PDA

View Full Version : WRA Part Nomenclature



Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-17-2023, 10:31
I should have addressed this issue first and foremost. The first task in any discussion that concerns physical equipment should address nomenclature. Nomenclature is the language of the engineer, and every part of any manufactured device should be assigned a name, a part number, and a unit of measure. The military has tens of thousands of Technical Manuals (TM's), one for every piece of equipment they possess. Every part of every military device is assigned a name and a part number.

I will use the same nomenclature WRA utilized.

5148451485

In the old WRA sales listing to the left and brochure to the right, every part that WRA sold for the A5 is listed by the name WRA gave that part in 1909.

51486

WRA differentiated between mounts and bases. The picture above depicts an OEM WRA #2 mount and its features. This is the mount that was modified per Maj. Holcomb's direction to become what is known as the "Marine Mount". Note the grasshopper spring. It is the one distinguishing feature one can spot from a reasonable distance. The Marine Mount does not have a grasshopper. No grasshopper, it is a Marine Mount. Grasshopper, it is a WRA OEM #2 mount. There is no base shown in the picture.

The OEM WRA #2 mount is attached to the rifle using a "Springfield Marine" base, if the rifle base spacing is 7.2?. One slides the scope mounts over the base and tightens the thumbscrew to secure the scope. Without that thumbscrew, the scope is useless, unless you want to use it to peak at birds. This is the problem the Army encountered in France. The Army had a lot of scoped rifles with thumbscrew mounts they accumulated through the years.

The thumbscrew had another problem. Temperature changes caused it to loosen. Overnight, the rifle's zero would change as much as 2 MOA (that’s 2" at 100 yards, 20" at 1000 yards). This is a serious issue for a sniper trying to hit a man’s head at 1000 yards. An AEF sniper shoots at a German sniper and misses, and the German sniper returns the shot and kills the AEF sniper. All the time and money spent training your sniper just went down the tubes.

The Marine rifle teams became cognizant of this issue around 1912, when Edward Crossman published an article describing the problem, soon to be followed by articles from Townsend Whelen. In 1916, then Captain Garland Fay, Captain of the Marine rifle team housed at Wakefield, decided to replace the Springfield Marine bases with a tapered base A. O. Niedner was installing, which was highly recommended by Townsend Whelen. Niedner?s shop was only 5.2 miles from the Wakefield rifle range as the crow flies.

Niedner modified WRA#2 mounts to accept his tapered bases. The result was a scope that never changed its zero. It was the perfect scope mounting system for a sniper rifle. Past, and then current, members of the rifle team would later use Niedner's mounting system when they developed specifications for the sniper rifle the Marines would use in France. They made other modifications to facilitate ease of use in combat situations. The result was the Marine Mount.

5148751488 {Next picture shown in next post due to 5 pic limitation}

Note the nomenclature of the individual components of the Marine Mount. Even with the modifications, it still closely resembles the OEM WRA #2 mount.

{ Picture shown in next post due to 5 pic limitation}

A simple way to think of mounts and bases is that the mount holds the scope and the base is permanently attached to the rifle. The mount clamps onto the base as the means to attach or detach the scope. If that clamp gives in any way, the zero of your rifle will change. Nothing would be worse than a sniper rifle that changes zero from day to day.

Anyone claiming WRA was confused by the names of their goods is confused themselves. WRA covered over 200 acres of shops that built the finest weapons of that day, or this. Their 22,000 employees were highly skilled professionals and engineers who were far from being "confused". They were the best in the business of firearms, and without peer.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-17-2023, 10:39
These are the pictures for the previous post in order of presentation.

5148951490

cplnorton
02-17-2023, 06:35
Jim, I do not agree with a lot of your research. I think you are missing a lot of info in your study that changes quite a lot of the info you have posted.

But you are using others research on post without their permission, or crediting where you found it.

This is Andrew's photo, that is his watermark for the Archival Research Group and you are not giving him credit.

51513


This is actually my personal photo I took of my own personal property. I gave it to Tim to post it on the USMCweaponry.com website. You can see that watermark in the lower right hand corner. Tim worked really hard to put that info our for free to the public. I am going to make Tim aware you are using his photo without permission. He can pursue it however he feels fit, but I suggest you take it down. You should not use watermarked photos without permission. They also should be cited. It's professional courtesy to ask someone to use their pictures since this is not your research. Especially since you know where it came from and it was from me.

51512

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-17-2023, 07:35
I think Andrew's watermark does give him credit. Isn't that the purpose of a watermark? I have a lot of respect for what Andrew is doing, and he deserves all the credit for his work. If I have offended you, Andrew, I apologize.

As for you, remember this?

51516

That is a photo of Sgt. Leslie D. LaValley taken at OSD and existed only in his photo album until I posted it on this forum. Rather than a watermark, I put Belleau in the lower right corner using Paint. It seems you have taken credit for a photo I posted, and since it came from my post, you had to know I posted it. This is the original photo as it appears in LaValley's photo album. Show us the photo you got from NARA.

Note the absence of the word Belleau.

51519

By the way, Tim was wrong on every aspect of the photo. You need to clean your own house - a lot.

- - - Updated - - -

I almost forgot. I don't remember where I got that photo; but if Tim did it, Tim gets credit for the base photo, as I did the annotations.

cplnorton
02-17-2023, 07:40
Jim, as I said I don't agree with the majority of your research. Respectfully you have confused a lot of data, and missing even more.

I have been personally through the La Valley artifacts, as I posted on another discussion.

If anyone wants to research this, I highly recommend you conduct your own research on this topic and come up to your own conclusions.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
02-17-2023, 08:39
Respectfully, I can tell from your posts that you have a lot of research to do before you understand the entire story. The fact that you think I am confused just indicates how far you have to go. I have also been through LaValley's artifacts, but they are just a small part of the story.

Again, I wholeheartedly agree that everyone should research every statement we post. As anyone can see, there is always room for more information.