Early Marine Scoped Rifle

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There has been a claim that WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing in 1917, thus the first "Springfield Marine" bases in 1917. Shown below is a 1910 rifle with a B5 scope with #1 WRA mounts on 7.2" spacing, which means the very early #1 mount is mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases. This is a Marine rifle. As I said before, the WRA scopes on 7.2" spacing existed long before 1917.

Note how prominent the grasshopper spring is in the picture. They are not hard to spot at all. Judge for yourself.

This picture is straight out of Peter Senich's book, Scout-Sniper, which I highly recommend. Senich spent 20 years digging through the same USMC files currently being unearthed at the Archives. Peter Senich has long been considered the ultimate expert of Marine sniper rifles, and justly so.

More to come. Enjoy.

51764

[cplnorton]

This is a Marine rifle. As I said before, the WRA scopes on 7.2" spacing existed long before 1917.


The majority of the Sniper Docs I have weren't released at the Archives until 2012, years after Peter Senich passed. Peter worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him which were about a 100 pages total. I have a copy of the packet that Frank gave Senich.

For all of Senich's talents at research, this rifle is not one of them.

Years back I examined this rifle in detail and the majority of it was built with WWII era parts. The blocks were not Winchester. The evidence it was Marine was only a story.

If you are going to present a rifle as proof it was built pre 1917 you might want to look at the picture more.

Jim didn't notice the 03A3 bands from WWII, the swept back bolt which is post WWI, and the 2nd stock bolt on the stock, which was after 1917 on all stocks. My memory was the stock was a 03A3 stock.

The whole rifle is a fake as a Marine WW1 Sniper.


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

https://i.imgur.com/xiBp5Gvl.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No one said this scoped USMC rifle was a WWI sniper rifle. It is an early USMC scoped rifle in WRA #1 mounts on 7.2" spacing, which requires "Springfield Marine" bases. To have #1 mounts, that puppy was scoped a long time ago. No telling how many times it was rebuilt, as the Marines used them until they were worn out.

You can't tell who made a rifle's scope bases by looking at them. Niedner sometimes put his brand on his, but WRA never did.

Every USMC scoped rifle is not a sniper rifle. The Marine rifle teams were using scoped rifles as early as 1909.

Of the myriad of people Senich credits, he never once mentions Frank Mallory. I have a copy of Frank's find notes also, and I don't see a packet of information on the Marine WWI sniper rifle.

51768

This is what Senich states is the source of his information. Note the time he spent in the Marine archives. Judge for yourselves. Darn great book.

51769

More to come.

[cplnorton]

The docs in his book are from Frank. It is very common knowledge where those docs originated from.

Jim presents a rifle with WWII parts as evidence that it was built pre 1917. How could you ever PROVE that rifle was built before 1917? You cannot when the rifle was obviously built with later parts.

Jim saw a rifle with an early serial number and just didn't notice the traits that prove its not original. In fact when you examine the evidence there is nothing proving it was even Marine. When you see the rifle in detail its obviously not Marine Built.

As far as Jim's claim that it requires "Springfield Marine" blocks to mount that B-5 scope, that is not remotely correct.

Fecker, Lyman, Unertl, and every common repo made block since would mount that scope.

Even by looking at the pics you can tell they blocks are not WWI Springfield Marine blocks made by Winchester as Jim claims. The front block is set up to change the spacing of the scope like you see on target rifles from the 50s thru the 70s.. That is why it is so long. But there were never any blocks made like that during WWI. In fact the block is probably made for a different type of rifle.

Here is a Springfield Marine front block made by WRA compared to that one on that rifle. It's not even close.

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

[cplnorton]

This rifle is not real at all. But regardless...

Jim claims this rifle is proof that WRA made 7' 2" spacing for the Marines pre 1917.

But how could this rifle can be proof of what was built pre 1917 when the majority of the rifle doesnt even date from that era ?






.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The docs in his book are from Frank. It is very common knowledge where those docs originated from.

There is no such "common knowledge". I know of no link between Mallory and Senich. Peter was very clear, and very thorough, as to who assisted him, and he never mentions Frank Mallory. Senich states he spent twenty years going through the Marine Corps archives, so I don't think Senich needed anything Frank Mallory had, if he even knew the man.

Frank Mallory's "Find Notes" were notes on materials he found in the National Archives. Mallory's notes consist of where documents can be found in the archives, not the documents themselves.


Jim claims this rifle is proof that WRA made 7' 2" spacing for the Marines pre 1917.

I never said any such thing, although it is patently obvious. Are you now claiming someone was making the "Springfield Marine" bases before WRA? The "Springfield Marine" bases are nothing more than the set of bases required to mount an A5 scope in WRA mounts on an '03 on 7.2" spacing. The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.

Steve erroneously claims that WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing in 1917. I was providing evidence of his mistaken belief, as it is obvious this old rifle was scoped in the early days of the WRA #1 mount. I do suspect it was an early Marine rifle team rifle that has been rebuilt, probably more than once. Please note, the pictures of the rifle were taken over thirty years ago.


The majority of the Sniper Docs I have weren't released at the Archives until 2012, years after Peter Senich passed. Peter worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him which were about a 100 pages total. I have a copy of the packet that Frank gave Senich.

Senich states he went through the Marine archives. He had access to everything you have now. Senich just spent more time examining them.

Your claim that Senich "worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him" is not creditable. You can not possibly know what Senich did. How can you possibly know of any "packet" Frank gave Peter?

Senich copyrighted his book in 1993, thirty years ago. Did you know either man? What is the source of your information on which you base such a claim?

Let me preface this item by stating I know nothing about how or when the Marine documents were archived. I did find this with a quick net search. It appears that Marine documents are stored in at least 16 other places other than Maryland. I also know that serious researchers were allowed access to archived documents at NARA, back in the day.

This is a USMC MARADMIN of 2011, whatever a MARADMIN is.

"POC/J. D. GLENEWINKEL/GS-14/UNIT:ARDB/-/TEL:DSN 224-1081 /TEL:(703)614-1081/FAX:(703)693-7270//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. THIS MARADMIN ANNOUNCES PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR THE TRANSFER OF CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA) FOR STORAGE PER REFERENCES (A) THROUGH (D). UNCLASSIFIED RECORDS ARE STORED AT 1 OF 16 FEDERAL RECORDS CENTER (FRC) LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES; CLASSIFIED RECORDS ARE ONLY STORED AT THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL RECORDS CENTER IN MARYLAND."

That clip from the original order is only to relate how many locations in which Marine documents are stored, nothing more

Enjoy..

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As far as Jim's claim that it requires "Springfield Marine" blocks to mount that B-5 scope, that is not remotely correct.

Not exactly what I said. I will clarify my position for you.

"Springfield Marine" bases are a set of bases required to mount a WRA scope on 7.2" centers. A 1926 WRA drawing depicts two sets of WRA bases, one for 6" spacing and one for 7.2" spacing. Both sets of bases must be machined to fit the WRA thumbscrew receptacles. The height can change, as shown in the WRA sales brochures of the day. I have also seen variations in the width of the bottom of the bases, both front and rear; just as I have seen variations in Niedner's taper bases as to width and length. The reason for these variations isn't always clear, but the variations do not mean the taper base is not a taper base, and that the "Springfield Marine" bases are not "Springfield Marine" bases designed for 7.2" spacing.

FYI, Steve, Unertl and Fecker weren't in business in 1910. I don't know who made those bases, but they definitely show that WRA didn't "create" the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

[cplnorton]

I'll be honest, I tried to read the statements made by Jim, but I just glaze over reading them. It's the same arguments over and over. The facts are all twisted and not factual.

This rifle is not real.

[cplnorton]

The front block on this rifle was popular from the 50's thru 70's on target rifles.

The U shaped sight grove on these blocks was so a receiver sight could be used on the receiver and the sight picture not be obscured by the block.

None of these ever existed in WWI, or before. They started to show up post WW2.

Jim saw a early serial number and automicatally assumed it was drilled and tapped pre WWI. The truth is this rifle had the scope blocks mounted in the heyday of making sporterized M1903's probably between Korea and Vietnam.

This rifle is just a sporterized M1903. This rifle is not a Marine built rifle.

Here's a 50's era target scope block for a Lyman or Unertl scope. Which is the exact same style block in the pic.

That is why It's extremely important to fact check your work, or other's research. Because Senich messed up on this one. It certainly isn't a rifle that was built pre WW1.

https://i.imgur.com/x5ZwTTJl.jpg

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

https://i.imgur.com/rvgyWN1l.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Only Jim would see a rifle with a block that is extremely popular from the 50's thru 70's and think it's evidence of what the Marines did pre WWI.

No need for insults. Especially baseless ones.


The U shaped sight grove on these blocks was so a target sight could be used on the receiver and the sight picture not obscured by the block.

I see no "U" shaped structure, but even if one were present, it has no bearing on what the rifle is, or was. Scopes sit on top of the bases, thus a scope base can never obscure the sight picture. If you refer to the rifle's ladder sight, even a casual look at the picture shows that the base is way too low to ever interfere with the ladder sight picture. What is your point?


None of these ever existed in WWI, or before.

You have no way of knowing this as a fact.You are making a baseless assumption.


Jim saw a early serial number and automicatally assumed it was drilled and tapped pre WWI. The truth is this rifle had the scope blocks mounted in the heyday of making sporterized M1903's.

Again, this forum is no place for insults. Keep it civil.

You do not know when this scope was mounted. You are making statements you cannot verify. Please stick to facts.


It's a sporterized M1903. This rifle is not a Marine built rifle.

Do you have access to the Douglas Collection? Have you physically seen this rifle? If not, on what are you basing your judgements?

This rifle has more provenance than your 300K series rifle you claim to be a WWI Marine sniper rifle. On what do you base your statement that the rifle is not a Marine rifle? Since you like to compare your rifle to others, maybe you could compare your rifle to this one, point by point, showing why you think one is a Marine rifle while the other isn't. It would be educational.


Here's a 50's era target scope block for a Lyman or Unertl scope. Which is the exact same style block in the pic.
That is why It's extremely important to fact check your work, or other's research. Because Senich messed up on this one.

You cannot credibly judge exactly what the base in the picture is, nor can you judge when it was mounted, nor can you possibly know why it was installed. I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.

Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.

You still haven't answered the questions concerning how you know Mallory gave Senich a "packet of 100 documents". I believe everyone with an interest in this subject would be interested in your contribution.

Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.

More to come.

[Ls6man]

Jim

A few things

I?ve read your statements about Senich and can?t agree that he was an expert in USMC sniping or for that matter German sniping. His book on WW1, WW2 and Korean USMC sniping is good.. and really to this date the only work dedicated to the topic. As such he benefits from being ?first,? and the information being generally accepted .. and a lot of it is good stuff.. BUT

He obviously didn?t have as much information as you?ve assumed.. as he didn?t realize the significance of the documents in the National Archives pertaining to USMC procurement of both rifles and barrels for the Unertl scoped rifles.. Also his description (whether his or the people he chose to quote) are either misleading or not fully ?flushed out.? For instance there is more to the rifles than just adding blocks, milling out a hand guard and adding the scope.

Also Senich didn?t understand the Special Target rifles and how they fit into the equation. While his work is certainly better than a lot of stuff it is not indicative of someone who has completely studied all the information which was available.. or someone who would be considered an ?expert.?

As someone who also collects German WW2 I can also tell you the same things are true for his work on German Snipers.. decent but no where near complete, the ?go to work,? or indicating someone who is an expert in the field.

Second anyone simply looking at the photo you posted in this thread.. would realize there are serious issues with that rifle.. and as such it?s value to any serious discussion about researching USMC sniping is really minimal.

I realize you don?t particularly care for Steve.. but I would really caution you to leave ANY personal opinions out of your thoughts.. Steve and others have a plethora of knowledge of pre-Vietnam USMC sniping knowledge.. Also way more information has come from the National Archives as a result of Steve and others.. information which previously was certainly not included in discussion and presumably not studied.

Greg

[lyman]

No need for insults. Especially baseless ones.



I saw no insult in that comment,







I see no "U" shaped structure, but even if one were present, it has no bearing on what the rifle is, or was. Scopes sit on top of the bases, thus a scope base can never obscure the sight picture. If you refer to the rifle's ladder sight, even a casual look at the picture shows that the base is way too low to ever interfere with the ladder sight picture. What is your point?




actually it does, as Norton mentioned those U shaped bases were used during a certain time period, as in not that old




You have no way of knowing this as a fact.You are making a baseless assumption.



actually, if Nick Stobel was a member here, I would ask him,
I would need to go dig out his sight\scope books to be sure but I do believe Norton is correct on the scope mounts,

remember, not every Unertl went on a 1903, Lyman, Fecker, Davis, Unertl, Litschert and Winchester were all basically the same base (Unertl did do some posa mounts, and I have a Lyman\Winchester A5\5A on a Win 75 that has an odd wide base, (been needing to post those pics for years now))



Again, this forum is no place for insults. Keep it civil.

no insult, assumption maybe,



You do not know when this scope was mounted. You are making statements you cannot verify. Please stick to facts.



see my comments above, re Strobel's




Do you have access to the Douglas Collection? Have you physically seen this rifle? If not, on what are you basing your judgements?

This rifle has more provenance than your 300K series rifle you claim to be a WWI Marine sniper rifle. On what do you base your statement that the rifle is not a Marine rifle? Since you like to compare your rifle to others, maybe you could compare your rifle to this one, point by point, showing why you think one is a Marine rifle while the other isn't. It would be educational.



You cannot credibly judge exactly what the base in the picture is, nor can you judge when it was mounted, nor can you possibly know why it was installed. I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.

Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.

You still haven't answered the questions concerning how you know Mallory gave Senich a "packet of 100 documents". I believe everyone with an interest in this subject would be interested in your contribution.

Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.

More to come.

[cplnorton]

Have you physically seen this rifle? If not, on what are you basing your judgements?

You still haven't answered the questions concerning how you know Mallory gave Senich a "packet of 100 documents".




Yes I saw this rifle when it came up for sale in 2018. The rifle is a horrible fake.


I have seen almost every rifle in Senichs book in great detail, but I know many of the guys who own them.

Some of these owners were heavily involved in the research with Senich and they were kind enough to provide me a copy of Senich's docs that he used to write the Scout Sniper book. The docs had Franks name on them.


.

[cplnorton]

There has been a claim that WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing in 1917, thus the first "Springfield Marine" bases in 1917. Shown below is a 1910 rifle with a B5 scope with #1 WRA mounts on 7.2" spacing, which means the very early #1 mount is mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases. This is a Marine rifle. As I said before, the WRA scopes on 7.2" spacing existed long before 1917.


It is an early USMC scoped rifle in WRA #1 mounts on 7.2" spacing, which requires "Springfield Marine" bases. To have #1 mounts, that puppy was scoped a long time ago. No telling how many times it was rebuilt, as the Marines used them until they were worn out.


The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.


I see no "U" shaped structure, but even if one were present, it has no bearing on what the rifle is, or was.


You cannot credibly judge exactly what the base in the picture is, nor can you judge when it was mounted, nor can you possibly know why it was installed. I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.


I thought if I pointed out all that was obviously wrong with this rifle in the black and white photos, Jim would just realize his mistake, and just let this one go. But he won't. So I'm going to post the actual pics of Senich's rifle. To Jim, this rifle was 100% proof ( it was not only Marine) but it had WWI Marine bases made by Winchester and proved the Marines had (7' 2'') spacing pre-1917.

This first pic below is of actual WWI Marine bases made by Winchester. These blocks were created in 1917 (by Winchester) to give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. These bases are the blocks Jim claims are "definitely " on the rifle in Senich's book.

https://i.imgur.com/b6fo3V8l.jpg

Here are actual real pics of Senich's rifle from his book. First a side shot of the bases. Notice the U shaped groove that I pointed out earlier, that Jim said wasn't there. The same U groove is on the rear sight too.

These scope bases are from the Korean to Vietnam timeframe, just as I stated earlier. I also don't think they are even for a 1903, I think they are for a Model 70. These bases are not the WWI Marine bases Jim states he knows for sure are on Senich's rifle, nor is the spacing the same so they can be swapped.


https://i.imgur.com/W1DJLoZh.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/bj4UCvnl.jpg

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

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Yes I saw this rifle when it came up for sale in 2018. The rifle is a horrible fake.

You keep saying it is a fake. A fake what? It is just a scoped Marine rifle. No one has claimed it to be anything else.

I record serial numbers of A5 scoped '03's from auction sites, and I didn't see this rifle come up for sale in 2018. On what auction site did it go up for sale?


...provide me a copy of Senich's docs that he used to write the Scout Sniper book. The docs had Franks name on them.

Why would a man who spent twenty years in the Marine archives need anything from Frank Mallory?

You are claiming Senich's book is not based on his research, but that of Frank Mallory. Senich publically acknowledged two pages of people's names that provided him some degree of assistance in his research, but never once mentions the guy you say did the research on which his entire book is based. That is an incredible assertion.

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I understood when I purchased a copy of the SRS listing, that it included every '03 serial number Frank Mallory found in the archives. The serial number of this rifle was not on my SRS list. I was told that SRS had all Frank Mallory's materials. Are you now saying that SRS is misrepresenting what they are selling, and that you have Frank Mallory documents they do not have?

[cplnorton]

This rifle has more provenance than your 300K series rifle you claim to be a WWI Marine sniper rifle. On what do you base your statement that the rifle is not a Marine rifle? Since you like to compare your rifle to others, maybe you could compare your rifle to this one, point by point, showing why you think one is a Marine rifle while the other isn't. It would be educational.



Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.


I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.


Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

https://i.imgur.com/t50BVy6l.jpg

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

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

[lyman]

1903's used what is called O&E blocks, correct?

that one pictured has an odd screw pattern, not at all like the (admittedly very few) originals I have seen

[lyman]

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

https://i.imgur.com/t50BVy6l.jpg

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

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



lordy,

that reminded me of a M1 rifle that I saw as a show for a few years that had every single part stamped NM, all apparently by hand, and the seller thought it was a real deal National Match M1,,


looked like someone bought a few stamp sets and wore out the N and M one each part,


amazine

[cplnorton]

Here's the auction description when it was sold. It describes all the fake stamps in the auction listing, just in case Jim tries to argue those pics aren't to the rifle in Senich's book.

This is why I keep on cautioning everyone on all these sniper posts that you need to fact check every statement made. Because this rifle was presented as undeniable proof.

The stock is an 03A3 stock. The handguard is a WWII replacement. The blocks are a target type post WWII and likely made for the Model 70. The provenannce is fake.

This rifle was AT BEST one built in between the wars, and someone added the fake USMC stamps and B-5 scope to try to pass it as a WWI era sniper. At worst the whole rifle was faked, and the scope was mounted at that time.

I actually think how bad this rifle is, it was one they found built in between the wars and they stamped USMC to "enhance" the value of it.

It's a real shame Senich put this rifle in his book. As I said I have a lot of respect for Senich and his research. But anyone should know this rifle is fake.

I don't know who owns this rifle now. I just know who brought it to me and thankfully he listened to me and did not buy it.



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

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

...To Jim, this rifle was 100% proof ( it was not only Marine) but it had WWI Marine bases made by Winchester and proved the Marines had (7' 2'') spacing pre-1917.

I never made any statement as to who made the bases. The disagreement concerned the 7.2" spacing you claim WRA created in 1917.


This first pic below is of actual WWI Marine bases made by Winchester. These blocks were created in 1917 (by Winchester) to give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. These bases are the blocks Jim claims are "definitely " on the rifle in Senich's book.

You are yet again mistaken. I never said they were WRA bases. I said the bases were on 7.2" spacing, which they are. Misrepresenting what I say will not change the fact that you were wrong.


Here are actual real pics of Senich's rifle from his book. First a side shot of the bases. Notice the U shaped groove that I pointed out earlier, that Jim said wasn't there. The same U groove is on the rear sight too.

I actually said I didn't see the groove, but it really doesn't matter, as there was never any issue with the type of bases, other than they are on 7.2" spacing.


These scope bases are from the Korean to Vietnam timeframe, just as I stated earlier. I also don't think they are even for a 1903, I think they are for a Model 70. These bases are not the WWI Marine bases Jim states he knows for sure are on Senich's rifle, nor is the spacing the same so they can be swapped.

"...know''s for sure" does not appear in my post. Nice rifle though. It's on 7.2" spacing!! Wow!!

To be clear, I don't care what bases are on this rifle. That was never the issue. The bases shown allow the attachment of a scope on 7.2" spacing, which Steve claims was "created" by WRA in 1917. This particular 1910 era rifle has a scope mounted on 7.2" spacing. In those days, there were many fine gunsmiths who made whatever they needed due to the general lack of availability of commercial goods in those days. It was a different time. One could argue the rifle was scoped much later, but if that were true, why would a modern gunsmith use mounts, such as those on this rifle, that hadn't been available in his lifetime? You can make the same argument for any scoped '03. No one can actually tell when a rifle was scoped, especially if it was scoped with a 100-year-old scope and mounts.

Judge for yourself what is most likely.

Goodnight all. Enjoy life while you can.:hello:

[cplnorton]

1903's used what is called O&E blocks, correct?

that one pictured has an odd screw pattern, not at all like the (admittedly very few) originals I have seen

Yes, John Unertl copied the Unertl O & E off the WWI WRA Springfield Marine bases.

The blocks are nearly identical except for slight differences in the machining at the ends of the block.

They are nothing like the blocks on the Senich Rifle.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thanks for posting the auction site listing.

The rifle is definitely not a sniper rifle, nor did I ever claim it to be, nor did Senich. It's a rebuild.

If the rifle was an old match rifle, the elongated front base could have been used to switch back and forth from 7.2" spacing to 6" spacing, depending on the range of the match. Seems logical.

[cplnorton]

Shown below is a 1910 rifle with a B5 scope with #1 WRA mounts on 7.2" spacing, which means the very early #1 mount is mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases.


It is an early USMC scoped rifle in WRA #1 mounts on 7.2" spacing, which requires "Springfield Marine" bases.


The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.



Springfield Marine bases were ONLY made by Winchester. But then it becomes:




You are yet again mistaken. I never said they were WRA bases. I said the bases were on 7.2" spacing, which they are. Misrepresenting what I say will not change the fact that you were wrong.



.

[cplnorton]

You keep saying it is a fake. A fake what? It is just a scoped Marine rifle. No one has claimed it to be anything else.


So I'm guessing even after seeing those pics and that provenance you going to double down and say this rifle is Marine, and it was drilled and tapped pre WWI?

I'm just curious.



.

[nf1e]

Just to add a little humor to the show, I laser etched a whole bunch of M14 parts with NM just for the halibut. Connector rods, selector switch, trigger group, sling swivels, sling keepers and a few bolts. I also posted along with these, don't believe anything you hear or read and only half what you think you see. Saw photos of my fakes used a proof by a few of the wannabes that showed how clueless they actually were.
With out formal research as cplnorton has done it is awfully easy to interpret other's writings as fact when they are often times based on the writers personal thoughts and not necessarily fact.

[Allen]

Just to add a little humor to the show, I laser etched a whole bunch of M14 parts with NM just for the halibut. Connector rods, selector switch, trigger group, sling swivels, sling keepers and a few bolts. I also posted along with these, don't believe anything you hear or read and only half what you think you see. Saw photos of my fakes used a proof by a few of the wannabes that showed how clueless they actually were.
With out formal research as cplnorton has done it is awfully easy to interpret other's writings as fact when they are often times based on the writers personal thoughts and not necessarily fact.

NM connector rods, selector, swivels and keepers? LOL

[nf1e]

NM connector rods, selector, swivels and keepers? LOL

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

[Allen]

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

Why not though? Everyone shoots full auto fire at national match ranges, right? Sooner or later you're bound to hit the bullseye.

[lyman]

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

I took a silver paint pen, and had my wife (better handwriting) put PIETHON on the barrel of a new in box RG 22 short I picked up in an estate, and to a Jennings 25 that was chromed and with a gold paint pen had her write Gold Cup on the slide,


some folks at the gunshow got a kick out of it, some were confused

[Allen]

I took a silver paint pen, and had my wife (better handwriting) put PIETHON on the barrel of a new in box RG 22 short I picked up in an estate, and to a Jennings 25 that was chromed and with a gold paint pen had her write Gold Cup on the slide,


some folks at the gunshow got a kick out of it, some were confused

The paint was worth more than the pistols.

[nf1e]

This is being watched for content.


51780

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There is some confusion as to what constitutes a "Springfield Marine" base. The 1926 WRA drawing of same is lacking one dimension - length. Without knowing that dimension, no one can ever positively identify ANY particular set of bases as "Springfield Marine". I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the purpose of the "Springfield Marine" bases was to mount a WRA scope on 7.2" spacing. Steve has taken the position that WRA didn't mount scopes on 7.2" spacings until 1917. I dispute that. I also maintain that any set of bases that mounts a WRA OEM #2 mount on 7.2" spacing are essentially "Springfield Marine" bases. The following explains why.

We know for a fact that Niedner was mounting scopes on 7.2" spacing on Marine team rifles as early as Aug of 1916, and probably much earlier. WRA, a huge company in the business of selling scopes, would not have sat by while Niedner scooped up all the 7.2" spacing scope jobs.

Niedner was also converting '03's to 22's for his friends as early as 1914, and the picture below is of one of the later rifles. Niedner mounted the scopes on 7.2" spacing, using what looks to me to be a rear WRA "Springfield Marine" base, but it appears to be slightly longer than the rear base on Steve's 300K series rifle. Please note the Niedner rifle is a 1916 era rifle. So which base is the correct "Springfield Marine" base? The one on Steve's 300K series rifle or the one on Niedner's 600K series rifle? I don't know, and neither does Steve; because no one knows the correct length of a "Springfield Marine" base. As an added note, who developed the "Springfield Marine" base first, Niedner or WRA?

If I find an earlier example, I will post it.

51783

As for the rebuilt rifle I posted at the beginning of this thread, no one has definitively proven it to be a fake. Everyone has an opinion, but they are just opinions. As for being a fake - fake what? I made no claim as to it being a sniper rifle, nor do I believe it to be a sniper rifle. It is just a scoped '03. As for the USMC stamps, I have no idea where they came from or why. Was there a big market for USMC rifles 36 years ago? Beats me. One collector (Douglas) thought it authenticate, other collectors don't.

Now for my third, and final, example of an early rifle with "Springfield Marine" mounts (meaning it is scoped on 7.2" spacing). Steve's 300K series rifle. It is a 1909 '03 with a A5 scope mounted on 7.2" spacing. For Steve to be correct, this old rifle would have had to be scoped in or after 1917. Steve further claims it to be a Marine rifle, but I see no indicators of it being a Marine rifle. Why would the Marines want to scope an 8-year old worn out rifle when they were ordering new scoped rifles? That position defies a logical explanation.

That's all folks!

[cplnorton]

I don't even know why Im responding to this. He's literally trying to make a case on why that fake USMC stamp rifle is real. That says a lot.

If Jim ever researched in the Archives you would see many of the rifles built at this time were not issued right away. They were trying to build up a wartime surplus, so they were built and just put into storage. Just because a rifle was built, does not mean it was issued right away. Most of these rifles were shipped to some location to be put into storage. If Jim ever saw the serials of brand new rifles they were pulling out during WWI, he would drop that argument. Heck I see brand new rifles this early, being pulled out in the early 20's. They never even got issued in WWI. But that is mostly because Ordnance put their focus on using the M1917 in the AEF. .

As far as the length of the blocks, you can look in the WWI pics and tell the block is not the whole length of the receiver. I have posted pics of my rifle next to the original WRA pics a dozen times at least and they are identical.

The picture of the Marine Mount M1903 taken in France in 1917 is also a pre 1910 rifle. If you know M1903 traits at all, you would not argue this.

This is BEYOND beating a dead horse. It's arguing the same stuff over and over.

This pic taken in France in very late 1917, is a Marine Mount M1903 built by WRA. This rifle is a PRE-1910 rifle. The stock, handguard, and rear sight on this rifle all pre date 1910 by the traits. That isn't a coincidence.

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

My rifle next to it.

https://i.imgur.com/R8U94izl.jpg

[cplnorton]

Jim also posted the fake rifle out of Senich's book, and takes books as gospel. But he ignores that Brophy came to the same conclusion I did.

This is from Brophy's book. The pic in his book, is from the WWI Winchester files.

https://i.imgur.com/Hn5IZErh.jpg


I had a researcher copy the pic from Brophy's book at Cody. Here is the same rifle that Brophy identifies as Marine bases next to mine.

https://i.imgur.com/cdK4HhYh.jpg

- - - Updated - - -

Here is the top view of the WWI WRA Marine Mount pic next to mine. They are identical.

https://i.imgur.com/U7LfXyGl.jpg

At the end of the day the Marine mount rifles that Winchester built for the Marines and Army in 1917/18 are IDENTICAL in everyway. There are no differences. There is no accurate way to tell if my rifle was a Marine or Army. But the fact that the Marine photo in France is also a pre 1910 rifle like mine ( mine is a 1909) is certainly interesting. Also a rifle about a 1000 digits off my serial is in the WRA WWI docs that looks like a test pattern rifle. Out of the 6 rifles I can identify with Marine mounts by WRA in WWI, 3 are pre 1910. There is some correlation to those pre 1910 rifles and the WRA Marine Mount Snipers.

But the thing about this all. There are only Four of these rifles known to exist. I have one, a very famous Sniper collector owns 2, and one in the Cody Museum. It's by far one of the rarest variations out there.

All four of the rifles can be put side by side and they are identical in everyway, and even have the same build traits. I noticed when I examined all the rifles torn apart and in detail. But I have never detailed any of those traits in public and never will. My hope is to find more, and the only way you will be able to identify them is by those traits.

No one knows yet how to fake one of these rifles and I thank God for that.

[cplnorton]

I'm seriously about to just ignore Jim. But I know there are some who read this stuff and actually want to learn, and that is the only reason I am even still posting research.

But it's just getting really old. It's the same tired argument over and over.

[nf1e]

Thanks for posting cplnorton. No doubt you are ahead of the game when it comes to facts and reality. I have been feeling sorry for the other dude's blathering of what he read in poorly researched books. I run into a couple of guys like that once in awhile when I have threads going on the M14.

[Allen]

I run into a couple of guys like that once in awhile when I have threads going on the M14.

But I'll bet Forrest Gump isn't one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyZSrcuuOf0

[nf1e]

Nope, with a good producer even he can be made to look good.

[lyman]

Norton, please continue to post, and if you need to , put anyone on ignore,

your input is valuable, and we appreciate it,


I'm gonna lock this one for a bit,