Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-12-2023, 03:20
With some trepidation, I will address the existence of a photo that some claim to prove that the AEF 4th Brigade Marines utilized sniper rifles with A5 scopes in WRA OEM #2 mounts and "Springfield Marine" bases in France (commercial mounts and bases). It is a Signal Corps picture(s). That "s" is there because this picture card exists in, at minimum, four different versions. It is a picture of a Marine Sergeant kneeling by a tent while aiming a scoped 1903 Springfield. The Signal Corps versions are 1537, 4337, and 4338. The British Imperial War Museum version is Q-94479.
We could call the Archives, or wherever the Signal Corps repository is located, and ask them to clarify the situation. Unfortunately, they have absolutely no way of knowing what happened in 1917 or 1918. We would be better off calling Taco Bell.
The first question any credible researcher should ask is: Why is a Sergeant holding a scoped '03?
There were no Sergeant snipers in the field at the beginning of the war. Snipers were Privates and Corporals per Pershing, although some snipers undoubtedly were promoted to Sergeant during combat operations of the war. We can, therefore, assume this to be a staged photograph, as most of the Signal Corps pictures are staged. The Signal Corps photography was not limited to France. They took pictures around the world, but they typically, and wisely, did not place themselves in combat situations. They would utilize combat photos taken by other photographers. This was their purpose in the war, to gather photographic imagery of the war and related places, people, and militaria. On occasion, they would stage photos and label them as actual combat photos, as they did with their "Through the Wheat" photograph of the 5th crossing the wheat field on 6 June 1918. There were no photographers in the wheat field that day. I have a copy of that photo, and it looks very realistic.
The second question is: Why was the rifle available to the Sergeant?
Surely he didn't walk around the AEF tent city with a scoped rifle in his hands. He had to have been some place where the rifle was being used in some capacity. He is still wearing his forest greens and campaign hat, so he hadn't been in France long, if that is where the picture was taken. It is highly likely he was still in the initial training phase
The third question is: Exactly where was the picture taken?
Two of the picture's versions indicate the picture was taken in France, 1537 and 4337. 4338 does not mention France, nor does the official version the Army sent to the British Imperial War Museum after the war. One version, 4338, states the picture was taken in 1917, 1537 states it was taken in 1918, and the other two versions give no date at all. Obviously, someone was using the original photo(s) to create cards for various purposes.
I do not know where, or when, this picture(s) was taken; and neither does anyone else. It is possible that this photograph was staged in the US; but I think the photo may have been taken at the British sniping school at Langres, or one of the other sniping schools in France. That is the only place one would find scoped rifles unless they were "on the line". It would explain all the issues surrounding the photos.
American designated snipers, as well as certain staff and line officers, were trained in the art of sniping before going into the front lines. The Army had hundreds of these rifles, evidenced by the thumbscrew problem that surfaced later. The Army supplied these schools with rifles, ammo, and required 782 gear for American personnel being trained. This is evidenced by Pershing ordering the Marines to forward 90 of their sniper rifles to an AEF Ordnance Depot, with 20 of them to be forwarded to the British sniping school at Landres to be used in training. BTW, I suspect the number 90 wasn't pulled from a hat by Pershing, as that was the number of scoped rifles I projected for each of the Marine Regiments. I can only presume the rifles were returned to the Marines.
I have examined this photo ad nauseam, and I can't see a grasshopper on that scope mount. If there is no grasshopper, that scope is mounted on Niedner taper bases. I can't say one way or the other with confidence. I made a negative (copy in the following post - limited to 5 pics) because metallic objects shine in a negative, but I still can't see a grasshopper. The second negative is of the rifle it resembled, and as one can see, the grasshopper stands out boldly. The grasshopper should start at the top of the base of the rear mount and curve gracefully at a slight upward angle creating a downward facing arc, as when mounted, it is in compression. I will leave it to the reader to judge. It makes no difference anyway, as we know the Marines didn't take team rifles to France, and all the 900 rifles assembled for the Marines had Marine Mounts which have no grasshopper.
One last note. Someone made a big deal of his rifle looking exactly like the one in the picture in profile. Folks, they all look exactly alike in profile, because they are exactly alike, except for the bases and the grasshopper, which are very difficult to discern. If you can tell the difference between a "Springfield Marine" base and a Niedner taper base in profile, both on scoped rifles from 5 feet away, your eyes would make an eagle jealous. Such a comparison has no significance whatsoever.
Regardless, no credible researcher would declare the photo in question as proof of anything but a cool Marine Sergeant kneeling beside a tent, sighting a scoped 1903. Still, I like the photo. The Marine is squared away. Semper Fi!
51452514535145451455
We could call the Archives, or wherever the Signal Corps repository is located, and ask them to clarify the situation. Unfortunately, they have absolutely no way of knowing what happened in 1917 or 1918. We would be better off calling Taco Bell.
The first question any credible researcher should ask is: Why is a Sergeant holding a scoped '03?
There were no Sergeant snipers in the field at the beginning of the war. Snipers were Privates and Corporals per Pershing, although some snipers undoubtedly were promoted to Sergeant during combat operations of the war. We can, therefore, assume this to be a staged photograph, as most of the Signal Corps pictures are staged. The Signal Corps photography was not limited to France. They took pictures around the world, but they typically, and wisely, did not place themselves in combat situations. They would utilize combat photos taken by other photographers. This was their purpose in the war, to gather photographic imagery of the war and related places, people, and militaria. On occasion, they would stage photos and label them as actual combat photos, as they did with their "Through the Wheat" photograph of the 5th crossing the wheat field on 6 June 1918. There were no photographers in the wheat field that day. I have a copy of that photo, and it looks very realistic.
The second question is: Why was the rifle available to the Sergeant?
Surely he didn't walk around the AEF tent city with a scoped rifle in his hands. He had to have been some place where the rifle was being used in some capacity. He is still wearing his forest greens and campaign hat, so he hadn't been in France long, if that is where the picture was taken. It is highly likely he was still in the initial training phase
The third question is: Exactly where was the picture taken?
Two of the picture's versions indicate the picture was taken in France, 1537 and 4337. 4338 does not mention France, nor does the official version the Army sent to the British Imperial War Museum after the war. One version, 4338, states the picture was taken in 1917, 1537 states it was taken in 1918, and the other two versions give no date at all. Obviously, someone was using the original photo(s) to create cards for various purposes.
I do not know where, or when, this picture(s) was taken; and neither does anyone else. It is possible that this photograph was staged in the US; but I think the photo may have been taken at the British sniping school at Langres, or one of the other sniping schools in France. That is the only place one would find scoped rifles unless they were "on the line". It would explain all the issues surrounding the photos.
American designated snipers, as well as certain staff and line officers, were trained in the art of sniping before going into the front lines. The Army had hundreds of these rifles, evidenced by the thumbscrew problem that surfaced later. The Army supplied these schools with rifles, ammo, and required 782 gear for American personnel being trained. This is evidenced by Pershing ordering the Marines to forward 90 of their sniper rifles to an AEF Ordnance Depot, with 20 of them to be forwarded to the British sniping school at Landres to be used in training. BTW, I suspect the number 90 wasn't pulled from a hat by Pershing, as that was the number of scoped rifles I projected for each of the Marine Regiments. I can only presume the rifles were returned to the Marines.
I have examined this photo ad nauseam, and I can't see a grasshopper on that scope mount. If there is no grasshopper, that scope is mounted on Niedner taper bases. I can't say one way or the other with confidence. I made a negative (copy in the following post - limited to 5 pics) because metallic objects shine in a negative, but I still can't see a grasshopper. The second negative is of the rifle it resembled, and as one can see, the grasshopper stands out boldly. The grasshopper should start at the top of the base of the rear mount and curve gracefully at a slight upward angle creating a downward facing arc, as when mounted, it is in compression. I will leave it to the reader to judge. It makes no difference anyway, as we know the Marines didn't take team rifles to France, and all the 900 rifles assembled for the Marines had Marine Mounts which have no grasshopper.
One last note. Someone made a big deal of his rifle looking exactly like the one in the picture in profile. Folks, they all look exactly alike in profile, because they are exactly alike, except for the bases and the grasshopper, which are very difficult to discern. If you can tell the difference between a "Springfield Marine" base and a Niedner taper base in profile, both on scoped rifles from 5 feet away, your eyes would make an eagle jealous. Such a comparison has no significance whatsoever.
Regardless, no credible researcher would declare the photo in question as proof of anything but a cool Marine Sergeant kneeling beside a tent, sighting a scoped 1903. Still, I like the photo. The Marine is squared away. Semper Fi!
51452514535145451455