. Same pic as 4337. Again it's taken in France.

https://i.imgur.com/Wd7s548l.jpg

cplnorton

10-12-2017, 09:05

Again here is your 1537. It's cataloged as taken in France, published in May 1918. Even the picture you posted (1537) is labeled as taken in France. I'm not sure why there would be any question of this not being taken in France?

https://i.imgur.com/sOndkcB.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-13-2017, 12:20

It took me just a minute or so to find pictures not taken in France. Go to page 494 and look at 45322 and tell me that is not New York's skyline. I am aware that the catalogue says the pictures are taken in France, but it would appear that is not true. Note the catalogue's caveat that it is most likely riddled with errors on page 9.

If 1537 is a small size version of 4337, please tell me what happened to the catalogue number on the picture. Since the number is missing, 1537 must precede the other two versions.

:1948:

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-13-2017, 12:42

The pics are in really good chronological order. You just have to find the chronological order that was recorded in 1918. :) You can't piece this together the way it's filed today. You have to find how it was filed back then. It's hundreds of pages long and you can follow where they move, in order. Not just the Marines, but the Army as well. It's all in groups.

There is no "good chronological order", they are either in chronological order, or they are not. The pictures were catalogued as they were received. Are you saying that hundreds of photographers, operating independently in different places, sent their pictures in, and all were catalogued in chronological order? I seriously doubt that premise. I doubt that was even possible.

Please note that according to the catalogue, 1537 is an AEF number and is listed on page 15

How do you know how the pictures were catalogued in 1918? Are we not referencing the "official" catalogue? Please advise.

:1948:

Emri

10-13-2017, 05:48

Great picture. Question. Is that the best scope that was available for use by US forces in that era? Looks like it would be better suited to use on a .22 rifle. Sincerely. bruce.

In addition to Steve's comments I'll add that they were not the best choice. They were hugely popular for single shot rifles a lot of which were .22's. Look at the pic Steve and Jim are discussing. The scope is not pulled back and the shooter is in a normal firing position. I guarantee you he is not looking through the scope. When mine is positioned ALL the way back my thumb is directly behind the cocking piece and my cheek is smashed into my thumb to be able to see a full field of view. Note; this is not a USMC rifle, just an '03 with an A5 mounted on it.

FWIW,

Emri

42183

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-13-2017, 06:48

Howdy, Emri. I hope the storm didn't cause you any grief.

I agree the A5 is not up to today's standards; but at that time, it was the best scope available. I still use one, mounted on a SRS listed Sporter, and i have no problems of any kind. I am a natural scope crawler, so that helps. I bought the Sporter with the scope already mounted on a Hooper barrel (early custom barrel maker for John B. Buhmiller, also a barrel maker). Deadly accurate.

Nice rifle. Did you mount the scope?

Smokeeaterpilot

10-13-2017, 12:01

Hey guys, I’ve been watching the debate ensue over the pictures. I finished a couple work orders for a couple clients in the Textual Records Research Room and decided to go up to the Photograph Research Room a few floors up to see the photographs in question, first hand.
First off, the picture of the index Steve Norton posted is a page from a several hundred page Catalogue to Signal Corp AEF Photographs “sent from France” as denoted on image 4.
https://imgur.com/8IhxGe1
https://imgur.com/ePXBFNX
https://imgur.com/izntBMV
https://imgur.com/vHBBFGa

The photographs are recorded in sequential order in the section Steve Norton posted. I took another picture of that page and did a close up. However it is Part 6 of 6. The other parts of the catalogue are organized into categories such as: AEF Number, Military Unit, Person, Place, and finally Caption (the one these particular pictures are taken from and by far the largest of all 6 sections), Image 6 at the bottom of the page.
https://imgur.com/QXDeEL9
https://imgur.com/xz7Nfhd
If you find an imagine you are interested in “from Part 6 of the catalogue” you go to the box list which starts in imagine 6 and look for the bracket where your document number falls in (sequential order and in blocks) and then match the corresponding box number and submit a request that way.
https://imgur.com/TSeAz0z
https://imgur.com/f4W3Jgz
I would like to point out without the last 6 months these photographs have been digitized through NARA. You may download a copy online from their website: www.archives.gov
In the search bar simply type in: Record Group-Abbreviation-document number and you can pull it up yourself.
In this case is Record Group 111 (Signal Corps) – SC (abbreviation) – and the corresponding document number found on the upper left hand portion of the document.
Here is the unedited document found on the NARA website which has a portion whited out, but the original says “see #’s 4337 + 4338” Follow the link to download a copy for your very own. Its cross referencing the other photograph.
https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55164403
https://imgur.com/l94Vrkr
As for the “A” designator which follows the document number. According to the archive staff, who was assisting with locating this file. The “A” was incorrectly assigned by the Archive staff. The staff member who was digitizing the photographs saw duplicates and assigned an “A” because the database does not allow duplicates in the system. So possibly expect that link to change in the future from 1537A to 1537 since it was an error by NARA Staff. So there are 1 copy each of each photograph.
When referencing the catalogue (the numbers within the parenthesis) “4337 (1537)”, none of the staff know if the photographs were indexed immediately, shortly after taken or following the end of the war. She stated the most likely scenario is whoever was indexing the photographs saw there were copies of the same photograph and assigned it a separate document number and simply crossed referenced the duplicate to the original.

So errors do exist at the archives (the most recent one being within the past couple of months). Not interested in arguing where the picture was taken, but you all should know a lot of this information is already available to you.

You may draw your own conclusions, but here is a little more information from the primary source.
So if anyone wants this information for themselves they can know how to find it, since it’s currently available from your home PC. (The catalogue is also available online as well, not just the photographs).
Happy Researching!

cplnorton

10-13-2017, 02:58

cplnorton

10-13-2017, 03:11

As for the debate on if the pic was taken in the France. I think it's sort of a moot point to try to seriously argue that a picture titled "US Marines in France," wasn't taken in France. lol Unless someone has some actual proof, I would say it's not really something that can be argued right now.

So I will add a little more to what I talked about earlier.

Winchester themselves did not think the A5 was the best scope in WWI. When you read the actual correspondence, they sound like they were doing an infomercial on their new Model of 1918 sniper scope. They say over and over that the A5 was a temporary fix, until they can actually work the bugs out on the new scope. They kept saying we will provide you these A5 scoped M1903's but just wait till you see our new Model of 1918 sniper. The A5 was just a filler piece. They were saying this as early as 1917.

Winchester was all in the Model of 1918. It was based off the Goerz German design they state. I would have to pull the order but I think it was like 59,000 ish complete rifles and scopes. And 35k spare scopes. The order was placed in 1917.

This is the rifle as photographed in the Winchester newsletter they sent out. I do have actual pics of one taken in the WRA files too. If I get time I find them and post them. They are a fuzz different than this. I dont' think they very really got past the prototype phase as they could never get one to pass the trials.

Since WWI ended so fast, WRA's order of nearly 100k rifles and spare scopes was reduced to 5000 scopes only. SA was going to mount them on M1903's. But again WRA couldn't get it to pass trials, so WRA dropped it all and Frankford Arsenal picked it up. But Frankford couldn't do anything with it either. So it was officially canned by the mid 20's.

https://i.imgur.com/aBJwCiNl.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-13-2017, 03:19

cplnorton

10-13-2017, 03:24

Here is the WRA model of 1918 scope on a M1903. Somewhere I have a hi def pic of this, but I might have got that pic from Andrew. Here is one I had from somewhere else. I just don't remember where I got it, it's just on my computer scanned from somewhere in my travels. But this was a test rifle right after WWI with the WRA scope mounted. These scopes fell apart under recoil.

https://i.imgur.com/IFqSC2Xl.jpg

This is the Carl Zeis M1903. There was a good chance this could have been a real sniper in WWI, if German didn't enter WWI in 1914. This pic predates 1914. I have the test trial on it, I want to say 1910 or 1912. but don't quote me. This pic was just on my computer. I didn't pull my hard copy to actually read the date again. But somewhere in my files I have a full report and schematics on it too. But if I remember right SA really liked this set up. Somewhere too, I have pics of the Goerz design. But it's sort of similar to the WRA model of 1918 above. WRA copied off that Georze design when Germany entered the war.

But yeah the way it all reads, if Germany didn't enter WWI. German Glass would have most likely been the US official Sniper. The A5 probably would have never been used.

https://i.imgur.com/ImtyHDzl.jpg

Smokeeaterpilot

10-13-2017, 06:42

Thank you for the post, Smokeeaterpilot. I was wondering the meaning of the "A". Still, the lack of an AEF number on the 1537 photo indicates, to any reasonable person, that it preceded the other two. Also, we now know that all the catalogue photos were not taken in France as previously stated. Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation. Caution should always be exercised when drawing conclusions from any document. Such is the nature of true research.
:1948:

No worries on posting the data, but it was already available via online since it has just recently just made digitalized. At least I found that and anyone reading this tread can now find that, so that's worth something.

I however do think we part ways on a few things. I understand, like most reasonable people that Archival documentation does possess some flaws. Sometimes documents can contradict each other, or a memorandum can be over ridden a few weeks later. Tim Plowman has made some compelling arguments of a few errors in the recording of USMC photography in the Pacific during WWII he has come across. So it does not come without errors (and funny enough illustrated a just recently that a NARA archivists incorrectly marked the document with an "A").

However, invalidating cataloguing errors or documentation errors come with a huge burden of proof of the person making the statement, to almost prove beyond reasonable doubt that there has been an error made. Beyond comments from you or Steve Norton I really haven't seen anyone else make a argument one way or another. From my perspective I haven't seen anything to really invalidate it completely. On the flip side I haven't really seen that the pictures are irrefutable since the publication admits to numerous errors (however does not specify to the level, severity or most commonly made errors. Its a really vague statement (almost a CYA). So I err on the side of caution, quote what is stated in the documentation.

I do see some portions of comments made within the catalogue that should be of note.

Page 3:

"Forward. This catalogue has been made up from rough caption lists sent from France. It is for the immediate use of the public and is in no sense a final record."

"Corrections. This conditions under which these photographs were taken, captioned and speedily forwarded have inevitably causes numerous errors. The Chief, Historical Branch, War Plans Division, General Staff, Army War College, Washington D.C., will appreciate and authoritative corrections which may be sent him."

The catalogue itself admitted to numerous errors but looking for authoritative corrections. However it says these captions were sent from France and the document itself says "U.S. Marines in France. Telescopic Rifle Sight."

Could the picture have been taken in England? Could it have been simply intended to just a representative example of what a U.S. marine would've looked like in France? Could it have been taken post war? Could it have been taken state-side? This can be "what-ifed" for a long way..

There are numerous what ifs. And I'll definitely admit some of the statements made in the publication do warrant criticism (as stated above). However in my perspective the burden of proof hasn't been made to completely invalidate. There could be perhaps more conclusive evidence about the photography methods and record keeping techniques in textual records of Record Group 111 Records of Chief Signal Officer. A final nail in the coffin of faith in the captions if you will.

I was more concerned with that I new where to locate the photographs since the photograph record room is significantly smaller than the textual records section. I wanted to know if there was more information connected to the photographs such as if there was a handwritten memo accompanying the photograph or something significant written on the back (there wasn't unfortunately). What you see and what I posted is what you get. Until a new discovery can be made to further complicate this issue.

If you see a different interpretation of this then that's fine. I just wanted to take an opportunity since I was there to see if there was more information tethered to the photograph that may prove groundbreaking. But as I mentioned before what you see is what you get. (Other than the discovery of what the "A" meant that was just funny as it was surprising).

Happy Researching!

Smokeeaterpilot

10-13-2017, 06:48

Andrew you are awesome my friend! Thank you so much for actually taking the time to go to the archives and actually pull the real copy of it, instead of the one just posted online. And I learned something. I actually didn't know they put all those photos online to search. That is really interesting. Now anyone can look them up really easy! That is awesome!

It might have got lost in the post above, because Andrew posted so much awesome info. But here is the one Jim posted earlier and cropped out the link to the 4337 and 4338. It's Just the high def version of the pic that Andrew actually pulled.

Thanks so much again man!

https://i.imgur.com/qZc0h5ph.jpg

I would like to point out I did not pull this document. The actual photograph was not able to be found. The error made by the archivist further complicated it. After discussing this fun of this controversial photo with the staff, they went looking for it. They did not find it and did not find the glass negative until they realized they screwed up. Then they taught me that these files had already been digitized and how to locate them. I saw no need to actually pull the glass negative of 1537 after that long conversation. Your photographs 4337 and 4338 were correctly logged and easy to find. It was the "A" that proved problematic. They lead me to the link so posted it.

But happy to help I was already down there.

And for the record. I mentioned to the staff of the how important finding these original photographs was because there was a long standing debate on these particular photographs. Once they realized the error, the staff was discussing amongst themselves how to correct it. One actually said, "if this is such a hot button topic and he's posting this to the forum where people are gonna be looking for it, we don't have to correct anything the forums will take care of that for us."

Enjoy that fun statement from the NARA Staff.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-13-2017, 10:53

Thanks for your explanation, Smokeeaterpilot. I have been aware of the net access to these records (and others) for some time. The photo you posted is the same photo I posted, except I blocked out the reference and wrote my name across mine :evil6: (which makes someone's post above really confusing). I have spent entire days perusing the photos. Finding a away to download them at high resolution has been taxing. Both the original photos and the digitized photos have incredible resolution. If you zoom them on the NARA site, you can see minute details not detectable in the downloaded versions.

There is a small block of photos with the label "U.S. Marines in France" that appear to have been taken for an article in Bain (?). I think the label was a way to identify the pictures for an article in some publication, versus a statement as to where the picture was taken (the label is missing from one of the photos). Don't know for certain. That some of the Signal Corps photos were staged stateside has been known, or suspected, for a long time (like "Through the Wheat"). What I found odd was that the exact same picture appears in the catalogue three times, and what appears to be the original has a very low AEF number and all three are missing the usual explanation of who is in the picture and when and where taken. The reason? Who knows?
Have fun in the archives. :1948:

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 04:29

First lets post the whole page so people can actually read it. I don't think anyone looking at this would argue that these pics are taken at Random. Or that a pic of the states was just thrown in this group and labeled as taken in France.

Also if I'm following you, you are saying the number 1537 should have been taken earlier than 4337, but then you say I am wrong when I say the pics seem like they are in order? If you are saying that 1537 should have been taken earlier, wouldn't that mean they are in order?

The other thing I don't think you have noticed is that EVERY single one of these has a second number in this group. See how they all have a number in say the 4000 range in this page, but then have a second number in say the 1500 range? They are all have that.

Each picture has BOTH numbers from this group.

I'm not following your logic on why this pic wasn't taken in France. Do you have anything that states that pic was taken in the US as you claim? Or any proof the Actual title is wrong?

The pic is broken up in 3 so it's bigger font.

https://i.imgur.com/nBxVe1rl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/rlr6Hpel.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/c6boCq8l.jpg

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 04:35

Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation.
:1948:

I'm not following. It says it was in France.

https://i.imgur.com/cdFx22bl.jpg

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 04:40

If I'm following your argument, you are stating that the 1537 number must mean it's earlier. Or taken elsewhere and just put in this book.

EVERY single one of these has that second number, and they are all in order. And many even say the location they were taken in France and the date.

So I'm not following how that 1537 number would mean it was taken in the states and also taken earlier. All of them in this group have that number

https://i.imgur.com/dMXAX2wl.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-14-2017, 06:11

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-14-2017, 06:16

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 06:33

As for the photos in the catalogue being in chronological order:

3) Caption lists by A.E.F. number- 7 legal size boxes containing volumes which are arranged by AEF "Key" numbers assigned to each volume (A9, G10, S4 etc.), thereunder numerically by AEF photo number (236 A9, 237 A9 etc.). Most of the volumes also list the Signal Corps number assigned to the AEF print. The Signal Corps numbers do not run consecutively from beginning to end of volume, but rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively.

:1948:

Jim read the next line. As I said this is a group of pictures. In the group they seem to run consecutively. This is a blocks of Marine photos as anyone can see my actually looking at the page. There are blocks of Marine photos, and blocks of Army, and other random blocks.

"But rather are grouped in the volume by the photographer/photographers which took a particular segment of photographs. Each segment is also in chronological order. Within these segments, the Signal Corps numbers run consecutively."

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 06:44

Jim all you are doing is speculating.

There is NOTHING in that photo that can in ANYWAY disqualify it as taken in France. If there is anything in that picture that proves it wasn't take in France please point it out.

There are only two valid arguments I see to this photo, to something I have said in this post. Either the photo could be a couple weeks later than my original date of around December 1917. Or someone could make the very real argument that it was in fact earlier by possibly a few months in 1917.

Actually if someone made the argument that it was earlier in 1917, I could concede that is a valid argument. Because it could have been. As I'm basing the date around the block.

But arguing this picture was not taken in France, when there is nothing in this photo that can disqualify it as taken in France and there is nothing document wise that provides any evidence to the contrary is all speculation.

If you have any evidence please provide it.

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 06:50

As I understand it, each photo, if taken in France, will have 2 numbers - an AEF Number, which was applied to the negative in France, usually in the lower left hand corner, and an ID Number, which is assigned by the SG once received in the states. This photo has 3 ID Numbers and 2 AEF numbers. They are all the exact same photo. Since one appears without an AEF Number, it could be a photo taken here in the states, and for whatever reason, assigned an AEF number at a later date, or in this case, two differing AEF Numbers. Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.
:1948:

4337 and 4338 are two different pictures. Look at them closely. Even though it's of the same guy. It's indeed two different photos. I would imagine taken back to back while he was posing for the camera.

Again if you have anything in the photo that can disqualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in the states. Please provide it. Otherwise all you are doing is speculating.

cplnorton

10-14-2017, 07:07

Why assign two AEF Numbers to the same photo? However, for there to be 2 different AEF Numbers, there had to be a negative that had no AEF Number. Certainly appears to be a big flag that this could have been a stateside photo.
:1948:

I have studied these pictures for more hours than I ever care to admit. It's NOT in anyway the same photo. 4337 and 4338 are indeed different pics.

Look at the rope I put arrows next to. There are also other differences in the pics as well. That is why two different numbers. There isn't a red flag here. It's just two different pics. You just didn't look at them close enough.

4337 on top, 4338 on bottom.

https://i.imgur.com/HOkD3Vnh.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-14-2017, 10:51

We are down to two photos, one with no AEF number and one with an AEF number. The problem didn't go away. The photo with no AEF number had to precede the one without an AEF number.

If you have anything in the photo that can qualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in France, please provide it. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating.

:1948:

Afterthought:
Can you believe two adults could prolong such a silly argument this long? Someone throw a joke in here. We all need some relief.

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 03:33

If you have anything in the photo that can qualify this as actually taken in France, or if you have any actual documents that detail this as being taken in France, please provide it. Otherwise, all you are doing is speculating.

1) Marines wore those exact Marine Unfiorms with Campaign Covers and leggings early on in France. Marines also lived in those exact tents early on in France. And I can document those rifles in France. So there is nothing in that photo that says that it couldn't have been taken in France.

2) Literally EVERY document says it was taken in France.

You keep on saying it's not taken in France, but I can't follow any of your explanations on why you think that.

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 05:31

We are down to two photos, one with no AEF number and one with an AEF number. The problem didn't go away. The photo with no AEF number had to precede the one without an AEF number.

I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. Both photos have TWO numbers. So what do you even mean?

Mike D

10-15-2017, 09:14

Let's concentrate on identifying the grass. Is it American grass or French grass? Personally, I prefer Mexican grass, but that likely won't help solve this debate, or would it???:banana100:

Mike

Smokeeaterpilot

10-15-2017, 11:37

Let's concentrate on identifying the grass. Is it American grass or French grass? Personally, I prefer Mexican grass, but that likely won't help solve this debate, or would it???:banana100:

Mike

Please don't plant that seed. Lol

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 11:47

I'm honestly lost guys.

1) There is nothing in that pic that disqualifies it as being taken in France.

2) Jim doesn't have ANY documents that state this photograph was taken in the states. His only evidence he has provided says "Marines in France."

So on what grounds do you even state this picture was not taken in France? Anyone else lost in this all? I can't even follow half of his arguments as they don't make sense.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-15-2017, 01:28

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-15-2017, 01:49

He's honestly lost guys.

1) There is nothing in that pic that disqualifies it as being taken in the USA.

2) That it is missing its AEF number, lends credence to have been taken somewhere other than in France. No one has ANY documents that state this photograph was taken in France.

This picture is missing it's critical bone fides of AEF origin - its AEF number and the accompanying dialog of name of photographer, when, where, and who therein. The weight of reasonable doubt is not only present, it is probable. No argument presented thus far refutes that statement.

One of the pictures in the segment in question is a picture of the USMC publicity officer. This segment might have been targeted for a publicity piece for the Marines, and the photo in question provided by the Marines. Many questions with no answers.

:1948:

Note:
More humor needed.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-15-2017, 01:51

Please don't plant that seed. Lol

It took me a minute to catch on to the humor in your response. Another good laugh!

:1948:

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 02:27

2) That it is missing its AEF number, lends credence to have been taken somewhere other than in France. No one has ANY documents that state this photograph was taken in France.

This picture is missing it's critical bone fides of AEF origin - its AEF number and the accompanying dialog of name of photographer, when, where, and who therein. The weight of reasonable doubt is not only present, it is probable. No argument presented thus far refutes that statement.

Ok I'm literally drawing arrows now on the pics, because you still claim there is no documentation that says this is in France, and there are no AEF Numbers.

So I'm trying to make this as clear as I can get.

The MARINES did not take this photograph. THE ARMY Signal Corps did. The ARMY signal Crops assigns their own number for pictures taken in the AEF. This picture has a AEF number for the ARMY Signal Corps.

ARMY AEF SIGNAL CORPS NUMBERS 4337 and 4338

https://i.imgur.com/2kxJTEnl.jpg

AND Then the Photogrpaher was again the ARMY Singal Corps. AND under DESCRIPTION It says it was IN FRANCE. It SAYS it was taken in 1917.

https://i.imgur.com/q3YjmMXl.jpg

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 02:36

This picture is missing it's critical bone fides of AEF origin - its AEF number and the accompanying dialog of name of photographer, when, where, and who therein. The weight of reasonable doubt is not only present, it is probable. No argument presented thus far refutes that statement.

Note:
More humor needed.

Jim, literally EVERY argument on why you say this pic wasn't taken in the FRANCE is answered on those tags.

Seriously guys I'm out of ideas on how to explain this too him. If anyone has any ideas on how to explain this to him I'm all ears, because I don't know how much more clear I can get than this.

Name of Photographer: Army Signal Corps

AEF number: Army Signal Corps 4337 and 4338

When: 1917

Where: FRANCE

Who: US MARINES

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-15-2017, 03:16

I agree. You don't have a clue as to what I am saying. Not a clue.

:1948:

Note:
I tried to find that photographer in the US Census data with no luck. Maybe a little help with that exact location and date? Please advise.

Mike D

10-15-2017, 03:37

Back up a minute. Is all this over whether or not the A5 was sent/used overseas during the war?

Mike

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 03:46

Back up a minute. Is all this over whether or not the A5 was sent/used overseas during the war?

Mike

Not even that. Jim is saying this picture wasn't taken in France. I'm saying that picture was TAKEN IN FRANCE. That IS literally the argument. lol

I don't even want to try to argue with him on that rifle, or the fact it was used in France. lol That would be a nightmare to try to argue with him.

Kaliman

10-15-2017, 03:54

But Steve, what if FRANCE is an acronym for a location in the United States ?

Mike D

10-15-2017, 03:56

I understand what your argument is. But, WAS the A5/'03 combo used overseas during WWII?

Mike

JOHN COOK

10-15-2017, 04:08

I have enjoyed all I can stand. I think I"ll skip the 1903/1904 page for a few days. Maybe the dust will settle and they will find out it is FAKE NEWS by the Signal Corp. and the photos were actually shot at Quantico.:eusa_wall:

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 04:37

I understand what your argument is. But, WAS the A5/'03 combo used overseas during WWII?

Mike

Yes Mike it was. You say WWII, but I imagine you mean WWI?

Either way the 1903 A5 snipers were used in both wars. In WWII I can only verify the Marines used them. But in WWI, the Army actually ordered the exact same A5 rifle off WRA as the Marines had received in 1917. And the real twist is, the Army had more "Marine Mount" A5's built by Winchester than the Marines actually did. And there was even a time in the last month of the war where the Marine A5 sniper was the "official" sniper rifle of the US Army. lol But it was just a placeholder they say for the Model of 1918 sniper. But the war ended within weeks of this and the Model of 1918 never shipped. And history has completely jacked up the real story of the Winchester produced A5 snipers.

I've been tempted to post what really happened with the A5 story, but it would be a fight of epic proportions with you know you. He can't even take me saying this pic was taken in France, when it says it was taken in France. It's just not worth it.

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 04:51

I understand what your argument is. But, WAS the A5/'03 combo used overseas during WWII?

Mike

I re-read my response and it wasn't as clear as it could be.

Yes both the Army and Marines had A5 scopes, mounted on M1903 rifles by Winchester, in France, while the war was going on.

Smokeeaterpilot

10-15-2017, 04:53

Yes Mike it was. You say WWII, but I imagine you mean WWI?

Either way the 1903 A5 snipers were used in both wars. In WWII I can only verify the Marines used them. But in WWI, the Army actually ordered the exact same A5 rifle off WRA as the Marines had received in 1917. And the real twist is, the Army had more "Marine Mount" A5's built by Winchester than the Marines actually did. And there was even a time in the last month of the war where the Marine A5 sniper was the "official" sniper rifle of the US Army. lol But it was just a placeholder they say for the Model of 1918 sniper. But the war ended within weeks of this and the Model of 1918 never shipped. And history has completely jacked up the real story of the Winchester produced A5 snipers.

I've been tempted to post what really happened with the A5 story, but it would be a fight of epic proportions with you know you. He can't even take me saying this pic was taken in France, when it says it was taken in France. It's just not worth it.

Army ordering A5s with "Marine Mounts" that sounds familiar....

cplnorton

10-15-2017, 05:13

Army ordering A5s with "Marine Mounts" that sounds familiar....

And I have to give mad props to Andrew on this. Andrew uncovered almost the complete story of the A5 sniper at the archives. I had pulled all the WRA WWI documents from Cody that detailed a lot of the story. But the ones that literally spell out everything barney style, Andrew found those at the Archives

So mad props to Andrew because his documents completely rewrote the whole story of the A5 sniper.

Smokeeaterpilot

10-15-2017, 05:53

And I have to give mad props to Andrew on this. Andrew uncovered almost the complete story of the A5 sniper at the archives. I had pulled all the WRA WWI documents from Cody that detailed a lot of the story. But the ones that literally spell out everything barney style, Andrew found those at the Archives

So mad props to Andrew because his documents completely rewrote the whole story of the A5 sniper.

First thanks for the gratitude, but let's not get carried away. Just knew of some good locations which I thought would pay off and to a large extent did so a large part of it was sheer luck. but the story is never complete.

Just lucky I'm local and can spend a lot of time there. There's still a lot of locations I haven't touched and were small arms entries within the Ordnance Department files at NARA.

In the mean time, I encourage anyone reading this thread to take advantage of the online digitized photos (whichever are available) if NARA digitized the entire cache of AEF Signal Corp photos that's a huge visual resource for any WWI History buff (and it's free!)

Mike D

10-15-2017, 06:16

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

10-15-2017, 06:26

I should let it ride, but what the heck. This all started when Norton posted a thread in which he dated the photo in question, 4337, to Dec of 1917 by "bracketing" the photos in the segment. He further claimed all the catalogue photos were in chronological order. I posted a clip from the catalogue which stated the photos in the catalogue were not in chronological order, but was comprised of segments of photos taken by the same photographer, and the photos in each segment were in chronological order, but the segments were not. A segment is usually 10 pictures or thereabouts. Look at 4328, a photo in the same segment as 4337, and it has its SC bona fides, showing it was taken on 5 Feb 1918. 4337 could not have been taken in Dec 1917. Why is this critical? Uniform issues.

Norton also stated all the pictures in the catalogue were taken in France, which is not true either, as I posted the AEF number of a picture taken in New York City (there are many others).

Picture 4337 is a duplicate of the original, which is 1537. Why do I say it is the original? Because it has no AEF number written on the negative, which means it preceded 4337. It is also missing its bone fides entirely, including the AEF number in the left lower corner of the picture. Note this situation does not apply to any other picture in the segment. That is very odd indeed. It is certainly reason for doubt. So Norton made a series of erroneous statements, passing them off as facts. I simply corrected him in a nice way.

For the record, I have NEVER stated this photo was not taken in France. I simply stated, and still do, that there exists doubt as to where, when, and by whom it was taken, and that it probably, or might have, been taken in the US. There is nothing that proves it wasn't.

As for the A5/03 combination being used in France, I think it was used in every conceivable combination and I have NEVER said anything to the contrary. I believe the Neidner rifles went to the 4th Brigade, who may have had some scoped NM rifles already. I have no idea what the Army used and have never professed to know. I do know that WRA mounted A5's on 03's for the Army in the hundreds, which has been common knowledge for as long as I can remember.

My hunt is for the serial numbers of the Neidner rifles, and no more. But I do hate to see people passing off nonsense and BS for facts.

As for 1537, look up pictures of the Marine cantonments in France (2 square miles of tents). Look at the tents they used and then look at the tent in 1537.

:1948:

cplnorton

10-16-2017, 04:32

Sorry about the WWII typo.

Ok so, The A5 was used in France, that is fact. There is enough evidence to prove that, I assume. I guess there are shipment records and other documents and such to prove that, that is not in question.

BUT, the details of that photo ARE! I want to know who the photographer was, where he's from and his story. I want to know what unit he was with and what unit he was following when he took that photo. I want to know the name of that Marine in the photo and what company and platoon he was with. I want to see photos of his fellow platoon mates. I want to know where that unit was when the photo was taken. I want to know the exact day and time. I want to know why the photo was taken and what he was aiming at. I want to see more photos of what the photographer was taking during the same time, in the same place.

I don't know $HIT about that photo! But I wish I did...

The easiest argument someone could make on where the photo was taken in France, would have been at St. Nazaire France. If it was taken there it would have been taken earlier in 1917 than my Dec 1917 date.

The tents and even the uniforms of the Marines at St Nazaire, would match the photos really well. Here are a few pics form St Nazaire France. Photo's are courtesy of Steven Girard.

https://i.imgur.com/0xp9vwR.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BKSh3es.jpg

Even though St Nazaire would be the most logical choice for someone arguing this. I sort of have a hunch it wasn't taken there. The reason being, the photos in that block in the AEF book are later and none show a location as being taken in St Nazaire. They were taken in training further inland in France.

The other thing that gets me. WRA states the Marine A5 rifles ended up going to a unit close to an Army repair Depot in France. WRA doesn't name the Army camp. But the Marine documents do. The Marine documents name the Army Camp, and say that the Army repaired all their A5 rifles that broke and kept them serviceable for the Marines. Also the Army had a long distance range set up at this Camp that the Marines could sight in their A5 rifles and get target practice with them. These early Marines were not school trained snipers like later in the war. So from everything it says, it sounds like these Marines were literally shooting the Teslescopic sighted rifles for the first time at this Army camp.

The most interesting fact, this picture is a ARMY signal Corps photo, and this Army Camp where the Marine A5 rifles were serviced and sighted in, was one of the major headquarters for the Army signal Corps. So I have a hunch the Army Signal Corps took this pic of a Marine who was probably there sighting in one of the new WRA rifles.

Other than just the generic France location, I doubt any official documentation will be found that says the exact location of where it was taken. I just have a hunch it was taken by the Army Signal Corps at this Army Camp in France. But I can't prove it. It's just what makes the most sense to me.

He was posing for this photo and not sighting in on anything, as the A5 sight in that location, wouldn't have a good sight picture. Also if the A5 scope wasn't modified in a way, the bolt would hit the A5 scope and you had to push the scope forward to cycle the bolt. The Marines fixed this later on by modifying the A5 scopes in a way that the bolt would clear. So that might be as well why the scope was pushed forward as well, to cycle the bolt.

But as far as location, a very safe argument would be St Nazaire. I just have a hunch it might be at that Army Camp. I just can't prove it.

cplnorton

10-16-2017, 04:53

First thanks for the gratitude, but let's not get carried away. Just knew of some good locations which I thought would pay off and to a large extent did so a large part of it was sheer luck. but the story is never complete.

Just lucky I'm local and can spend a lot of time there. There's still a lot of locations I haven't touched and were small arms entries within the Ordnance Department files at NARA.

In the mean time, I encourage anyone reading this thread to take advantage of the online digitized photos (whichever are available) if NARA digitized the entire cache of AEF Signal Corp photos that's a huge visual resource for any WWI History buff (and it's free!)

I don't think you are giving your self enough credit. No one has ever found those documents. And a lot of people have looked for them. That was quite an accomplishment.

And I am very appreciative of all the info you are uncovering at the archives. You are rewriting a lot of material. Just not on the A5, but so many topics. You should be proud man.

Emri

10-17-2017, 05:56

He was posing for this photo and not sighting in on anything, as the A5 sight in that location, wouldn't have a good sight picture. Also if the A5 scope wasn't modified in a way, the bolt would hit the A5 scope and you had to push the scope forward to cycle the bolt. The Marines fixed this later on by modifying the A5 scopes in a way that the bolt would clear. So that might be as well why the scope was pushed forward as well, to cycle the bolt.

Notice the home made remedy to create clearance on this rifle. It just does clear when sighted at 100 yds. Same rifle I showed earlier.

Emri

42217

Promo

10-17-2017, 09:24

Hey Emri, you'll notice the official scopes by having removed the ring which interferes with the bolt. I hope I didn't tell too much with telling this in public, however...

cplnorton

10-17-2017, 09:26

Notice the home made remedy to create clearance on this rifle. It just does clear when sighted at 100 yds. Same rifle I showed earlier.

Emri

Yeah it makes sense. That is right where it hits.

Actually what the Marines did was something even more simple, but same exact principle. They cut down the ring on the A5 scope so the bolt would clear.

Now this modification did not need to be done on the Mann Niedner style tapered bases and mounts, as those were tall enough to clear the bolt. This only needed to be done on the Winchester Marine Bases. And I know there is some confusion with what the Winchester Marine bases were. They are almost identical to the Unertl O&E bases used on the 1903A1 Snipers in WWII. Unertl probably copied his bases off the WRA Marine bases. They are basically the same, just slight variations in machining and the way the scope mounts.

But with the Winchester Marine bases, that ring on the A5 scope does not clear the bolt. So they just cut down the ring. That ring is mostly cosmetic and might give you a fuzz easier handle to pull the scope back from recoil but not much. Especially when it causes you to have to cycle the scope, to chamber a round. So the Marines milled it down so it would clear the bolt.

The Marines were not the only ones who did this either. The Army did it. And I think I even have a pic of a commercial Niedner rifle from back then that has this done. I don't know who did it first, but I imagine everyone just copied off each other back then.

But I have pictures that Andrew has found from both the Marines and Army that show this modification on A5 scopes.

Also now that you know what it is, start to watch for it on A5's that pop up. I figured this out about a year ago staring at some pictures of A5's back then, and I've been looking for it since. It shows up every so often on A5 scopes up for sale.

Here is the modification, Arrow to where they cut down the ring.

https://i.imgur.com/8LgA03Jl.jpg

Here is a A5 rifle with original Winchester Marine bases. It is sighted in at a 100 yards as I actually shot this one a couple months back. But you see with the ring cut, the bolt clears the scope.

https://i.imgur.com/r382bROl.jpg

cplnorton

10-17-2017, 09:35

Hey Emri, you'll notice the official scopes by having removed the ring which interferes with the bolt. I hope I didn't tell too much with telling this in public, however...

lol, I posted it as you typed it.

So the cat is out of the bag now. :)

cplnorton

10-17-2017, 09:43

The interesting ones are the ones that show this modification that are now Mann Niedner scopes.

I suspect this is evidence they were used on the Winchester Marine bases and then later had the Mann Niedner conversion.

I think Goerg has one or two Mann Niedner's with this modification, and I've had one.

As I said in the previous post, this modification did not need to be done on a Mann Nieder A5 scope. As those bases are taller and clear the bolt just fine.

CPC

10-18-2017, 06:39

cplnorton

10-18-2017, 05:37

This has been a great thread to follow. Arrrgh My wife’s uncle knew Mr Niedner and lived fairly close to him...no comment on the scope parts I could have purchased... however, going back to the pics. Are there any photos of USMC aviators in the photo catalog?

I don't know honestly. What you can do is look in the catalog and do keyword searches and see if you come up with anything. Here is the catalog.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t8qc0kp28;view=1up;seq=7

I always had a researcher pull all of these photos at the archives, so I'm not sure how to do it online here. But Andrew did post some instructions on this post. Also Andrew did post instructions on how to do on the CMP forum and gunboards. If you have trouble with it, I'm sure Andrew would help. I haven't had time to try to navigate it yet so I'm a beginner on it as well.

1903fan

10-18-2017, 09:11

The easiest argument someone could make on where the photo was taken in France, would have been at St. Nazaire France. If it was taken there it would have been taken earlier in 1917 than my Dec 1917 date.

The tents and even the uniforms of the Marines at St Nazaire, would match the photos really well. Here are a few pics form St Nazaire France. Photo's are courtesy of Steven Girard.

https://i.imgur.com/0xp9vwR.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/BKSh3es.jpg

Even though St Nazaire would be the most logical choice for someone arguing this. I sort of have a hunch it wasn't taken there. The reason being, the photos in that block in the AEF book are later and none show a location as being taken in St Nazaire. They were taken in training further inland in France.

The other thing that gets me. WRA states the Marine A5 rifles ended up going to a unit close to an Army repair Depot in France. WRA doesn't name the Army camp. But the Marine documents do. The Marine documents name the Army Camp, and say that the Army repaired all their A5 rifles that broke and kept them serviceable for the Marines. Also the Army had a long distance range set up at this Camp that the Marines could sight in their A5 rifles and get target practice with them. These early Marines were not school trained snipers like later in the war. So from everything it says, it sounds like these Marines were literally shooting the Teslescopic sighted rifles for the first time at this Army camp.

The most interesting fact, this picture is a ARMY signal Corps photo, and this Army Camp where the Marine A5 rifles were serviced and sighted in, was one of the major headquarters for the Army signal Corps. So I have a hunch the Army Signal Corps took this pic of a Marine who was probably there sighting in one of the new WRA rifles.

Other than just the generic France location, I doubt any official documentation will be found that says the exact location of where it was taken. I just have a hunch it was taken by the Army Signal Corps at this Army Camp in France. But I can't prove it. It's just what makes the most sense to me.

He was posing for this photo and not sighting in on anything, as the A5 sight in that location, wouldn't have a good sight picture. Also if the A5 scope wasn't modified in a way, the bolt would hit the A5 scope and you had to push the scope forward to cycle the bolt. The Marines fixed this later on by modifying the A5 scopes in a way that the bolt would clear. So that might be as well why the scope was pushed forward as well, to cycle the bolt.

But as far as location, a very safe argument would be St Nazaire. I just have a hunch it might be at that Army Camp. I just can't prove it.

OK I am like lots on here and just like to browse and read, and have had a hard time following some of this but this helps. So you think Winchester sent all their sniper rifles for the marines to the army base and the army was the ones to use them. That makes sense with the marines being under army command.

Promo

10-19-2017, 03:12

lol, I posted it as you typed it.

So the cat is out of the bag now. :)

Two stupid with one idea, right ... ?

Steve once came up with that question to me to check my A5 scopes for that ... turned out of my probably 10 Winchester A5 scopes at least two of them had this modification. And since every scope was purchased independent from each other, it must have had some reason.

cplnorton

10-19-2017, 04:38

OK I am like lots on here and just like to browse and read, and have had a hard time following some of this but this helps. So you think Winchester sent all their sniper rifles for the marines to the army base and the army was the ones to use them. That makes sense with the marines being under army command.

No Winchester says they shipped the Marine rifles they mounted A5 scopes on to a Marine unit. They state the unit was located by a Army camp that repaired them for the MArines in the AEF. Winchester does not name the camp. But the Marine documents do. The Marine documents say the name, and say they took the telescopic rifles to this camp for repair and to sight them in.

CPC

10-19-2017, 06:26

Thank you Steve.

I don't know honestly. What you can do is look in the catalog and do keyword searches and see if you come up with anything. Here is the catalog.

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo1.ark:/13960/t8qc0kp28;view=1up;seq=7

I always had a researcher pull all of these photos at the archives, so I'm not sure how to do it online here. But Andrew did post some instructions on this post. Also Andrew did post instructions on how to do on the CMP forum and gunboards. If you have trouble with it, I'm sure Andrew would help. I haven't had time to try to navigate it yet so I'm a beginner on it as well.

1903fan

10-19-2017, 07:38

No Winchester says they shipped the Marine rifles they mounted A5 scopes on to a Marine unit. They state the unit was located by a Army camp that repaired them for the MArines in the AEF. Winchester does not name the camp. But the Marine documents do. The Marine documents say the name, and say they took the telescopic rifles to this camp for repair and to sight them in.

The Marine unit was fifth or sixth Marines?

1903fan

10-23-2017, 02:24

I see what all of you are saying now, the Mann rifles went to the War with the fifth and sixth Marines and the other rifles were sent to France to a an army base. They would then have gone to fifth Marine brigade when they got there. Makes good sense... thanks gentlemen!

cplnorton

10-23-2017, 04:18

I see what all of you are now, the Mann rifles went to the War with the fifth and sixth Marines and the other rifles were sent to France to a an army base. They would then have gone to fifth Marine brigade when they got there. Makes good sense... thanks gentlemen!

I'm not saying this at all. The WRA rifles were shipped to the Marines in France over a period of time in 1917.

I would prefer not to comment on this in detail. I have an editor for a magazine interested in publishing my research on the Winchester A5 snipers. So I'm saving a lot of my info for the article.

1903fan

10-23-2017, 05:03

I'm sorry I didn't know you were an arthur I just thought you and A5 Sniper were trying to figure this out still. I was just trying to figure out the providence for the fifth and sixth Marines getting sniper rifles and what can be proven they got. Have a nice day.

Emri

10-24-2017, 05:36

I have an editor for a magazine interested in publishing my research on the Winchester A5 snipers. So I'm saving a lot of my info for the article.

Be sure and let us know when that happens !! I don't buy magazines off the rack but sometimes make an exception, like John Beards article on Red Star Remingtons a few years ago.

Emri

1903fan

10-24-2017, 11:05

Who all else in here is authors? I would like to make a list of new books to read, maybe even a magazine if they can be found. Think it is great we have famous authors in here! Is Bruce Canfield or Scott Duff by chance one of the screen names? I enjoy there books.

1903fan

10-31-2017, 03:10

Smokeeaterpilot

11-02-2017, 07:00

I did not see anyone post a photo of their own one of these rifles, but are there any in museums? There are some in the book "U.S. Marine Corps Scout Sniper World war II and Korea" by Peter R Senich. It seems like you guys would like this book!

I'd honestly be highly skeptical of any WWI era sniper in private hands and even in some museums.

In November 1929 Brig General Samuel Hof issued a Ordnance Bulletin for the care and maintenance of Ordnance small arms and equipment. Stating the following concerning the care and maintenance of rifles fitted for telescopic sights: "Telescopic sights, M1908, M1913 and Winchester 5a having been declared obsolete, rifles fitted with these types of sights will be modified as funds become available and placed in storage as rifles, caliber .30, M1903. Modifications will consist of removing the bracket and plugging the holes in the receiver wall."

In spring of 1942 the USMC QM placed a substantially large order for replacement parts (primarily with Sedgely) to rebuild 20,000 receivers into complete rifles (for obvious reasons considering the time). In that list it noted that there were also over 500 "receiver assemblies [note not complete rifles] drilled for telescopic sights" and only "receiver assemblies 3 fitted for telescopic sights."

There were rifles fitted with A5 telescopic sights that were used by the Marines early in the PTO (particularly the Raider battalions), that is not in question. However, one particular example popped up (I believe on this forum a year or so ago.) And the receiver SN was in the post WWI range.

As far as WWI examples surviving (I'm talking in the condition, parts and variation issued during that conflict).

I'm not saying it's not possible. But what I've seen at the archives, most data points that during the post WWI demobilization and Great Depression era documentation(and there's a lot more than these two examples) that they were taken out of service after being declared obsolete and cannibalized for parts or turned back into service rifles (obvious reasons, funding is significantly reduced and these sniper rifles are considered obsolete). So as far as looking for an example (as shown in the photographs) without proper documentation I'd be more skeptical that it would be a genuine example.

Of course I'm sure some slipped through the cracks. But how to tell a genuine example from a very convincing fake (and there are plenty of those), would be next to impossible in my opinion, (without paperwork.)

1903fan

11-05-2017, 07:40

I'd honestly be highly skeptical of any WWI era sniper in private hands and even in some museums.

In November 1929 Brig General Samuel Hof issued a Ordnance Bulletin for the care and maintenance of Ordnance small arms and equipment. Stating the following concerning the care and maintenance of rifles fitted for telescopic sights: "Telescopic sights, M1908, M1913 and Winchester 5a having been declared obsolete, rifles fitted with these types of sights will be modified as funds become available and placed in storage as rifles, caliber .30, M1903. Modifications will consist of removing the bracket and plugging the holes in the receiver wall."

In spring of 1942 the USMC QM placed a substantially large order for replacement parts (primarily with Sedgely) to rebuild 20,000 receivers into complete rifles (for obvious reasons considering the time). In that list it noted that there were also over 500 "receiver assemblies [note not complete rifles] drilled for telescopic sights" and only "receiver assemblies 3 fitted for telescopic sights."

There were rifles fitted with A5 telescopic sights that were used by the Marines early in the PTO (particularly the Raider battalions), that is not in question. However, one particular example popped up (I believe on this forum a year or so ago.) And the receiver SN was in the post WWI range.

As far as WWI examples surviving (I'm talking in the condition, parts and variation issued during that conflict).

I'm not saying it's not possible. But what I've seen at the archives, most data points that during the post WWI demobilization and Great Depression era documentation(and there's a lot more than these two examples) that they were taken out of service after being declared obsolete and cannibalized for parts or turned back into service rifles (obvious reasons, funding is significantly reduced and these sniper rifles are considered obsolete). So as far as looking for an example (as shown in the photographs) without proper documentation I'd be more skeptical that it would be a genuine example.

Of course I'm sure some slipped through the cracks. But how to tell a genuine example from a very convincing fake (and there are plenty of those), would be next to impossible in my opinion, (without paperwork.)

Great response, makes sense why we don't see them! Thank you for your efforts