Serial Numbers [Archive] - Jouster2 Shooting Forums

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

02-27-2023, 11:34

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

02-28-2023, 02:02

I have added a group of rifles to the chart in their respective positions by serial number. I used only rifles of which I have pictures. All these rifles have Niedner taper based Marine Mounts. They are more than sufficient to prove the Marine's 1st WRA order, for 500 rifles to be scoped, all had taper based Marine Mounts.

I used some matched sets because several show the serial number stamped into the stocks. At least one has a replacement stock, thus no serial number. If you need better pictures, like close-ups, just let me know. All these rifles belong to members of this forum. In the case of Sgt. LaValley's rifle, one collector owns the rifle and another owns the scope and case. Reckon they send each other Christmas cards?

51662

The Rifles;

1. Sgt. LaValley's rifle
51663

2. Maj. Frank Z. Becker's rifle
51664

3. Pvt. Max Brunstein's rifle
51665

4. Pvt. William W. Ipson's rifle
51666

I reached my picture limit. I will post the last one later today. I hope the chart approach makes sense to you. It is a nice way to look at large amounts of data at once. Even a novice can see the three groups formed by the data. If you have any questions, just ask and I will try to answer. I will address the third group tomorrow.

Enjoy.

Jim

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

02-28-2023, 02:21

The Picture of the last rifle.

5. Unknown Sniper - Matched Set
51667

This rifle shows use in the field. It is a beautiful rifle.

Just for grins, I can prove that a specific sniper rifle from the 1st WRA order was used by a 5th Regiment sniper (name and rifle SN). This fact leads me to believe that Pershing never returned the 90 (90 of 96) sniper rifles he took from the 4th Brigade Marines, and the stateside Marines shipped replacements, from the 1st WRA order, to the 4th Brigade Marines. It's food for thought.

cplnorton

02-28-2023, 06:19

I'm not going to argue this out, because it's beating a dead horse. But I want others who might read this to know there is a lot more data out there so please conduct your own research.

Jim's numbers are only 1/3 of the actual contracts of A5's during the war. He is missing a substantial amount of data.

I have found serials in the 200k, 300k, 400k, and 600k range. I have also found serials in the 800k, 900k range which could have also been produced during the war.

Jim is trying to build charts and graphs based on a handful of rifles, when there were likely a couple thousand.

The real truth is, no one can build any reliable ranges of serial ranges as no one knows even 1% of the the total serials.

There were 3 different makers of A5 Sniper rifles in WWI. There were for sure 2 variations of rifles, and there is a chance there could even be a third.

I'm not going to argue this out further than this, but if you are reading this, please fact check everything...

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-01-2023, 12:11

I'm not going to argue this out, because it's beating a dead horse. But I want others who might read this to know there is a lot more data out there so please conduct your own research.

Yet you argue anyway.

Jim's numbers are only 1/3 of the actual contracts of A5's during the war. He is missing a substantial amount of data.

You always make these profound statements, yet you NEVER provide a single iota of evidence to support your statements.

I have found serials in the 200k, 300k, 400k, and 600k range. I have also found serials in the 800k, 900k range which could have also been produced during the war.

I don't believe you. That is a ridiculous claim. Prove me wrong. If that old 300K series rifle you have is one of your "serials", please pardon me while I chuckle a bit. There's not one iota of evidence it is even a Marine rifle, much less a sniper rifle, other than your desperate longings for it to be one.

Jim is trying to build charts and graphs based on a handful of rifles, when there were likely a couple thousand.

Jim DID build a chart based on a handful of rifles. So, how do you explain their existence? According to you, they shouldn't exist.

The real truth is, no one can build any reliable ranges of serial ranges as no one knows even 1% of the the total serials.

Have you ever heard of statistical analysis? Let's see...100 is 1% of 10,000. You are now claiming there were in excess of 10,000 sniper rifles made for the Marine Corps? Why do you persist in making insidious claims?

There were 3 different makers of A5 Sniper rifles in WWI. There were for sure 2 variations of rifles, and there is a chance there could even be a third.

We are not talking about all the A5 sniper rifles in WWI. We are talking about Marine sniper rifles. Quite frankly, with your history of making absurd claims, I don't believe you. Prove me wrong.

I'm not going to argue this out further than this, but if you are reading this, please fact check everything...

I thought you said you weren't going to argue this out - period (1st sentence of your post). How can they fact-check your information if they don't know what it is? I posted mine - post yours. What are you afraid of?

Did you not see the part of my post about not making this thread personal?:eusa_dance:

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-01-2023, 11:37

The third group represents the 2nd WRA order for 250 rifles to be scoped by WRA, placed by Major Douglas McDougal. I have no matched sets from this group, so I will rely on named scope cases for validation. Have you ever wondered where the named scope cases came from?

In the fifties, the Marine Corps offered a lot of cases with scopes for sale to the general public. An arms dealer by the name of L. Bender bought the entire lot, and sold them at gun shows and by mail order. All the cases contained scopes with modified Marine Mounts with their taper base receptacles. A number of the cases had the names of the snipers written or carved into them. In the early days, the cases with names on them were deemed inferior, and the "clean" cases were more desirable. That has changed. A secondary source of the named cases was the families of the old snipers who kept their scopes, such as the LaValley scope and case sold by his son.

I will use three examples, although I only need a single example to prove my point, as all the rifles in the 3rd group, or 2nd WRA order, were identical. Surely, no one would argue that point.

I will use the named scope cases of John Damrow, Melvin VanCamp, and Gilbert C.Chandler for verification. A picture of Chandler's inner scope case lid can be found below and on page 12 of Peter Senich's book, "U.S. Marine Corps Scout-Sniper", undoubtedly the best book on Marine sniping ever published. VanCamp's case had a second serial number written on the exterior of the case, and it is this second serial number represented here. I do not have a picture of John Damrow's scope case, but Senich verifies its existence on page 12 of his book.

51668

The scope lid from Page 12 of Senich.

51669

The 2nd WRA order of 250 rifles to be scoped consisted of rifles with Marine Mounts on Niedner type taper bases. Case closed.

Thanks for your attention.

cplnorton

03-03-2023, 09:16

The presentation continues. I have been looking for those 150 serial numbers for over ten years. I have accumulated a large number of them, with even more to come, hopefully. We are going to look at a simple plot of the serial numbers I have accumulated versus their successive number in the series, or list. This gives us a plot that shows us spacial similarities between the serial numbers in a visual form. We are looking for anything that indicates three distinct orders.

Essentially, this plot should indicate groups of rifles as, more or less, a straight line. SA didn't ship rifles in exact sequential order. There is a variation in serial numbers within groups of rifles due to methods of packing, rifles lost that did not pass final inspection, etc. The absent serial numbers will cause a deviation in the straight line that occurs if all the rifles are in exact sequence. I believe the plot depicted clearly indicates the three orders for scoped rifles, Niedner's, the 1st WRA order for 500 rifles, and the 2nd WRA order for 250 rifles. Judge for yourselves.

51653

There is a lot posted here that is not accurate. Jim's quantities on the number of rifles are not correct. 2nd the rifles that WRA mounted for the Marines, he is not correct on the origin they came from. Third, Winchester never made the Mann Niedner tapered mount. Fourth, I have found serial ranges way outside this 600k range for the Mann Niedner.

But regardless I just want to show why this chart will not work. Jim claims because rifles came from Springfield basically in serial blocks, he can tell just by a serial number who made that Sniper rifle and when.

But the facts are you cannot assume anything just by a serial number. Because you find docs like this that show WRA received serial numbers from the same ranges at Random.

These are rifles that Winchester received from Springfield Armory, and fall into the serial ranges that Jim claims that he can clearly decipher whether WRA or Niedner made the Sniper rifle. BTW every rifle listed below came in AFTER Winchester had already shipped the Marines all their Marine Mount A5's to France. Which WRA shipped them by October 1917.

Before some claims this Doc isn't Winchester, here are the notations from the SRS, this is just a portion of the doc. Winchester found these rifles in March 1919 at the Factory and wrote Army Ordnance asking what do with them.

628116 032619INSP OF ORDNANCE WRA CO
661778 032619INSP OF ORDNANCE WRA CO
626851 032619INSP OF ORDNANCE WRA CO
etc...

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

cplnorton

03-03-2023, 09:26

The truth of the matter is I found serial number 639,6xx built into a brand new sniper rifle in 1940. So just because you find a serial from 1917, it doesn't mean it was built as a sniper in 1917.

The Marines built Mann Niedner rifles at the Philly Depot from 1918 to 1941, and maybe all the way into 1944. A serial number on a scope case doesn't necessarily mean it was a rifle built in WWI, especially when the Marines built them for over 20 years.

cplnorton

03-03-2023, 09:43

51662

Just so this is clear. Niedner built his Sniper rifles in May/June 1917. Jim's chart above shows that the 620k range has to be a Niedner rifle. Because that serial range is closest to that date, and SA shipped those serials in blocks.

But the doc I showed above (from WRA) shows SA did not ship their rifles necessarily in order. SA shipped those 620k serials a full six months after Niedner had built his last sniper rifle. So just because you have a 620k sniper, does not mean it is automatically a Niedner built rifle.

These are the dates the 620k rifles shipped to Winchester from SA. A full six months after Niedner built his last rifle.

628116 sent from SA on 12/18/17
620463 sent from SA on 1/24/18

As I stated I found that you cannot assume anything about serial ranges and the A5 snipers. It does not work when you actually have the sniper docs to compare it to.

.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 12:15

Just so this is clear. Niedner built his Sniper rifles in May/June 1917. Jim's chart above shows that the 620k range has to be a Niedner rifle. Because that serial range is closest to that date, and SA shipped those serials in blocks.

The day Niedner started his work at Philly, SA manufactured 648698, so we know that rifle, as well as any SN higher, can be eliminated from the Niedner rifles. Your 628116 was manufactured on or about 18 Aug 1916, and 620463 was manufactured on or about 11 Jan 1916. Now we know when they were finally shipped, but not the reason. What has that have to do with anything?

But the doc I showed above (from WRA) shows SA did not ship their rifles necessarily in order. SA shipped those 620k serials a full six months after Niedner had built his last sniper rifle. So just because you have a 620k sniper, does not mean it is automatically a Niedner built rifle.

I believe I stated SA did not ship in sequential order. But you fail to grasp the fact that each of the three orders consisted of rifles with slightly different characteristics. The Niedner rifles did not have wings. The 2nd Order had wings with the serial numbers stamped into the stock. The 2nd WRA order rifles were identical to the Niedner rifles, but had serial numbers that physically eliminated them as Niedner rifles by manufacturing dates. They all had their Niedner type taper bases soldered to the rifle receiver and barrel. And so they formed three distinct groups - not a coincidence.

You are grasping at straws because I believe you are finally realizing you are wrong.

By the way, you have a 300K series rifle you blatantly claim to be a Marine sniper rifle without one iota of provenance. It doesn't even have any characteristics of even being a Marine rifle. Yet you are disturbed by sequential numbers of a tightly grouped set of rifles. My, my.

These are the dates the 620k rifles shipped to Winchester from SA. A full six months after Niedner built his last rifle.

628116 sent from SA on 12/18/17
620463 sent from SA on 1/24/18

Do you have a document to back up your assertion? Do people on other forums not ask you to back up your wild assertions with some form of proof, such as the documents you claim to possess, but never post?

As I stated I found that you cannot assume anything about serial ranges and the A5 snipers. It does not work when you actually have the sniper docs to compare it to.

First of all, I am assuming nothing, as those are real rifles with all the characteristics of a Niedner rifle. It is you who "assumed" that old 300K rifle you own is a WWI Marine sniper rifle, with zero evidence of it being so. By the way, I saw your post on CMP where you compare it to LaValley's rifle and make the silly claim that if you had an Optical Ray Filter, your old 300K rifle would be identical to LaValley's. You didn't even notice the absence of a Grasshopper on Lavalley's Modified Marie Mount rifle on Niedner type taper bases. Now that has got to be a bit embarrassing. I have told you, and told you, you cannot use a side view photo comparison to prove anything. Pay attention.

"...sniper docs to compare it to".

Are those the "docs" you never post for others to see and judge?

As in any court trial, it is the totality of the evidence that counts. You lose.

nf1e

03-04-2023, 02:51

Why am I reminded of two cats with their tails tied together and hung over a cloths line?

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 02:58

The day Niedner started his work at Philly, SA manufactured 648698, so we know that rifle, as well as any SN higher, can be eliminated from the Niedner rifles. Your 628116 was manufactured on or about 18 Aug 1916, and 620463 was manufactured on or about 11 Jan 1916. Now we know when they were finally shipped, but not the reason. What has that have to do with anything?

But you think you know what rifles are Niedner. You can't. There were 3 makers of the A5 Sniper rifle in the WWI era. The ones by Niedner, the ones by WRA, and the ones by the Marines at the Philadelphia Depot. The Majoirty of the Mann Niedners were bult at the Marine Philadelphia Depot starting very late 1918 and 1919. The Philly Depot never stopped building them either. They continued to build them until 1941, and possibly even as late as 1944. I have found no reliable way to tell what is a Niedner rifle, and what is a Mann Niedner built at the Philly Depot.

But I can prove 100% that Winchester never made a Mann Niedner variant.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 04:12

You are grasping at straws because I believe you are finally realizing you are wrong.

By the way, you have a 300K series rifle you blatantly claim to be a Marine sniper rifle without one iota of provenance. It doesn't even have any characteristics of even being a Marine rifle. Yet you are disturbed by sequential numbers of a tightly grouped set of rifles. My, my.

Winchester created their version of the A5 Sniper that they called the Marine Mount in April/May 1917. They did not have a 7.2'' spacing blocks for the M1903 prior to that date. There are pics of a 2 test pattern rifles and one complete 03 rifle with their 7.2'' spacing Marine Mount in the WRA files.

The serials of these rifles in the Winchester WWI files are:

34215
367312
659062

My rifle is 368496. It is a little over a 1000 digits from the rifle pictured in the WWI Winchester files.

My rifle was built in 1909, the most famous pic of a Winchester Marine mount A5 taken in 1917 in France is also a pre-1910 rifle. You can tell by the traits of the rifle.

There are 2 pictures of this rifle taken in France in 1917.

https://i.imgur.com/xs0GI1C.jpg

I made a high definition copy of the original glass slide so I could really tell the details of the rifle. It is a pre 1910 rifle by the traits, as is mine.

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

My 1909 rifle vs the pre 1910 rifle taken in France.

https://i.imgur.com/R8U94izh.jpg

My rifle compared to serial 659062 in the WWI Winchester files.

https://i.imgur.com/kPFceH6h.jpg

There are also more of these rifles that fall into the serial ranges you believe are exclusive to Mann Nienders. These are in a very advanced Sniper Collectors hands, and I will not name him. But these are in the 672,xxx and 678,xxx serial ranges. These rifles are identical to mine, and also the pics of the rifles in the WWI Winchester files.

https://i.imgur.com/j1YqT7M.jpg

64

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 04:24

Why am I reminded of two cats with their tails tied together and hung over a cloths line?

That's funny.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 04:36

By the way, I saw your post on CMP where you compare it to LaValley's rifle and make the silly claim that if you had an Optical Ray Filter, your old 300K rifle would be identical to LaValley's. You didn't even notice the absence of a Grasshopper on Lavalley's Modified Marie Mount rifle on Niedner type taper bases. Now that has got to be a bit embarrassing. I have told you, and told you, you cannot use a side view photo comparison to prove anything. Pay attention.

As in any court trial, it is the totality of the evidence that counts. You lose.

You claim this rifle is a Mann Niedner. But it's actually the variant produced by WRA during the War.

https://i.imgur.com/iCv3Fu9h.jpg

When you compare a regular A5 scope to the Mann Niedner tapered block Conversion you notice the Mann Niedner has a screw on the outside of the micrometer. The regular A5 has a hole that produces a shadow.

https://i.imgur.com/rttDQu7h.jpg

Now look at the pic you claim is a Mann Niender again. IT's a hole with a shadow in the micrometer, which the Mann Niedner doesn't have. Also his handguard is the WRA style as the Mann Niedner needs a handguard that is cut much more as the block slides on from the back.

https://i.imgur.com/iCv3Fu9.jpg

My rifle compared to the one you claim it's a Mann Niedner. It looks nothing like a Mann Niedner and when you compare it to another one made by Winchester they are actually identical. It's the same type WRA built Marine mount A5, exactly like mine and the one pictured in France in 1917.

https://i.imgur.com/xqvoX80h.jpg

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 05:22

Winchester created their version of the A5 Sniper that they called the Marine Mount in April/May 1917. They did not have a 7.2'' spacing blocks for the M1903 prior to that date.

The Marine rifle team was using scopes as early as 1909. You think they didn't figure out the advantages of 7.2" spacing until 1917? Of all your bizarre claims, this one takes the prize for being ridiculous.

There are pics of a 2 test pattern rifles and one complete 03 rifle with their 7.2'' spacing Marine Mount in the WRA files.

The serials of these rifles in the Winchester WWI files are:

34215
367312
659062

Those three rifles are clearly labeled as Army rifles, not Marine. I posted their "complete" photos, including their labels, in a previous post. There was no mention of "test pattern" on any of them.

My rifle is 368496. It is a little over a 1000 digits from the rifle pictured in the WWI Winchester files.

So? According to you, the relative position of serial numbers means nothing. Remember?

My rifle was built in 1909, the most famous pic of a Winchester Marine mount A5 taken in 1917 in France is also a pre-1910 rifle. You can tell by the traits of the rifle.

And your rifle has 7.2" spacing, doesn't it? You really believe someone waited 9 years to mount that scope? You are getting desperate.

It could be a replacement stock. Who knows? You can't tell anything from that single picture. That's my point.

There are also more of these rifles that fall into the serial ranges you believe are exclusive to Mann Nienders. These are in a very advanced Sniper Collectors hands, and I will not name him. But these are in the 672,xxx and 678,xxx serial ranges. These rifles are identical to mine, and also the pics of the rifles in the WWI Winchester files.

Those bases look a bit low for "Springfield Marine" bases, but I readily admit I can't tell for sure. Can any of any readers tell for sure?

Neither can you, Norton, as evidenced by your mistaking LaValley's rifle with taper bases for a rifle with "Springfield Marine" bases. You obviously haven't noticed there is no grasshopper on LaValley's rifle mount. It's a Marine Mount with taper bases.

51680

Let's give it a rest, Norton. You continue to derail my threads with the same old lame claims, long proven false.

lyman

03-04-2023, 10:10

guys

I am going to reopen this thread to allow continued discussion,

what I am not going to tolerate, is anything other than discussions

keep it on the rails, in between the ditches or in other words civil,

disagreement often bring better discussions and proof of concept or thesis, or theory or (insert whatever here)

same ole lame claims and suck comments make the users of this forum skim and move on, and make the person making such comments look petty,

do we have an understanding?

that is rhetorical, btw,

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 10:27

I appreciate, and agree, with what you are saying, Lyman; but I believe we have covered all pertinent ground on this one.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 10:40

Yep totally agree Lyman. Thank you for opening it back up. I still have more to say on this topic.

The Marine rifle team was using scopes as early as 1909. You think they didn't figure out the advantages of 7.2" spacing until 1917? Of all your bizarre claims, this one takes the prize for being ridiculous.

Winchester only had the 6'' spacing until 1917. In 1917 is when Winchester created the 7.2'' spacing for their M1903 rifle. Because the Marines used it first it earned the nickname "Marine."

Those three rifles are clearly labeled as Army rifles, not Marine. I posted their "complete" photos, including their labels, in a previous post. There was no mention of "test pattern" on any of them.

These rifles are not labeled Army or Marines as Jim claims. This is not correct. But it would not matter even if they were labeled Army. There is NOT any difference between the rifles provided that Winchester made for the Marines and Army. The rifles for both branches are identical in everyway.

So? According to you, the relative position of serial numbers means nothing. Remember?

No serial ranges are important to this study, but Jim claims you can know a Mann Niedner and WRA rifle just by the serial number. This is not correct.

And your rifle has 7.2" spacing, doesn't it? You really believe someone waited 9 years to mount that scope? You are getting desperate.

I found serial 639,6xx was made into a sniper in 1940. It waited 23 years to become a sniper. So yes. Rifles sat in storage at Depots all the time and were taken out years and decades later to be used. This happened all the time.

It could be a replacement stock. Who knows? You can't tell anything from that single picture. That's my point.

The highwood stock, and handguard both predate 1910. The small windage knob on the rear sight is also a pre 1910. So the chances the stock, the handguard, and the small dished windage knob were all changed to a pre 1910, is not likely at all.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 11:21

Besides the fact that the Micrometers on the rifle that Jim is claiming is Mann Niedner are wrong. The handguard in the pic is also not a Mann Niender handguard as well.

The Mann Niedner scope is attached from behind the rear of the block, because it's a wedge shape that locks under recoil. So a tapered block is mounted from the rear. So the wood behind the block on a Mann Niender tapered design has to have a large amount of wood removed.

The mounting system made by Winchester and called the Marine Mount by WRA, actually mounted from the front, so there was no need to remove the wood behind the base.

These are original pics, top is from the Marine Sniper files of a Mann Niedner tapered base mounting system. The bottom pic is straight from Winchester in their WWI files and is serial 659,062

Notice how they had to remove the wood in the area I circled in RED on the Mann Niedner handguard.

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

Now these are actual pics of Mann Niender Handguards taken in Sniper School at Quantico in the WWI era. Notice again how much wood is removed on these handgaurds.

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

Now look at the pic Jim posted claiming it is a Mann Niedner. Notice how the wood is not missing? That is because this scope is mounting from the front, not the rear.

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

This rifle is not a Mann Niender. The micrometers on the scope and handguard are both wrong.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 11:33

Winchester only had the 6'' spacing until 1917. In 1917 is when Winchester created the 7.2'' spacing for their M1903 rifle. Because the Marines used it first it earned the nickname "Marine."

You have provided no document to back up such a ridiculous claim. I posted mine - post yours. I posted a page from Niedner's Work Book that proved the Marines were scoping their rifles on 7.2" spacing as early as 1916, and most likely, long before. Here it is.

5169651697

The bases Niedner drew are for 7.2" spacing. WRA did NOT create the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

These rifles are not labeled Army or Marines as Jim claims. This is not correct. But it would not matter even if they were labeled Army. There is NOT any difference between the rifles provided that Winchester made for the Marines and Army. The rifles for both branches are identical in everyway.

Straight from the museum's website.

51692
51693

51694

You are mistaken yet again.

No serial ranges are important to this study, but Jim claims you can know a Mann Niedner and WRA rifle just by the serial number. This is not correct.

It may surprise you to know I have never said any such thing, because you obviously have a issue reading documents as well as posts. No offense intended, but you read something, and in your mind, you interpret the meaning of what you read to fit your beliefs. You have repeatedly claimed I have said things I never said. Do you make this stuff up by yourself?

I found serial 639,6xx was made into a sniper in 1940. It waited 23 years to become a sniper. So yes. Rifles sat in storage at Depots all the time and were taken out years and decades later to be used. This happened all the time.

You make these bold statements as though they were fact, yet you fail to offer any documentation for what you say. That doesn't cut it in the world of research. Offer some evidence of some kind.

As for what you said, how do you know they didn't just pull 639,6XX out of storage from WWI surplus? Does your "doc" address that possibility, which, quite frankly, is way more likely than your scenario.?

The highwood stock, and handguard both predate 1910. The small windage knob on the rear sight is also a pre 1910. So the chances the stock, the handguard, and the small dished windage knob were all changed to a pre 1910, is not likely at all.

Please be more specific. Which rifle are you addressing? The Marines did occasionally use highwood stocks for replacement stocks, as I have a rifle in that serial number range with a highwood stock. That rifle was discussed on this forum years ago. By the way, since they were indeed changed, it is more than very likely - it is a fact.

All you have to do is produce a document that proves that a "Marine Mount" utilizes a "Springfield Marine" base. You can't do it, can you?

You are re-posting the same nonsense we have already addressed on multiple occasions. Do you have anything new to add?

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 12:59

You have provided no document to back up such a ridiculous claim. I posted mine - post yours. I posted a page from Niedner's Work Book that proved the Marines were scoping their rifles on 7.2" spacing as early as 1916, and most likely, long before. Here it is.

The bases Niedner drew are for 7.2" spacing. WRA did NOT create the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

Yes Niedner used 7' 2'' spacing in 1916. But Winchester never made ANY 7' 2'' spacing blocks for the 1903 until 1917. Jim keeps on trying to twist that I said WRA created 7' 2'' spacing. But I keep saying Winchester was only using 6'' spacing on 1903's until early 1917. In March/April 1917 WRA created new blocks for the M1903 that would give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. It just earned the nickname "Marine" because the Marines used it first. Exactly like how the #10 sights earned the nickname as "Marine" in 1919.

Straight from the museum's website.

Every M1903 in that era was called an US Army M1903, no matter if it was property of the US Army, Marines, or Navy. That is because that was the official name of the rifle. Look at the M1911's sent to the Marines. The slides are marked "Model of 1911 US Army." The M1911's did not say "Model of US Marines." This is the exact same thing on the M1903. They did not call a 1903 a "US Marine Bolt Action (Model of 1903)" just because the Marines owned a rifle.

As for what you said, how do you know they didn't just pull 639,6XX out of storage from WWI surplus? Does your "doc" address that possibility, which, quite frankly, is way more likely than your scenario.?

I never said 639,6xx was a Mann Niedner. This is why his serial ranges are in error. Jim automatically assumes just bc that serial is in the 600k range it has to be a Mann Niedner It was not. It was actually an experimental Marine Sniper rifle for testing, and not even remotely close to the Mann Niedner.

All you have to do is produce a document that proves that a "Marine Mount" utilizes a "Springfield Marine" base. You can't do it, can you?

I have posted docs for 7 years that show the Army bought Winchester "Marine Mount" A5's in 1918. I also posted the docs where the Army was in desperate need for the clamping screws (thumb Screws) for their A5's, a couple months later, which the Mann Niedner never had. Jim is the one who has NEVER posted one Winchester document that says Winchester made the tapered base design.

But that is becaue all the docs you can find say the Marines are the ones who created the tapered block Mann Niedner design.

This is a article by Harry L. Smith in 1925. He was one of the most famous Marine shooters and experts on the M1903 of the WWI era. He was heavily involved with the rifle team, before the war, during the war, and after. He was also involved in the sniper program, and also was one of the lead experts always referenced in the Marine docs for the Philadelphia Depot. I see his name everywhere back then. HE said the Philadelphia depot created the Marine tapered block (Mann Niedner) design. I shortened it so it wasn't 4 pages.

https://i.imgur.com/0gyERoZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1qsv3P1.jpg

This is Harry L. Smith

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

Harry L. Smith who said the Philadelphia Depot created and made the Mann Niedner tapered block design, was recommended for the Navy Cross (2nd only to the Medal of Honor) in WWI because they felt he was one of the main reasons the Marines in the AEF knew how to shoot. His was one of the most famous Marines in the WWI era.

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

This is from the Army 1923 Sniper Rifle trials. Again it says the Marines manufactured the tapered block Mann Niedners. The Army still had their "Marine Mounts" they bought of Winchester too. The Army didn't get rid of their Marine Mount A5's till the late 20's. So if WRA built the Mann Niedner, why is the Army saying the Marines built them?

https://i.imgur.com/wO1bCb8.jpg

These are only two docs, I have built up thousands of docs that all state the same things I keep on saying.

Now on the flip side, no one has ever produce any WRA documents that state they built a TAPERED block for the Army or the Marines. Winchester made bases that were nicknamed "Marine" but they were not a tapered design.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 01:05

Even though I had to pay to copy all the WRA docs 8 years ago, they are now available online at this link.

I have confirmed this for the Army, the Marine, and WRA docs that WRA never made a tapered block. There are no docs that state that WRA ever made a Tapered design block for the Marines and Army.

Anyone researching this, can research the WRA docs themselves here.

http://library.centerofthewest.org/digital/collection/p17097coll30/search/order/identi/ad/asc

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 01:37

Going back to the rifle Jim is claiming is a Mann Niedner.

I have a real Mann Niedner from WWII that I can use to compare with the pics. It really helps when you have this stuff as you can study it and things stick out to you.

For instance this. Look at the Micrometers and the handguards. Which one does it look like? Because this is pretty simple for me to see when you put this stuff side by side. You can also look at the size of the blocks on the Mann Niedner. They are bigger in size than the standard WRA Marine Mount. Compare the sizes of the bases to each other.

First comparing it to the Mann Niedner tapered design produced by the Marines.

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

Higher Def version below....

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

Next comparing it to the WRA "Marine Mount." Compare again the areas circled in red, but also the size of the bases. They are identical in size. Which are smaller than the Mann Niedner.

https://i.imgur.com/cRH1eMpl.jpg

Higher def version below...

https://i.imgur.com/cRH1eMph.jpg

Jim's picture is not a Mann Niedner, it's a sniper variant produced by WRA in 1917 for the Marines.

He is posting pics of exactly the same style of rifle as the one below taken in 1917 in France.

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

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 04:49

Yes Niedner used 7' 2'' spacing in 1916. But Winchester never made ANY 7' 2'' spacing blocks for the 1903 until 1917. Jim keeps on trying to twist that I said WRA created 7' 2'' spacing. But I keep saying Winchester was only using 6'' spacing on 1903's until early 1917. In March/April 1917 WRA created new blocks for the M1903 that would give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. It just earned the nickname "Marine" because the Marines used it first. Exactly like how the #10 sights earned the nickname as "Marine" in 1919.

Steve DID say that WRA created the 7.2" spacing. This is the same old nonsense we have discussed more than once. Steve has no way to prove any part of what he is saying. Just how do you know WRA never made a base for 7.2" spacing until 1917? You can not convince me that such a document exists. Same for the "Marines used it first". How could you possibly know that? You are guessing because it fits what you want to be true. That is the antithesis of research.

Every M1903 in that era was called an US Army M1903, no matter if it was property of the US Army, Marines, or Navy. That is because that was the official name of the rifle. Look at the M1911's sent to the Marines. The slides are marked "Model of 1911 US Army." The M1911's did not say "Model of US Marines." This is the exact same thing on the M1903. They did not call a 1903 a "US Marine Bolt Action (Model of 1903)" just because the Marines owned a rifle.

Nonsense. They were called the M1903 Springfield rifle, just as they are now.

I never said 639,6xx was a Mann Niedner. This is why his serial ranges are in error. Jim automatically assumes just bc that serial is in the 600k range it has to be a Mann Niedner It was not. It was actually an experimental Marine Sniper rifle for testing, and not even remotely close to the Mann Niedner.

You are just as confused as ever, Norton. You need to learn to interpret that which you read. I never said any such thing. In the Niedner serial number range I noted, are over 20,000 rifles. Are you seriously trying to convince the readers that I believe there were 20,000 Niedner rifles? I don't think anyone is going to believe you, Norton. You are back to making wild accusations again. Nappy time.

I have posted docs for 7 years that show the Army bought Winchester "Marine Mount" A5's in 1918. I also posted the docs where the Army was in desperate need for the clamping screws (thumb Screws) for their A5's, a couple months later, which the Mann Niedner never had. Jim is the one who has NEVER posted one Winchester document that says Winchester made the tapered base design.

Point 1: I never said who made the taper blocks, I said WRA mounted the Marine Mount with taper bases on rifles supplied by the Marines. I don't care who made them.

But that is becaue all the docs you can find say the Marines are the ones who created the tapered block Mann Niedner design.

Point 2: Exactly which "docs" would those be, Norton? I have never referenced such "docs", and I actually think Niedner originated the short taper block design.

Point 3: A "doc" stating the Army was in desperate need of clamping screws has nothing to do with their order of sniper rifles "just like the Marines". The Army had over 1,000,000 soldiers in France, with about half of those on the front lines. Do you think those 500 sniper rifles "just like the Marine's" covered all their needs? The Army had many, many hundreds of sniper rifles with scopes on thumbscrew mounts. I have no doubt they had a serious problem with lost thumbscrews, an issue avoided by the Marines when they ordered their rifles with Niedner type taper bases. Is that too much for you to grasp?

This is a article by Harry L. Smith in 1925. He was one of the most famous Marine shooters and experts on the M1903 of the WWI era. He was heavily involved with the rifle team, before the war, during the war, and after. He was also involved in the sniper program, and also was one of the lead experts always referenced in the Marine docs for the Philadelphia Depot. I see his name everywhere back then. HE said the Philadelphia depot created the Marine tapered block (Mann Niedner) design. I shortened it so it wasn't 4 pages.

Major H. L. Smith was indeed a remarkable man. As for the sniper program, I think you are confusing him with Major Daulty Smith, who ran the OSD SOS School (sniper school). That doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that you think "Telescope sight bases, known as the taper block Marine Corps type, were developed and are made at the depot" can be interpreted as saying the Marine Corps taper block was created at the depot - it does not. You are seriously confused.

All along you have been saying the Marines were making the taper bases during the war, when Major H. L. Smith specifically states that section was created after the war under the direction of our old friend Douglas McDougal, the man who placed the 2nd WRA Order. You just posted what I have been trying to tell you for years!

{quote]
https://i.imgur.com/0gyERoZ.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/1qsv3P1.jpg[/quote]

This is from the Army 1923 Sniper Rifle trials. Again it says the Marines manufactured the tapered block Mann Niedners. The Army still had their "Marine Mounts" they bought of Winchester too. The Army didn't get rid of their Marine Mount A5's till the late 20's. So if WRA built the Mann Niedner, why is the Army saying the Marines built them?

https://i.imgur.com/wO1bCb8.jpg

Any decent machinist could make the taper bases. I have no doubt the Marines made them, as well as Niedner and WRA. What is your point?

These are only two docs, I have built up thousands of docs that all state the same things I keep on saying.
A
No they don't. That is the problem. I am now convinced, more than ever, you manufactured this whole "Springfield Marine" sniper rifle scenario based on flawed interpretation of unconnected documents.

Now on the flip side, no one has ever produce any WRA documents that state they built a TAPERED block for the Army or the Marines. Winchester made bases that were nicknamed "Marine" but they were not a tapered design.

So what? You can't produce a document that specifically states WRA made the "Springfield Marine" bases. All you have is a 1926 WRA drawing that depicts a "Springfield Marine" set of bases. I realize you go to great lengths to divert the discussion from the true subject - who mounted the Marine Mounts with taper bases for the two WRA orders placed by the Marines? Without doubt, and despite your strangely odd attempts to connect various documents that do not say what you claim they say, you have produced nothing that disputes that claim.

As for your continued attempts to convince people that Sgt LaValley's rifle and scope used "Springfield Marine" bases, LaValley's scope and case are owned by retired Major Jim Land, of Vietnam sniper school fame, and former Secretary of the NRA. Try convincing him his scope doesn't have Niedner type taper bases. Good luck with that one.:evil6:

This is a good time to end this discussion, and my thread.

lyman

03-04-2023, 05:03

time to stop closing, and in fact, that should not be a problem going forward

Ls6man

03-04-2023, 06:18

So perhaps against better judgment I will wade into this thread..

I?m definitely a neophyte on the WW1 snipers.. Marine or otherwise.. however I have spent a lot of time researching the Unertl rifles. I also am a car guy (primarily GM muscle.. (think LS6 Chevelles, COPO Camaros, L78?s, and Z?s)

Years ago I spearheaded an internet discussion about a claimed potential historical 1968 Camaro funny car, which the owner of a prominent website was making claims about. He was also trying to sell the car for over $300k. The car was claimed to be the 1968 Dick Harrell car.

Unfortunately anyone spending a reasonable amount of time looking at period photos and comparing to the claimed car.. and researching the DH timeline.. would have been questioning the claim.. By understanding how light and shadows impact an object, along with establishing a timeline.. myself and another collector proved he didn?t have the car he claimed.

With this discussion..

It sounds like Jim is attributing period photos (and also perhaps known serial numbers in those period photos) along with observed rifies and then claiming each mounting tyoe has some serial range which can be attributed to it. Perhaps also based on his experience, intuition, or observations.. Therefore only those ranges will have that specific mounting type.

Am I correct in my understanding of your claim?

What archival document (USMC documents or otherwise from the National Archives, Quantico, etc) do you have to support your claim?

If these rifles were essentially ?batch built,? I?d expect correspondence to this affect.

Who else besides yourself has vetted your assumptions? Research that isn?t collaborative by peer review is often flawed for what it is worth.

Take this as constructive feedback.. and feedback is always a gift.

Jim I?ve read these post and others on Milsurps.. candidly it is somewhat difficult to take your research credibly when so many of your statements about USMC sniping have been erroneous. Case in point.. your attributing of the MOS numbers, the fact you stated their primary roll was shooting vs. scouting and intelligence gathering, etc.

I?m not a trained 8541/8542 (MOS numbers for a HOG when I was in) but have been around then enough to know their primary function has always been for SALUTE and intelligence gathering.. shooting second. Both in WW2 and up till today. Hence ?Scout-Sniper?

Ever heard of the STA platoons?? . and btw.. the ?S? isn?t for shooting

Their MOS designators change and their roles have been modified.. but they are fundamentally the eyes and ears of an infantry company.

This being said.. I?ve tried to follow your logic.. but also looking at the photos both you and Steve have presented ... and I believe you are attributing the wrong mounting system to some photos.. as Steve points out.

I will agree I?m friends with Steve and know his passion for USMC snipers of all periods.. however his research is based on a humble desire to get the information correct.. regardless of if he initially makes a deduction and then finds out he was incorrect.. .. He is very quick to point out we all are students and caretakers of these rifles and information therefore getting it right takes precedence to personal accolades

For what it is worth your comments about the perceived number of years Steve has been researching also has no merit.. I?ve been researching Unertl rifles for almist 30 years and learn stuff daily.. from Steve and others with less time. Only a fool somehow equates ?time,? with ?understanding ?

I would suggest you try to collaborate with Steve as he has immense contacts (our FB group for the Unertl?s is small in number.. but some guys are members I?m sure you know or know their reputation).

Also the back handed comments do not serve you well and IMO make you look trivial. They aren?t necessary and are the ?tools,? of people who know they are being shown up..

Again maybe at the end of the day this topic is a big deal.. but if so treat it as such and not as a personal feather in your cap to be perceived as ?right?.

Maybe instead of trying to ?be the guy? on these rifles.. focus on keeping an open mind.
.. learn new information from each other, collaborate and if you can?t? write your own book, article, etc.. and move on..

I will end by saying based on what I know, see, have read here and elsewhere.. Steve?s information is very credible and I tend to believe his reasoning and research.

Btw.. the rifle he mentioned being converted later.., incredibly cool rifle which is documented to a very cool Marine and a name which would be recognized by most gun enthusiasts..

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 07:23

As for your continued attempts to convince people that Sgt LaValley's rifle and scope used "Springfield Marine" bases, LaValley's scope and case are owned by retired Major Jim Land, of Vietnam sniper school fame, and former Secretary of the NRA. Try convincing him his scope doesn't have Niedner type taper bases. Good luck with that one.:evil6:

Jim the story on this picture has changed a couple times. First you said the rifle exists, and now it's just the case with the serial number on it? Well if it's only the case with the serial, how do you know the scope that is in it, is the exact same scope that was in it back in WWI? It might have had four scopes in it since then. The Marines used these scope cases and the Mann Niedner Sniper Rifles until the end of WWII.

I have never personally reached out to Jim Land. I never really had a reason too. But I told you the collectors of Sniper Rifles are a VERY small group and we all know each other. If I don't know someone, I know for a fact I know someone who knows that person to ask. I have a friend who is best friends with Jim Land, and we will see what Jim Land has to say on this topic. I know you once before had dropped Jim Land's name in an argument we had in 2016, claiming he told you some information we were arguing. So I had my friend ask Jim Land if he knew you. He said he did not.

So lets see what Jim Land says this time on this case.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-04-2023, 08:36

Jim the story on this picture has changed a couple times. First you said the rifle exists, and now it's just the case with the serial number on it? Well if it's only the case with the serial, how do you know the scope that is in it, is the exact same scope that was in it back in WWI? It might have had four scopes in it since then. The Marines used these scope cases and the Mann Niedner Sniper Rifles until the end of WWII.

Show us where I said only the scope and case exists. Nothing has changed, you just need to learn to comprehend what you read.

I have never personally reached out to Jim Land. I never really had a reason too. But I told you the collectors of Sniper Rifles are a VERY small group and we all know each other. If I don't know someone, I know for a fact I know someone who knows that person to ask. I have a friend who is best friends with Jim Land, and we will see what Jim Land has to say on this topic. I know you once before had dropped Jim Land's name in an argument we had in 2016, claiming he told you some information we were arguing. So I had my friend ask Jim Land if he knew you. He said he did not.

I was with Jim when he bought that scope and case. Your friend is lying, or you are.

So lets see what Jim Land says this time on this case.

I doubt you would post it.

cplnorton

03-04-2023, 09:52

I do not go by hearsay, I fact check everything.

So when you dropped Jim Lands name back in 2016 as a source of your info, I had a friend reach out to him to ask him if your statements were correct. He told me Jim Land did not recognize your name.

Regardless, tomorrow I am having someone reach out to Jim Land again to fact check your statements. We will find out.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-05-2023, 04:17

I do not go by hearsay, I fact check everything.[QUOTE]

That's nice. Your point being?

[quote]So when you dropped Jim Lands name back in 2016 as a source of your info, I had a friend reach out to him to ask him if your statements were correct. He told me Jim Land did not recognize your name.

Jim Land is not, nor has he ever been, the source of "my info". I like Jim Land, as I consider him the quintessential Marine. I have never "dropped" Jim Land's name as a source of "my info". Deceit is never becoming, Norton.

Regardless, tomorrow I am having someone reach out to Jim Land again to fact check your statements. We will find out.

Yes, you will.

nf1e

03-05-2023, 04:24

Still reading and learning where the knowledge really exists. Keep it going.

Viva America

cplnorton

03-05-2023, 06:07

Still reading and learning where the knowledge really exists. Keep it going.

Viva America

nf1e,

Please read this post I just started. It's extremely hard to take thousands of pages of WWI sniper docs and condense them to less than a dozen, but I selected enough that I think it lays it out in detail that anyone can realize what really happened.

Please click on this link and read it.

http://www.jouster2.com/forums/showthread.php?80891-The-Army-rejects-the-Mann-Niedner-Design-in-April-1918&p=645868#post645868

.

Marine A5 Sniper Rifle

03-05-2023, 06:19

Ls6man

03-05-2023, 07:05

Jim

Good morning!

Funny how you can write a post but never actually directly address the questions I asked However with your post you try to muddy the waters with personal digs.. . The guy who owned the funny car and eventually was proven to be both clueless about the topic and someone trying to deceive the hobby did the same thing..

My post was written on this site using my I-phone.. nothing was copied from offsite.. btw. Not sure why it would matter either way though

Finally I referenced the other site because it really struck me as ironic how someone who was apparently trying to go into such great depth on Marine sniping? didn?t understand their roles and primary purpose.

As far as some 96 year old Marine who was on Iwo..I wasn?t addressing Steve so why would I?

Have a great day!

cplnorton

03-05-2023, 07:13

Incidentally, since you were so thorough in your perusal of posts, even to include other sites, how come you didn't mention Norton's story about that 96-year old Iwo Jima sniper/runner? Just an oversight?

This is always Jim's vain redirect attempt away from the fact he cannot provide any REAL factual documents that I am wrong in my statements. The mods removed Jim's ability to lock posts so I can not offer a counter point to his claims. So this is all he has left to try to shift the spotlight away from the fact that he can't provide real Documents to prove me wrong. He knows this is the only thing I WONT post, so this is all he has left.

The story behind this is ridiculous. I interviewed a living School Trained 96yr Marine Sniper a couple years back who was on Iwo Jima. As a school trained Sniper he was attached to the Headquarters Company on Iwo, as all were. He said they told him they did not need a sniper, so they made him a company runner.

Jim keeps on asking me for the guys name but I won't post it. I'm not going to let a WWII Marine's name who served honorably, and fought on Iwo Jima, get dragged thru the mud because Jim can't believe a Sniper was made into a company runner.

If you have any understanding of this era of Marine Corps, you realize how ridiculous this is. It was extremely normal, as a Marine, no matter their training, if the Marines had another job for you, you did it. But because I won't post his name, this is the only thing that Jim has as some vain attempt at a redirect.

I'm not going to disgrace this Marines legacy and what he did, bc of Jim Tartleon's attempt to try to point the spotlight at anything other than the fact he doesn't have any evidence that Winchester never made a taper block (Mann Niedner).

If there is anything that I believe is absolutely disgraceful in all my arguments with Jim, is his constant use of trying to trash this Marine. It's extremely low....

.

Ls6man

03-05-2023, 07:14

I?m actually learning.. hence the post.. didn?t realize I had to be a ?noted? WW1 USMC collector to comment..

Have a great day

cplnorton

03-05-2023, 07:27

Mods I have stayed away from any comments on Jim's character, but Jim is attacking a WWII Marine's legacy.

If you need to clean up my comments in my previous post #36, I understand. But I consider Jim trying to drag that WWII Marine into this as low blow and I can't stand by without calling it out for what that truly is, a re-direct because he knows I won't post it.

Jim if you have real documents to prove WRA made the taper base Mann Niedner, POST THEM. Keep your personal attacks out of this discussion and just stick with the facts.

Leave that WWII Marine out of any discussion we have.

.

nf1e

03-05-2023, 07:54

Easy to understand not posting a vet by name. I have requested the same on a number of occasions for reasons that someone that was not there, could not understand. Semper Fi.

cplnorton

03-05-2023, 09:38

Easy to understand not posting a vet by name. I have requested the same on a number of occasions for reasons that someone that was not there, could not understand. Semper Fi.

I served 5 yrs in the Marines. I was a school trained 0311 Infantry Rifleman. There were a lot of times I filled in other MOS's and billets just because of the needs of the Marine Corps. Most of the time I had no say in those decisions either.

I'm sure every Marine out there has had a similar experience. You do what they tell you to do.

Btw nf1e Semper Fi to you as well sir.

nf1e

03-05-2023, 10:13

I did my 6 and they had their fill of me. 6611/6216 and did other jobs as required. RVN 67-68 and time with an M14 with Starlight scope for perimeter defense in 1967. We do as requested and are happy about it. One for the Corps.

lyman

03-05-2023, 12:04