USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917

[cplnorton]

The interesting ones are the ones that show this modification that are now Mann Niedner scopes.

I suspect this is evidence they were used on the Winchester Marine bases and then later had the Mann Niedner conversion.

I think Goerg has one or two Mann Niedner's with this modification, and I've had one.

As I said in the previous post, this modification did not need to be done on a Mann Nieder A5 scope. As those bases are taller and clear the bolt just fine.

[cplnorton]

Hey Emri, you'll notice the official scopes by having removed the ring which interferes with the bolt. I hope I didn't tell too much with telling this in public, however...

lol, I posted it as you typed it.

So the cat is out of the bag now.

[cplnorton]

Notice the home made remedy to create clearance on this rifle. It just does clear when sighted at 100 yds. Same rifle I showed earlier.

Emri

Yeah it makes sense. That is right where it hits.

Actually what the Marines did was something even more simple, but same exact principle. They cut down the ring on the A5 scope so the bolt would clear.

Now this modification did not need to be done on the Mann Niedner style tapered bases and mounts, as those were tall enough to clear the bolt. This only needed to be done on the Winchester Marine Bases. And I know there is some confusion with what the Winchester Marine bases were. They are almost identical to the Unertl O&E bases used on the 1903A1 Snipers in WWII. Unertl probably copied his bases off the WRA Marine bases. They are basically the same, just slight variations in machining and the way the scope mounts.

But with the Winchester Marine bases, that ring on the A5 scope does not clear the bolt. So they just cut down the ring. That ring is mostly cosmetic and might give you a fuzz easier handle to pull the scope back from recoil but not much. Especially when it causes you to have to cycle the scope, to chamber a round. So the Marines milled it down so it would clear the bolt.

The Marines were not the only ones who did this either. The Army did it. And I think I even have a pic of a commercial Niedner rifle from back then that has this done. I don't know who did it first, but I imagine everyone just copied off each other back then.

But I have pictures that Andrew has found from both the Marines and Army that show this modification on A5 scopes.

Also now that you know what it is, start to watch for it on A5's that pop up. I figured this out about a year ago staring at some pictures of A5's back then, and I've been looking for it since. It shows up every so often on A5 scopes up for sale.

Here is the modification, Arrow to where they cut down the ring.




Here is a A5 rifle with original Winchester Marine bases. It is sighted in at a 100 yards as I actually shot this one a couple months back. But you see with the ring cut, the bolt clears the scope.

[Promo]

Hey Emri, you'll notice the official scopes by having removed the ring which interferes with the bolt. I hope I didn't tell too much with telling this in public, however...

[Emri]

He was posing for this photo and not sighting in on anything, as the A5 sight in that location, wouldn't have a good sight picture. Also if the A5 scope wasn't modified in a way, the bolt would hit the A5 scope and you had to push the scope forward to cycle the bolt. The Marines fixed this later on by modifying the A5 scopes in a way that the bolt would clear. So that might be as well why the scope was pushed forward as well, to cycle the bolt.

Notice the home made remedy to create clearance on this rifle. It just does clear when sighted at 100 yds. Same rifle I showed earlier.

Emri


1903_A5_006.jpg

[cplnorton]

First thanks for the gratitude, but let's not get carried away. Just knew of some good locations which I thought would pay off and to a large extent did so a large part of it was sheer luck. but the story is never complete.

Just lucky I'm local and can spend a lot of time there. There's still a lot of locations I haven't touched and were small arms entries within the Ordnance Department files at NARA.

In the mean time, I encourage anyone reading this thread to take advantage of the online digitized photos (whichever are available) if NARA digitized the entire cache of AEF Signal Corp photos that's a huge visual resource for any WWI History buff (and it's free!)

I don't think you are giving your self enough credit. No one has ever found those documents. And a lot of people have looked for them. That was quite an accomplishment.

And I am very appreciative of all the info you are uncovering at the archives. You are rewriting a lot of material. Just not on the A5, but so many topics. You should be proud man.

[cplnorton]

Sorry about the WWII typo.

Ok so, The A5 was used in France, that is fact. There is enough evidence to prove that, I assume. I guess there are shipment records and other documents and such to prove that, that is not in question.

BUT, the details of that photo ARE! I want to know who the photographer was, where he's from and his story. I want to know what unit he was with and what unit he was following when he took that photo. I want to know the name of that Marine in the photo and what company and platoon he was with. I want to see photos of his fellow platoon mates. I want to know where that unit was when the photo was taken. I want to know the exact day and time. I want to know why the photo was taken and what he was aiming at. I want to see more photos of what the photographer was taking during the same time, in the same place.

I don't know $HIT about that photo! But I wish I did...

The easiest argument someone could make on where the photo was taken in France, would have been at St. Nazaire France. If it was taken there it would have been taken earlier in 1917 than my Dec 1917 date.

The tents and even the uniforms of the Marines at St Nazaire, would match the photos really well. Here are a few pics form St Nazaire France. Photo's are courtesy of Steven Girard.








Even though St Nazaire would be the most logical choice for someone arguing this. I sort of have a hunch it wasn't taken there. The reason being, the photos in that block in the AEF book are later and none show a location as being taken in St Nazaire. They were taken in training further inland in France.

The other thing that gets me. WRA states the Marine A5 rifles ended up going to a unit close to an Army repair Depot in France. WRA doesn't name the Army camp. But the Marine documents do. The Marine documents name the Army Camp, and say that the Army repaired all their A5 rifles that broke and kept them serviceable for the Marines. Also the Army had a long distance range set up at this Camp that the Marines could sight in their A5 rifles and get target practice with them. These early Marines were not school trained snipers like later in the war. So from everything it says, it sounds like these Marines were literally shooting the Teslescopic sighted rifles for the first time at this Army camp.

The most interesting fact, this picture is a ARMY signal Corps photo, and this Army Camp where the Marine A5 rifles were serviced and sighted in, was one of the major headquarters for the Army signal Corps. So I have a hunch the Army Signal Corps took this pic of a Marine who was probably there sighting in one of the new WRA rifles.

Other than just the generic France location, I doubt any official documentation will be found that says the exact location of where it was taken. I just have a hunch it was taken by the Army Signal Corps at this Army Camp in France. But I can't prove it. It's just what makes the most sense to me.

He was posing for this photo and not sighting in on anything, as the A5 sight in that location, wouldn't have a good sight picture. Also if the A5 scope wasn't modified in a way, the bolt would hit the A5 scope and you had to push the scope forward to cycle the bolt. The Marines fixed this later on by modifying the A5 scopes in a way that the bolt would clear. So that might be as well why the scope was pushed forward as well, to cycle the bolt.

But as far as location, a very safe argument would be St Nazaire. I just have a hunch it might be at that Army Camp. I just can't prove it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I should let it ride, but what the heck. This all started when Norton posted a thread in which he dated the photo in question, 4337, to Dec of 1917 by "bracketing" the photos in the segment. He further claimed all the catalogue photos were in chronological order. I posted a clip from the catalogue which stated the photos in the catalogue were not in chronological order, but was comprised of segments of photos taken by the same photographer, and the photos in each segment were in chronological order, but the segments were not. A segment is usually 10 pictures or thereabouts. Look at 4328, a photo in the same segment as 4337, and it has its SC bona fides, showing it was taken on 5 Feb 1918. 4337 could not have been taken in Dec 1917. Why is this critical? Uniform issues.

Norton also stated all the pictures in the catalogue were taken in France, which is not true either, as I posted the AEF number of a picture taken in New York City (there are many others).

Picture 4337 is a duplicate of the original, which is 1537. Why do I say it is the original? Because it has no AEF number written on the negative, which means it preceded 4337. It is also missing its bone fides entirely, including the AEF number in the left lower corner of the picture. Note this situation does not apply to any other picture in the segment. That is very odd indeed. It is certainly reason for doubt. So Norton made a series of erroneous statements, passing them off as facts. I simply corrected him in a nice way.

For the record, I have NEVER stated this photo was not taken in France. I simply stated, and still do, that there exists doubt as to where, when, and by whom it was taken, and that it probably, or might have, been taken in the US. There is nothing that proves it wasn't.

As for the A5/03 combination being used in France, I think it was used in every conceivable combination and I have NEVER said anything to the contrary. I believe the Neidner rifles went to the 4th Brigade, who may have had some scoped NM rifles already. I have no idea what the Army used and have never professed to know. I do know that WRA mounted A5's on 03's for the Army in the hundreds, which has been common knowledge for as long as I can remember.

My hunt is for the serial numbers of the Neidner rifles, and no more. But I do hate to see people passing off nonsense and BS for facts.

As for 1537, look up pictures of the Marine cantonments in France (2 square miles of tents). Look at the tents they used and then look at the tent in 1537.

[Mike D]

Sorry about the WWII typo.

Ok so, The A5 was used in France, that is fact. There is enough evidence to prove that, I assume. I guess there are shipment records and other documents and such to prove that, that is not in question.

BUT, the details of that photo ARE! I want to know who the photographer was, where he's from and his story. I want to know what unit he was with and what unit he was following when he took that photo. I want to know the name of that Marine in the photo and what company and platoon he was with. I want to see photos of his fellow platoon mates. I want to know where that unit was when the photo was taken. I want to know the exact day and time. I want to know why the photo was taken and what he was aiming at. I want to see more photos of what the photographer was taking during the same time, in the same place.

I don't know $HIT about that photo! But I wish I did...

[Smokeeaterpilot]

And I have to give mad props to Andrew on this. Andrew uncovered almost the complete story of the A5 sniper at the archives. I had pulled all the WRA WWI documents from Cody that detailed a lot of the story. But the ones that literally spell out everything barney style, Andrew found those at the Archives

So mad props to Andrew because his documents completely rewrote the whole story of the A5 sniper.

First thanks for the gratitude, but let's not get carried away. Just knew of some good locations which I thought would pay off and to a large extent did so a large part of it was sheer luck. but the story is never complete.

Just lucky I'm local and can spend a lot of time there. There's still a lot of locations I haven't touched and were small arms entries within the Ordnance Department files at NARA.

In the mean time, I encourage anyone reading this thread to take advantage of the online digitized photos (whichever are available) if NARA digitized the entire cache of AEF Signal Corp photos that's a huge visual resource for any WWI History buff (and it's free!)

[cplnorton]

Army ordering A5s with "Marine Mounts" that sounds familiar....

And I have to give mad props to Andrew on this. Andrew uncovered almost the complete story of the A5 sniper at the archives. I had pulled all the WRA WWI documents from Cody that detailed a lot of the story. But the ones that literally spell out everything barney style, Andrew found those at the Archives

So mad props to Andrew because his documents completely rewrote the whole story of the A5 sniper.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Yes Mike it was. You say WWII, but I imagine you mean WWI?

Either way the 1903 A5 snipers were used in both wars. In WWII I can only verify the Marines used them. But in WWI, the Army actually ordered the exact same A5 rifle off WRA as the Marines had received in 1917. And the real twist is, the Army had more "Marine Mount" A5's built by Winchester than the Marines actually did. And there was even a time in the last month of the war where the Marine A5 sniper was the "official" sniper rifle of the US Army. lol But it was just a placeholder they say for the Model of 1918 sniper. But the war ended within weeks of this and the Model of 1918 never shipped. And history has completely jacked up the real story of the Winchester produced A5 snipers.

I've been tempted to post what really happened with the A5 story, but it would be a fight of epic proportions with you know you. He can't even take me saying this pic was taken in France, when it says it was taken in France. It's just not worth it.

Army ordering A5s with "Marine Mounts" that sounds familiar....

[cplnorton]

I understand what your argument is. But, WAS the A5/'03 combo used overseas during WWII?

Mike

I re-read my response and it wasn't as clear as it could be.

Yes both the Army and Marines had A5 scopes, mounted on M1903 rifles by Winchester, in France, while the war was going on.

[cplnorton]

I understand what your argument is. But, WAS the A5/'03 combo used overseas during WWII?

Mike

Yes Mike it was. You say WWII, but I imagine you mean WWI?

Either way the 1903 A5 snipers were used in both wars. In WWII I can only verify the Marines used them. But in WWI, the Army actually ordered the exact same A5 rifle off WRA as the Marines had received in 1917. And the real twist is, the Army had more "Marine Mount" A5's built by Winchester than the Marines actually did. And there was even a time in the last month of the war where the Marine A5 sniper was the "official" sniper rifle of the US Army. lol But it was just a placeholder they say for the Model of 1918 sniper. But the war ended within weeks of this and the Model of 1918 never shipped. And history has completely jacked up the real story of the Winchester produced A5 snipers.

I've been tempted to post what really happened with the A5 story, but it would be a fight of epic proportions with you know you. He can't even take me saying this pic was taken in France, when it says it was taken in France. It's just not worth it.

[JOHN COOK]

I have enjoyed all I can stand. I think I"ll skip the 1903/1904 page for a few days. Maybe the dust will settle and they will find out it is FAKE NEWS by the Signal Corp. and the photos were actually shot at Quantico.