Named Scope Cases

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

By now, most of you know that Norton and I disagree on which bases were used when assembling the WWI Marine sniper rifles. Disagreement is healthy, as the end result is typically a better perspective of any issue. You can read Norton’s version here:

https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-sights/winchester-marine-mount-a5-usmc-army-sniper-rifles-wwi/

Pay particular attention to the documents Mr. Norton claims proves the Marine sniper rifles had "Springfield Marine" bases. I have read and re-read these documents, and nowhere in any of them does it say the Marines ordered "Springfield Marine" bases for their rifles. Please judge for yourself.

I am going to present an alternative path to determining what bases were on these rifles. There were three Marine orders for scopes to be mounted on '03 Springfield’s the Marines supplied. The first order was for A. O. Niedner to install scopes on 1500 rifles. But the 5th Regiment was to muster in Philly in June, so Major Holcomb needed enough scoped rifles to equip the 5th before they departed for France. Major McDougal and Major Daulty Smith contracted with Niedner to scope 150 rifles at Philly for that purpose. Niedner installed the scopes with modified mounts and Niedner taper bases on 150 rifles and went on vacation. Unfortunately for Niedner, he was investigated for making treasonous statements, and that ended his involvement with the Marines. Subsequently, two orders were placed with WRA to mount scopes on a total of 750 rifles, with all 750 rifles being delivered to the Marines by 22 Oct 17.

No document exists that details the type of scope bases installed by WRA, other than comments such as "as approved by Holcomb" or "special Marine mounting" or "Marine Standard Mount". Thus the task at hand is to determine, by alternate means, exactly which bases were ordered. Holcomb approved modified #2 mounts and Niedner taper bases for the Niedner rifles. If the 500 rifle order from WRA were to be as approved by Holcomb, they had to be Marine Mounts with Niedner tapered bases, as there was no reason, or advantage, to change to a substandard OEM WRA #2 mount with thumbscrew "Springfield Marine" bases he and others had been replacing on rifle team rifles from as far back as 1916.

I first looked at the available documentation, which was limited at the time. Thanks to Smokeeaterpilot, there are plenty of documents available now. Since I could find no document detailing which bases were ordered, I looked closely at what accessories were ordered by both the Marines and the Army in their orders for sniper rifles "just like the Marines". It was what was not listed as replacement parts and tools that stood out. No thumbscrews were ordered with the rifles even though it was well known that the thumbscrews were easily lost, which made the rifle useless as a scoped sniper rifle. They weren't included in the order because the scope mounts had no thumbscrews.

I decided to look at the one item that exists, to any degree, today. The existing named scope cases and their scopes. These are the issued sniper scope cases that the sniper adorned with his name and matching rifle serial number. The scopes still have their mounts intact, which indicates which bases were installed.

We have all seen these scopes and cases on eBay, gun shows, and auction sites. I have owned three of them myself. I sold two of them, regrettably. I noticed that many of the scope cases being sold were emblazoned with the original sniper’s name and the sniper rifle’s serial number. I began to collect all the data I could find on the scope cases, including pictures. I traced each of the snipers, from the scope case names, through their Marine military careers using the Marine Muster Rolls on Ancestry.com. I discovered they all congregated at two locations at the same time. One location was OSD, which I expected. The second location was Guantanamo Bay, Cuba (GITMO), which I had not expected. I also noticed that the GITMO Commanding Officer was none other than Maj. Garland Fay, the fabled Captain of the 1916 Marine Rifle Team, considered by many as one of the finest teams ever assembled. The rest of the search was a long period of searching for the reason all those snipers were gathering at GITMO. I quickly found the following article.

The prospective snipers being gleaned from the Caribbean were making a stopover at Guant?namo. After much searching, I discovered that Major Fay had started a sniper school at Deer Point, Cuba, location of the GITMO rifle range.


51541I also unearthed a plan by four Marine rifle team members to design the best sniper rifle possible, and start a sniper school at GITMO that would be used to recruit expert riflemen from the Caribbean Marines to be snipers. Since OSD wasn?t opening until June 1918, Major Fay started a sniper school at GITMO in March 1918. Fay was training snipers while waiting for the proposed OSD Scout-Observer-Sniper School to open its doors. Oddly enough, this can be proven using a sniper’s death roll.

51542

Pvt. Ipson was at Deer Point during the period 27 Mar 18 to 29 April 18 and L. A. Clapp was a Marine rifle team coach also at GITMO. Pvt. Ipson received his sniper training at GITMO under Major Fay. Leslie LaValley's diary gives day to day records of the training from the day of initial issue of the sniper rifles, which was 4 Mar 18.

All intriguing, but this post is about the scope cases, the scopes, and their serial numbers. I have accumulated a substantial list of known snipers and their rifle serial numbers, about half from scope cases, with the rest from other sources such as museums, archives, and various books and documents. The serial numbers form three groups, the last two groupings being less distinct than the first. The first grouping of serial numbers roughly covers 610,000 to 625,000. These are thought to be the Niedner scoped rifles. The second group is from 638,000 to 662,000, and is believed to be the 1st WRA order for 500 rifles to be scoped. The third group is loosely defined as 670,000 to 695,000, and is believed to be the 2nd WRA order for 250 rifles to be scoped by WRA ordered by Major McDougal.

The interesting part of the named scope cases is that they all contained scopes fitted with Marine Mounts for Niedner taper bases. I did see one scope case on eBay that contained a scope with #2 mounts with ?Springfield Marine? thumbscrew type bases. Its micro-dial graduations were painted white, which means the scope was made after 1926; so that case was not included in the count.

Using the Marine Muster Rolls, I tracked every named scope case sniper back to either Gitmo, OSD, or both. It really wasn't necessary, as I only needed to verify one sniper rifle issued that day as having Niedner taper bases. If one rifle had them, they all had them. Anyone who has been in the Marine Corps can tell you that in the Marines, everything is exactly alike down to your skivys. I suspect they don't have Short Arm Inspections anymore in the new Marine Corps, but in my day it was a pretty regular occurrence. Well, I got caught not wearing skivys during a Short Arm Inspection at Camp Margarita. I was severely punished. If you have never spit shined a filthy trash can, you haven't lived. If you have never stood at attention on the parade deck at Camp Margarita with your Johnson swaying in the breeze, you haven't lived. Back to business.

From LaValley?s diary, I knew he was issued a sniper rifle, scope and case on 4 Mar 18 at GITMO. I located his relatives, specifically his son, Jim LaValley, now deceased. LaValley's scope and case had become available for sale, and a friend of mine wanted to buy it. Jim had sold his dad’s scope and case, but he was able to confirm the scope and case for sale was indeed his dad's. That scope had Niedner taper bases. The rifles issued on 4 Mar 18 had Niedner taper bases, not thumbscrew #2 mounts with "Springfield Marine" bases as claimed by some confused individuals.

I am going to post pictures of some of the named scope cases along with the names of the sniper to whom it was issued. All of these scope cases contained scopes with Niedner taper bases - no exceptions. I am going to post only ten cases, because it is a pain in the rear to set them up for posting, as I am no computer geek.

Let us begin.


Sgt. Leslie D. LaValley - Rifle was issued on 4 Mar 18 at Deer Point, Cuba by Major Fay when LaValley gave up his promotion to Corporal to be a sniper. Snipers were Privates. LaValley became a sniper Instructor at OSD before he went to France with the 11th Regiment.

51543
The serial number of LaValley's rifle places it in the second group, which is believed to be the 500 rifle order Major Holcomb placed with WRA, for riflles with Marine Mounts and taper bases "as approved by Holcomb". Holcomb would become Commander of the 2/6, and Major Douglas McDougal would assume his position as Inspector of Target Practice.





Gunner Steve Estock - Rifle was issued on 4 Mar 18 at Deer Point, Cuba by Major Fay. Gunner Estock would later become an officer after attending OSD’s Officer Candidate School, as well as being an Instructor at the S-O-S School. Estock was from Alabama, and lived near my hometown, but I never knew him. Note the film inside the cap that has elevation data for the rifle. Not all the cases had this film.


51544












Pvt. William W. Ipson - Rifle was issued on 4 Mar 18. Ipson would later die of pneumonia in France. Ipson received his sniper training at Deer Point, Cuba in the first class. Ipson's death certificate conclusively indicates that there was indeed a sniper school at Deer Point, Cuba as shown above. The serial number of Ipson's sniper rifle places it in the second group of the WRA order for 500 rifles to be scoped. The scope has Niedner taper bases.


51545


I ave reached my pic limit - next post.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Pvt. Max Brunstein - This rifle is part of a matched set. The collector, one of the nicest guys I met, owns the rifle, scope, and case of Max Brunstein. The serial number of the rifle places it in the second group or the 500 rifle order from WRA. I have photos of the rifle, scope and case, and the rear Niedner taper base has "wings" that obscure the serial number. The serial number is stamped into the stock just in front of the single rear crossbolt, which indicates the rifle retains its original stock. It is one of three matched sets I found owned by collectors. Except for the serial number, the rifles of all three sets are identical in every respect, and the scopes have the Marine Mounts with modified #2 mounts on taper bases. Please note that the third group, or the 250 rifle WRA order, consists of rifles without wings. WRA corrected their mistake.


51546




Cpl. Melvin H. VanCamp - This rifle is in the second group, and it was part of the 500 rifle WRA order. VanCamp was in M Co, 3rd Bat, 13th Regiment. This is one of several cases that has two serial numbers written on it. I used the serial number in the cap.


51548





Cpl. Thomas A. Stuckey - This rifle is in the second group which is the 500 rifle order from WRA. The serial number is written on the side of the case.


51549




Pvt. John E. Kennedy - The rifle was issued on 4 Mar 18, and was a Niedner rifle, and has the second lowest serial number I found on a scope case. The writing was unreadable under ordinary light. Alternative Lighting (AL) was used to make the writing visible. This was done from a photograph. Ain't that cool?


51550




Pvt. H. S. Smith - This rifle has the lowest serial number I found on a named scope case, and it is definitely a Niedner rifle. The odd part is that Pvt. Smith didn't get to GITMO until mid-May of 1918, so the rifles were definitely not issued in order of serial number.


BTW, all these scope cases are of the 8-loop "Penguin" variety. I did locate two 6-loop cases whose serial numbers placed them in the third group of 250 rifles ordered from WRA by Major McDougal.

51551


I reached my pic limit - on to next post.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

9. Pvt. Gilbert C. Chandler - This one is from page 12 of Senich's book. Pvt. Chandler would become Lt. Chandler before he left OSD. The relatively high serial number places this rifle squarely in the third group of the 250 rifles ordered from WRA by McDougal. I am ripping this photo straight from Senich's book. I hope he doesn't mind.

51552





Pvt. Frank H. Sweet - This is the one I have been waiting for. It is 3:40 am, and I am sleepy and Boo is snoring. I wanted to give equal space to the other camp that believes all the cases were 6-loop cases. This is one of only two I found. I didn't take this picture, but I put a watermark on it just for fun. This is a scope and case I wish I owned. The owner is a friend, but might not be after he sees my watermark on his picture! As can be seen, this scope has Niedner taper base receptacles and Marine Mounts.


51553


If you are not convinced by now that all the Marine sniper rifles had Niedner taper bases, I am truly disappointed in my presentation. I have a bunch more of these named scope cases, including another beautiful matched set owned by a prominent collector. What I didn't find in my long arduous search was a single named scope case with a scope that had WRA #2 mounts with thumbscrew "Springfield Marine" bases. Gee, I wonder why?

Good night, all.

[cplnorton]

I will not argue this out, but I will post one thing. Because this is beating a dead horse.

When the Marines and Army ordered the Marine Mount A5's off Winchester, they did not order spare Thumbscrews on their initial contracts. This would cause a lot of problems later as they were lost in the field, especially in the AEF.

First Winchester did not call them thumbscrews in WWI. They actually called them "Clamp Screws."

So because the initial contracts did not have spare clamp screws (thumbscrews), many of the A5 scopes lost them and became unserviceable. So Supply became desperate to order replacement Clamp Screws (thumbscrews) off Winchester.

In the end Winchester sends 500 clamp screws (thumbscrews) for the Marine Mount A5's scopes to Ordnance. Because neither branch ordered them on the first initial contracts.

First the Army ordering Marine Mount A5's made by Winchester.

https://i.imgur.com/t7FGJr2.jpg

This is only one page of many from this whole series of documents where Ordnance was desperately seeking Clamp Screws (thumbscrews) for their Marine mount A5's. There is a lot more to this that Andrew nor myself have ever made public.

https://i.imgur.com/0w8QCkp.jpg

If you have any argument that a clamp screw was not a thumbscrew, it spells it out clearly here that it was.

https://i.imgur.com/Pxabo3n.jpg

[cplnorton]

Andrew and myself have pulled thousands of pages of unpublished WWI Sniper docs from the National Archives. For every one doc we post, there are thousands more we aren't posting. No one has ever seen any of these docs, that is why I keep on politely trying to tell Jim there is a substantial amount of research he has not seen.

It is extremely clear in the actual sniper docs there were two completely different styles of A5 Sniper rifles. Both had the nickname of Marine, which has confused researchers ever since. But once you get the WRA, Marine, and Army docs together it's very clear that the Marine mount made by Winchester had clamping screws (thumbscrews). The one made by the Marine Philly Depot had a tapered base without clamping screws (the Mann Niedner).

Two completely different scope mounting systems, both nicknamed Marine, both ran at the same time. It's simple as that.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

What am I missing here? Respectfully, neither of those documents states that the Army ordered rifles scoped with A5 scopes with "Springfield Marine" bases, and the order for missing thumbscrews was for rifles the Army already possessed (they had to have time to lose the thumbscrews). If this is the basis for your claiming the Marines ordered rifles with thumbscrew bases, your research is seriously flawed. The Army started issuing scoped rifles to soldiers in 1903 or 1904. They must have had many hundreds of A5 scoped rifles on WRA bases by 1918. The "Springfield Marine" base is the commercial WRA base for 7.2" spacing. There is nothing "special" about it. Anyone ordering a scope mounted on their '03 by WRA on 7.2" spacing would get the "Springfield Marine" base. The "Standard Marine Corps mounting" was the Niedner taper based modified mounts. You have been guessing all this time.

Pulling a ton of documents doesn't mean squat unless you can find one that proves your point. If you have one that does so, post the thing.

I was aware of the WRA name for the thumbscrews (look at my posts), but the readers probably understand thumbscrews better. I will continue to call them thumbscrews.

I hope you are having a nice day. :)

[cplnorton]

Unfortunately nothing of what Jim just posted is correct. The Army did not have A5 Sniper rifles prior to their first order in January 1918, other than a handful tested in 1914. The Army hated the A5 scope as a sniper scope and only ordered them because it was a last resort.

This topic is seriously a dead horse. The only reason I am even posting this much is so the reader knows he needs to study this past what Jim is saying and come to his own conclusions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

This excerpt was taken from the 1904 Army Small Arms Firing Regulations. It verifies that the Army was issuing scoped rifles to soldiers since 1904, which pre-dates the A5 scope. When the A5 became available, their rifle teams surely used A5 scoped rifles, because the Marines, and others, were using scopes in matches at least as early as 1908, when Daulty Smith won the Nationals with a scoped rifle, not an A5. I have never seen an Army rifle team with Warner-Swasey scopes. That doesn't mean they didn't exist, just that I have never seen one.

My point is that the Army must have had a plethora of A5 scoped rifles by 1918. The A5 was the best scope of its day. It would be difficult to grasp the idea that the numerous National Guard and Army rifle teams would ignore the A5. But I will admit, I have no irrefutable evidence one way or the other.

When I first found this, I was surprised. I wonder what scopes the Army used, or for that matter, what scope Daulty Smith used. I have to constantly remind myself that my search is for 150 serial numbers so I don't get sidetracked from my original venture. I made a living for ten years researching the bacteria that is responsible for farts to burn. I am not kidding. I mentioned this to Michael Petrov during a phone conversation many years ago, and after he finally quit laughing, he asked me to put my skills to use in finding the serial numbers of the 150 Niedner rifles. I figured it would take me a few weeks at most. I am still looking.

51575

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

... The Army did not have A5 Sniper rifles prior to their first order in January 1918, other than a handful tested in 1914. The Army hated the A5 scope as a sniper scope and only ordered them because it was a last resort....

How could you possibly know this?

[lyman]

during that time frame was the Army using Warner Swasey scopes?

[nf1e]

No meat left on this horse to beat. Research vs hearsay, I will lean toward actual research every time because the subject is of some interest.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

during that time frame was the Army using Warner Swasey scopes?

I don't know the answer to your question. I can't picture the Calvary galloping down the road with one of those monstrosities dangling from their saddles. Can you visualize John Wayne pulling one of those from a scabbard? I had one, and shooting it was painful. It would suck your eyeball out one way while recoil shoved your shoulder the other.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No meat left on this horse to beat. Research vs hearsay, I will lean toward actual research every time because the subject is of some interest.

I am yet to see any actual research. Just unsupported comments on both sides of the "did the Army have A5's" issue. I do look forward to seeing the document that says the Army "hated the A5". I don't believe anyone could prove the Army had no A5's prior to 1918.

The original posts show physically existing objects. No amount of research can refute physical fact. If I have a blue marble, no amount of research can change the marble's color.

Everybody smile. It's a great day to be alive!

[nf1e]

Returning to observation mode only.

[cplnorton]

+++
I am yet to see any actual research. Just unsupported comments on both sides of the "did the Army have A5's" issue. I do look forward to seeing the document that says the Army "hated the A5". I don't believe anyone could prove the Army had no A5's prior to 1918.


There is nothing but documents at the Archives of how much the Army did not like the A5 scope. They only bought them because there was no other choice at the time and they were desperate.

The US Army first trialed about a dozen A5 scopes with 6'' spacing at Fort Sill in 1914. The Army hated the scope and hated the 6'' spacing. They said it was too fragile and not for sniping. So they didn't order any.

In March 1917, Winchester writes a letter to the Army, Navy, and Marines and says we know you did not like the A5's you tested back in 1914, can you provide us a copy of the report of why you hated them, to see if we can do anything to modify the A5 so you guys might buy some?

The Army supplied the report on why they hated the A5 scope, and the easiest thing to fix was the 6'' spacing. So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

The Marines were the first to buy the new 7.2'' spacing in July 1917. Well the Army was desperate for sniper rifles and by Dec 1917 they knew they had no other choice than to buy A5's. So they wanted to make sure they got the new 7.2'' spacing that the Marines had got a few months previous, so they made a big deal that they had to be the exact same rifles as the Marines. So WRA started to call the 7.2'' spacing "Marine" to separate it from the 6'' spacing that the Army hated.

There was NEVER a time the Army liked the A5 scope, and there were NEVER any A5 Scopes purchased by the US Army prior to Jan 1918 other than about the dozen tested in 1914.

I'm going to post just ONE page that proves that EVEN Winchester knew the Army hated the scope, and WRA hadn't sold any of them prior to March 1917, other than the roughly dozen for testing. Again for Every one page I post, there are thousands more I am not posting that I am describing in my statements.


https://i.imgur.com/kL8kITa.jpg

This is the start of the 2nd page, but I cut it off. Because I'm saving a lot of the story for a book.

https://i.imgur.com/Kh6B2GX.jpg

[cplnorton]

during that time frame was the Army using Warner Swasey scopes?

Yes, I can say they absolutory were. They were not only using it, but they were constantly building new ones until the summer of 1918.

The only reason the Army bought A5 snipers starting in Jan 1918 was because of two reasons.

1) They ordred several thousand Warner Swasey scopes at the beginning of the war in 1917. But the lenses of the WS were made by Kodak, and there was a shortage of the material to make the lenses. So Warner Swasey said it would be a while before they could supply the scopes Ordnance ordered. So Ordnance had no choice but to look elsewhere for scopes, so the A5 scope was chosen becasue there were basically no other options available. Ordnance didn't finally receive the WS scopes until the summer of 1918. Nearly six months after they had bought the first A5's.

2) The 2nd reason is the Army actually didn't like US made scopes at all. They loved the German made glass of the time such as Zeiss and Goertz. So the Army wanted German Glass on their M1903's. But the war started in Europe in 1914 and they could not order any. So they decided they would try to make their own version of the Goerz Scope. From basically 1914 to 1923, they tried over and over to copy the German Glass. This was ALWAYS their first choice.

If the Army had their way, they would have had M1903's with Goerz German scopes on them. But it didn't work out that way. Even though they were not that fond of the Warner Swasey either, they saw the WS as superior to the A5.

So you are correct that the Warner Swasey was the official sniper rifle of the US Army till the summer of 1918 when the last ones were actually made. It also explains why they didn't have A5 sniper rifles, because the WS rifle they already had was seen as better.

But because a series of unfortunate events, the Army had no choice but to buy Winchester A5 scopes in the Marine mount with thumbscrews starting in Jan 1918.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The Army supplied the report on why they hated the A5 scope, and the easiest thing to fix was the 6'' spacing. So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

The Marines were the first to buy the new 7.2'' spacing in July 1917. Well the Army was desperate for sniper rifles and by Dec 1917 they knew they had no other choice than to buy A5's. So they wanted to make sure they got the new 7.2'' spacing that the Marines had got a few months previous, so they made a big deal that they had to be the exact same rifles as the Marines. So WRA started to call the 7.2'' spacing "Marine" to separate it from the 6'' spacing that the Army hated.

This is Sgt. Victor Czegka's rifle with which he won the Wimbledon Cup during the 1909 National Matches at Camp Perry. Please note the 7.2" spacing and the Niedner type tapered bases. It was 8 years before you claim WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing. 1908 was the first year for the '03 at the National Matches, but you can rest assured that some of the '03's had 7.2" spacing. I can post a few '03's on 7.2" spacing that pre-date 1917 if you desire, including your own rifle.

51576

This Army rifle is serial number 359062, manufactured about 10-Jan-1909, and this picture was taken from the WRA files at the Cody Museum. Anyone can download it, and I left the Identifier on the picture to ease locating it. Note the 7.2" spacing on this Army rifle. The annotation is as downloaded from WRA files.

51595

Your letter does not say what you claim, nor in the way you claim. I am even more convinced that you do not have the documents to back up your claims. Not one of the documents you have posted supports your claim that either the Army, or the Marines, ever ordered scoped rifles from WRA with "Springfield Marine" bases. The preponderance of physical evidence posted above indicates the exact opposite. The Marines ordered their rifles as Major Holcomb and company desired, with Niedner taper bases.

I am not trying to be rude, but you need to find a knowledgeable person you trust, have them assess your research, and give you an honest opinion. It is called peer review, and your work seriously needs it. Good luck with your book.

[cplnorton]

Jim all the data you just posted isn't correct.

The rifle you identify as the one Marine Victor Czegkas won the 1909 Wimbledon Cup, was not his rifle. I have supplied that pic so I don't know if you are just taking another one of mine or you actually found it. If you found it go back and look at the citation for it again. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself or I can correct you if you can't provide the actual citation bc its just one of my pics you found. It is available online so the citation is available.

The Winchester rifle you identify as 359062 is not correct either. That is not the serial of that rifle. That rifle you just pictured is a different serial number. So I'm giving you the opportunity again to correct the serial number or I can correct it for you.

I know there is no amount of evidence I can ever post that would make you admit you aren't correct. I'm not posting it for you, I'm posting it for the reader so they know this info you are posting isn't correct and they need to research it themselves.

Post your findings when you go back and research these two rifles and I will tell you if you are correct or not.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Mea Culpa. The serial number is 367312. I was looking at the other photo and mistyped. Changes nothing. This is an enlargement of the serial number in the photo. It's an early '03 on 7.2" spacing. You were, and are, wrong when you made the bizarre assertion that WRA created the 7.2" spacing in 1917. How many examples do you need to see before you admit you are wrong?

51583.

I have had that photo of Czegka's rifle for a long time, before your presence on the scene. If I am wrong, I have been wrong for a long time. Whoever owned the rifle, it is still a rifle on 7.2" spacing with the weirdest looking scope I have ever seen. But I am a tough old bird, enlighten me.

Do you really believe WRA created the 7.2" spacing in 1917?

[nf1e]

Like watching a Chinese pinga ponga.

[cplnorton]

The pic you just posted of serial 367312 is not correct either. That is another one of my pics and to a different rifle. I dont believe I have ever shared the original unedited pics of 367312 outside some close friends. But it is not the same rifle Jim posted earlier. I zoomed in on that pic to show the spacing but the original full size pic of the rifle it is a hacked up Frankenstein. I have detailed pics of all these rifles you are posting from different angles. I can post the correct serial of the rifle you posted earlier with the high def pics I have not made public when I get home. Unless you have another guess?


On the rifle you identified as Victors rifle he used to win a 1000 yard match in 1909. I shouldn't even have to correct this bc you can look at it and tell it didn't win a 1000 yard match. But Jim is finding my research and not understanding it as I never posted the citation.

Even without the citation can anyone tell me why anyone studying the picture would know it wasn't one used in 1909 to win a 1000 yard rifle competition?

https://i.imgur.com/dX6zxUj.jpg

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

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

You are way off base, my friend. I downloaded that picture, and others, from the Museum of the West, and the Catalog number is still attached for anyone to go to their website and download it themselves. I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

I see what appears to be a 22 round, and if so, this might be one of Niedner's trick 22 conversions. I will check it out to be certain. Thanks for the info, but it is still a rifle with a 7.2" spacing, which was the reason I posted it. But I suspect you are never going to admit you were wrong.

The 7.2" spacing has been around as long as has the A5 scope, or longer. I can't believe we are even discussing the matter. Have you ever read Jim Howe's gunsmithing book?

Are you OK? You are not making any sense. You are making wild accusations that are baseless, and not actually posting anything germane to the discussion. No one is stealing your stuff. Take a break and relax. This is just a friendly discussion about '03's.

[cplnorton]

Jim I know you didn't zoom in on serial 367312, Because there is no possible way ANYONE can confuse that rifle with the one you posted earlier.

So go ahead and post the unedited pic of 367312. Because if you post the unedited pic of that rife people will know you confuse your data more than if you just admit you found some of my pics and thought they were the same rifle.

I can post an unedited pic of 367312. I will post it when I get home. Anyone will be able to see there is no way to confuse the 2 rifles.

You are also twisting what I said. I never said WRA invented 7.2 spacing in general. I said they invented the bases that were 7.2 spacing for the A5 scope in 1917. Those bases were called Marine by WRA.

Finally you are telling me I am not making any sense. You just posted a .22 rifle stating it won a 1000 yard match. Then you say you have to research it. The rifle is indeed a Niedner built .22 rifle with a scope built by Niedner himself. I have the citation. You found my pic and somehow created a whole story that a Marine used it in 1909 to win a 1000 yard Match.

Reasons exactly like this is why I always make sure to notate your posts that someone reading them should fact check everything you say and come to their own conclusions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

Yes, Steve, you said it.

Someone please download that picture I posted and blow up the serial number. As for the rest of his rant, I have no idea what he is talking about, and he knows it. It is amusing in a way.

You are losing it, Steve. Accusing me of stealing your data is not cool, nor a sign of maturity. I would have to hack into your computer, and my little grandchildren know more about computers than I do. You seem to think that once you download data, that it is yours. I guess it has never occurred to you that other people can download the same public domain data from the same source you did? You are one sad sack.

At one time, I thought you had data that supported your claims in some abstract way. I now realize you have nothing that substantiates your claims. I have no doubt you have numerous documents, but you can't produce any document that definitively supports your position, can you? That is why you continually avoid answering simple, direct questions. You make these off-the-wall assertions, and produce a document or two that you say verifies your position, when in reality, if one reads them as they are written, they do not support anything you say. When called on it, you change the subject with some long-winded diatribe, usually filled with accusations towards whomever is asking for a straight answer.

This is a forum for collectors. We don't trade in gold, or indulge in nefarious acts. We collect weapons for fun, and most of us like to show off our "stuff". I enjoy seeing what others have been lucky enough to acquire. We collectors have a lot in common. We try to help each other. That is why I got involved in the WWI sniper rifle business. I saw a lot of people investing their hard-earned dollars buying suspect rifles. When someone passes out bad information as fact, the collector can lose a lot of money if they act on it. I had a lot of information I had never published. I decided it was time to let other collectors see what I have found, so that they can make sound judgements when they purchase an item. It is as simple as that.

One last note. That 300K series scoped rifle you own has no indicator it was ever a Marine rifle. Not a single one. It may have been a team rifle, but the odds are long that it was a Marine team rifle (there were 80 teams at Camp Perry in 1909). By the way, its scope is on 7.2" spacing. Your rifle is my third example. :)

Have a nice day, Steve. Try to tone it down a bit in future posts. Wild, unsupported accusations are not cool.

[cplnorton]

This Army rifle is serial number 359062, manufactured about 10-Jan-1909, and this picture was taken from the WRA files at the Cody Museum. Anyone can download it, and I left the Identifier on the picture to ease locating it. Note the 7.2" spacing on this Army rifle. The annotation is as downloaded from WRA files.

51577


Mea Culpa. The serial number is 367312. I was looking at the other photo and mistyped. Changes nothing. This is an enlargement of the serial number in the photo. It's an early '03 on 7.2" spacing.

51583.


I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

You can say you zoomed in on serial 367312. But if that was the case, it actually makes your research skills look worse as ANYONE can tell these two rifles are different.

You first claimed the picture was serial 3590962, then tried to pass it off as serial 367312. You also claim 367312 has 7.2'' spacing. But 367312 is not 7.2'' spacing, nor it is the first pic you posted.

It's very easy when you have the unedited pics side by side that these are two different rifles.

The actual serial of the rifle Jim posted is 659062. He misidentified the rifle twice.


https://i.imgur.com/3YdmiNo.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/kPp9vzH.jpg




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

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Norton, if I stole your picture, how did I know where to download it off Museum of the West archives? You act like you are 12 years old.

There are actually three rifles, as shown below, as downloaded off Museum of the West.

51596

51597

51598

Norton is doing this to avoid answering my original question. He does nonsense like this when he realizes he can't answer questions that reveal his faulty "research".

OK, Steve. Enlighten us all, post any document that verifies, specifically, that the Marines and the Army ordered scoped rifles from WRA with "Springfield Marines" bases. You can't do it, can you?

[cplnorton]

If you really did have those pics, and actually thought those two rifles were the same rifle, then that is even worse in my opinion. Because I cannot fathom any researcher not being able to tell those two rifles are different.

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own. I will always make a point on any of your posts to warn people to fact check your info.

I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now. Anyone can go research it anytime. One day we will even publish more on this topic as I have found a considerable more since we first did the website six years ago.

Here is a link to the website that anyone reading this can access and research more.

https://usmcweaponry.com/usmc-m1903-a5-sniper-rifle/

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own.

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. All this posted nonsense, and you still avoided providing us any document that supports your position. I provided mine for all to see and judge for themselves, and I not only encourage people to review what I have presented, I encourage it. According to you, the information I provided should not physically exist, yet it does exist for all to see.


I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now.

You have posted nothing that "proves" your point. You couldn't provide the name of that "96-year-old Marine sniper/runner" you claim to have talked to, because he doesn't exist; and you can't provide any document that proves the Marines or Army ordered sniper rifles with scopes mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases, because no such document exist.

Until next time, get your act together.