USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Anyone who spends time filing through the catalog will notice they are not in chronological order (they are or they are not - its like being pregnant). You might want to check out catalog entry 1537. It has no SC number on the picture, so according to your statements, it wasn't taken in France. The picture I posted is 1537. And if, as you say, they are in chronological order, pic 1537 was one of the earliest photos taken by the Corps.

[cplnorton]

Anyone who spends time filing through the catalog will notice they are not in chronological order (they are or they are not - its like being pregnant). You might want to check out catalog entry 1537. It has no SC number on the picture, so according to your statements, it wasn't taken in France. The picture I posted is 1537. And if, as you say, they are in chronological order, pic 1537 was one of the earliest photos taken by the Corps.

Actually no they are in chronological order. And anyone is more than welcome to investigate it themselves.

Your not reading the catalog right. 1537 doesn't exist on it's own. Because it looks like just the small size version of 4337. It's the same pic, different sized. That is why your pic is so small you posted.

Just like 1538 is probably the small version of 4338.

If you pull 4337 or 4338 they are the large size versions of the pics. When I pulled them they were basically 8x10's. Which anyone can pull these by the way. You just email them, and they will send you a copy in your email. Sometimes they charge, sometimes they don't.


But see the 1537. Same pic as 4337. Again it's taken in France.

[cplnorton]

Again here is your 1537. It's cataloged as taken in France, published in May 1918. Even the picture you posted (1537) is labeled as taken in France. I'm not sure why there would be any question of this not being taken in France?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It took me just a minute or so to find pictures not taken in France. Go to page 494 and look at 45322 and tell me that is not New York's skyline. I am aware that the catalogue says the pictures are taken in France, but it would appear that is not true. Note the catalogue's caveat that it is most likely riddled with errors on page 9.

If 1537 is a small size version of 4337, please tell me what happened to the catalogue number on the picture. Since the number is missing, 1537 must precede the other two versions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The pics are in really good chronological order. You just have to find the chronological order that was recorded in 1918. You can't piece this together the way it's filed today. You have to find how it was filed back then. It's hundreds of pages long and you can follow where they move, in order. Not just the Marines, but the Army as well. It's all in groups.

There is no "good chronological order", they are either in chronological order, or they are not. The pictures were catalogued as they were received. Are you saying that hundreds of photographers, operating independently in different places, sent their pictures in, and all were catalogued in chronological order? I seriously doubt that premise. I doubt that was even possible.

Please note that according to the catalogue, 1537 is an AEF number and is listed on page 15

How do you know how the pictures were catalogued in 1918? Are we not referencing the "official" catalogue? Please advise.

[Emri]

Not the best choice...........

Great picture. Question. Is that the best scope that was available for use by US forces in that era? Looks like it would be better suited to use on a .22 rifle. Sincerely. bruce.

In addition to Steve's comments I'll add that they were not the best choice. They were hugely popular for single shot rifles a lot of which were .22's. Look at the pic Steve and Jim are discussing. The scope is not pulled back and the shooter is in a normal firing position. I guarantee you he is not looking through the scope. When mine is positioned ALL the way back my thumb is directly behind the cocking piece and my cheek is smashed into my thumb to be able to see a full field of view. Note; this is not a USMC rifle, just an '03 with an A5 mounted on it.

FWIW,

Emri

1903_A5_001.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Howdy, Emri. I hope the storm didn't cause you any grief.

I agree the A5 is not up to today's standards; but at that time, it was the best scope available. I still use one, mounted on a SRS listed Sporter, and i have no problems of any kind. I am a natural scope crawler, so that helps. I bought the Sporter with the scope already mounted on a Hooper barrel (early custom barrel maker for John B. Buhmiller, also a barrel maker). Deadly accurate.

Nice rifle. Did you mount the scope?

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Hey guys, I’ve been watching the debate ensue over the pictures. I finished a couple work orders for a couple clients in the Textual Records Research Room and decided to go up to the Photograph Research Room a few floors up to see the photographs in question, first hand.
First off, the picture of the index Steve Norton posted is a page from a several hundred page Catalogue to Signal Corp AEF Photographs “sent from France” as denoted on image 4.

https://imgur.com/8IhxGe1

https://imgur.com/ePXBFNX

https://imgur.com/izntBMV

https://imgur.com/vHBBFGa

The photographs are recorded in sequential order in the section Steve Norton posted. I took another picture of that page and did a close up. However it is Part 6 of 6. The other parts of the catalogue are organized into categories such as: AEF Number, Military Unit, Person, Place, and finally Caption (the one these particular pictures are taken from and by far the largest of all 6 sections), Image 6 at the bottom of the page.

https://imgur.com/QXDeEL9

https://imgur.com/xz7Nfhd

If you find an imagine you are interested in “from Part 6 of the catalogue” you go to the box list which starts in imagine 6 and look for the bracket where your document number falls in (sequential order and in blocks) and then match the corresponding box number and submit a request that way.

https://imgur.com/TSeAz0z

https://imgur.com/f4W3Jgz

I would like to point out without the last 6 months these photographs have been digitized through NARA. You may download a copy online from their website: www.archives.gov
In the search bar simply type in: Record Group-Abbreviation-document number and you can pull it up yourself.
In this case is Record Group 111 (Signal Corps) – SC (abbreviation) – and the corresponding document number found on the upper left hand portion of the document.
Here is the unedited document found on the NARA website which has a portion whited out, but the original says “see #’s 4337 + 4338” Follow the link to download a copy for your very own. Its cross referencing the other photograph.

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/55164403

https://imgur.com/l94Vrkr

As for the “A” designator which follows the document number. According to the archive staff, who was assisting with locating this file. The “A” was incorrectly assigned by the Archive staff. The staff member who was digitizing the photographs saw duplicates and assigned an “A” because the database does not allow duplicates in the system. So possibly expect that link to change in the future from 1537A to 1537 since it was an error by NARA Staff. So there are 1 copy each of each photograph.
When referencing the catalogue (the numbers within the parenthesis) “4337 (1537)”, none of the staff know if the photographs were indexed immediately, shortly after taken or following the end of the war. She stated the most likely scenario is whoever was indexing the photographs saw there were copies of the same photograph and assigned it a separate document number and simply crossed referenced the duplicate to the original.

So errors do exist at the archives (the most recent one being within the past couple of months). Not interested in arguing where the picture was taken, but you all should know a lot of this information is already available to you.

You may draw your own conclusions, but here is a little more information from the primary source.
So if anyone wants this information for themselves they can know how to find it, since it’s currently available from your home PC. (The catalogue is also available online as well, not just the photographs).
Happy Researching!

[cplnorton]

Andrew you are awesome my friend! Thank you so much for actually taking the time to go to the archives and actually pull the real copy of it, instead of the one just posted online. And I learned something. I actually didn't know they put all those photos online to search. That is really interesting. Now anyone can look them up really easy! That is awesome!

It might have got lost in the post above, because Andrew posted so much awesome info. But here is the one Jim posted earlier and cropped out the link to the 4337 and 4338. It's Just the high def version of the pic that Andrew actually pulled.

Thanks so much again man!

[cplnorton]

As for the debate on if the pic was taken in the France. I think it's sort of a moot point to try to seriously argue that a picture titled "US Marines in France," wasn't taken in France. lol Unless someone has some actual proof, I would say it's not really something that can be argued right now.

So I will add a little more to what I talked about earlier.

Winchester themselves did not think the A5 was the best scope in WWI. When you read the actual correspondence, they sound like they were doing an infomercial on their new Model of 1918 sniper scope. They say over and over that the A5 was a temporary fix, until they can actually work the bugs out on the new scope. They kept saying we will provide you these A5 scoped M1903's but just wait till you see our new Model of 1918 sniper. The A5 was just a filler piece. They were saying this as early as 1917.

Winchester was all in the Model of 1918. It was based off the Goerz German design they state. I would have to pull the order but I think it was like 59,000 ish complete rifles and scopes. And 35k spare scopes. The order was placed in 1917.

This is the rifle as photographed in the Winchester newsletter they sent out. I do have actual pics of one taken in the WRA files too. If I get time I find them and post them. They are a fuzz different than this. I dont' think they very really got past the prototype phase as they could never get one to pass the trials.

Since WWI ended so fast, WRA's order of nearly 100k rifles and spare scopes was reduced to 5000 scopes only. SA was going to mount them on M1903's. But again WRA couldn't get it to pass trials, so WRA dropped it all and Frankford Arsenal picked it up. But Frankford couldn't do anything with it either. So it was officially canned by the mid 20's.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thank you for the post, Smokeeaterpilot. I was wondering the meaning of the "A". Still, the lack of an AEF number on the 1537 photo indicates, to any reasonable person, that it preceded the other two. Also, we now know that all the catalogue photos were not taken in France as previously stated. Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation. Caution should always be exercised when drawing conclusions from any document. Such is the nature of true research.

[cplnorton]

Here is the WRA model of 1918 scope on a M1903. Somewhere I have a hi def pic of this, but I might have got that pic from Andrew. Here is one I had from somewhere else. I just don't remember where I got it, it's just on my computer scanned from somewhere in my travels. But this was a test rifle right after WWI with the WRA scope mounted. These scopes fell apart under recoil.




This is the Carl Zeis M1903. There was a good chance this could have been a real sniper in WWI, if German didn't enter WWI in 1914. This pic predates 1914. I have the test trial on it, I want to say 1910 or 1912. but don't quote me. This pic was just on my computer. I didn't pull my hard copy to actually read the date again. But somewhere in my files I have a full report and schematics on it too. But if I remember right SA really liked this set up. Somewhere too, I have pics of the Goerz design. But it's sort of similar to the WRA model of 1918 above. WRA copied off that Georze design when Germany entered the war.

But yeah the way it all reads, if Germany didn't enter WWI. German Glass would have most likely been the US official Sniper. The A5 probably would have never been used.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Thank you for the post, Smokeeaterpilot. I was wondering the meaning of the "A". Still, the lack of an AEF number on the 1537 photo indicates, to any reasonable person, that it preceded the other two. Also, we now know that all the catalogue photos were not taken in France as previously stated. Many, if not most, of the photos have accompanying data that states where the photo was taken, when it was taken, and who is in the photo. In the case of 1537, there is no such accompanying data, and any speculation as to when and where it was taken is just that, pure speculation. Caution should always be exercised when drawing conclusions from any document. Such is the nature of true research.

No worries on posting the data, but it was already available via online since it has just recently just made digitalized. At least I found that and anyone reading this tread can now find that, so that's worth something.

I however do think we part ways on a few things. I understand, like most reasonable people that Archival documentation does possess some flaws. Sometimes documents can contradict each other, or a memorandum can be over ridden a few weeks later. Tim Plowman has made some compelling arguments of a few errors in the recording of USMC photography in the Pacific during WWII he has come across. So it does not come without errors (and funny enough illustrated a just recently that a NARA archivists incorrectly marked the document with an "A").

However, invalidating cataloguing errors or documentation errors come with a huge burden of proof of the person making the statement, to almost prove beyond reasonable doubt that there has been an error made. Beyond comments from you or Steve Norton I really haven't seen anyone else make a argument one way or another. From my perspective I haven't seen anything to really invalidate it completely. On the flip side I haven't really seen that the pictures are irrefutable since the publication admits to numerous errors (however does not specify to the level, severity or most commonly made errors. Its a really vague statement (almost a CYA). So I err on the side of caution, quote what is stated in the documentation.

I do see some portions of comments made within the catalogue that should be of note.

Page 3:

"Forward. This catalogue has been made up from rough caption lists sent from France. It is for the immediate use of the public and is in no sense a final record."

"Corrections. This conditions under which these photographs were taken, captioned and speedily forwarded have inevitably causes numerous errors. The Chief, Historical Branch, War Plans Division, General Staff, Army War College, Washington D.C., will appreciate and authoritative corrections which may be sent him."

The catalogue itself admitted to numerous errors but looking for authoritative corrections. However it says these captions were sent from France and the document itself says "U.S. Marines in France. Telescopic Rifle Sight."

Could the picture have been taken in England? Could it have been simply intended to just a representative example of what a U.S. marine would've looked like in France? Could it have been taken post war? Could it have been taken state-side? This can be "what-ifed" for a long way..

There are numerous what ifs. And I'll definitely admit some of the statements made in the publication do warrant criticism (as stated above). However in my perspective the burden of proof hasn't been made to completely invalidate. There could be perhaps more conclusive evidence about the photography methods and record keeping techniques in textual records of Record Group 111 Records of Chief Signal Officer. A final nail in the coffin of faith in the captions if you will.

I was more concerned with that I new where to locate the photographs since the photograph record room is significantly smaller than the textual records section. I wanted to know if there was more information connected to the photographs such as if there was a handwritten memo accompanying the photograph or something significant written on the back (there wasn't unfortunately). What you see and what I posted is what you get. Until a new discovery can be made to further complicate this issue.

If you see a different interpretation of this then that's fine. I just wanted to take an opportunity since I was there to see if there was more information tethered to the photograph that may prove groundbreaking. But as I mentioned before what you see is what you get. (Other than the discovery of what the "A" meant that was just funny as it was surprising).

Happy Researching!

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Andrew you are awesome my friend! Thank you so much for actually taking the time to go to the archives and actually pull the real copy of it, instead of the one just posted online. And I learned something. I actually didn't know they put all those photos online to search. That is really interesting. Now anyone can look them up really easy! That is awesome!

It might have got lost in the post above, because Andrew posted so much awesome info. But here is the one Jim posted earlier and cropped out the link to the 4337 and 4338. It's Just the high def version of the pic that Andrew actually pulled.

Thanks so much again man!

I would like to point out I did not pull this document. The actual photograph was not able to be found. The error made by the archivist further complicated it. After discussing this fun of this controversial photo with the staff, they went looking for it. They did not find it and did not find the glass negative until they realized they screwed up. Then they taught me that these files had already been digitized and how to locate them. I saw no need to actually pull the glass negative of 1537 after that long conversation. Your photographs 4337 and 4338 were correctly logged and easy to find. It was the "A" that proved problematic. They lead me to the link so posted it.

But happy to help I was already down there.

And for the record. I mentioned to the staff of the how important finding these original photographs was because there was a long standing debate on these particular photographs. Once they realized the error, the staff was discussing amongst themselves how to correct it. One actually said, "if this is such a hot button topic and he's posting this to the forum where people are gonna be looking for it, we don't have to correct anything the forums will take care of that for us."

Enjoy that fun statement from the NARA Staff.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thanks for your explanation, Smokeeaterpilot. I have been aware of the net access to these records (and others) for some time. The photo you posted is the same photo I posted, except I blocked out the reference and wrote my name across mine (which makes someone's post above really confusing). I have spent entire days perusing the photos. Finding a away to download them at high resolution has been taxing. Both the original photos and the digitized photos have incredible resolution. If you zoom them on the NARA site, you can see minute details not detectable in the downloaded versions.

There is a small block of photos with the label "U.S. Marines in France" that appear to have been taken for an article in Bain (?). I think the label was a way to identify the pictures for an article in some publication, versus a statement as to where the picture was taken (the label is missing from one of the photos). Don't know for certain. That some of the Signal Corps photos were staged stateside has been known, or suspected, for a long time (like "Through the Wheat"). What I found odd was that the exact same picture appears in the catalogue three times, and what appears to be the original has a very low AEF number and all three are missing the usual explanation of who is in the picture and when and where taken. The reason? Who knows?
Have fun in the archives.