Probable WWII 1903 Marine Sniper w/A5 scope

[cplnorton]

Tim, that was the one that they thought was made in the 50's from leftover sniper parts, wasn't it?

[Roadkingtrax]

Tim, that was the one that they thought was made in the 50's from leftover sniper parts, wasn't it?

Yes, that was the rifle I purchased from Rick. Shot for a while and sold to TBONE69 on the this forum. It had the same "match" modifications your rifle did. The sear and firing pin rod were perfectly matched for a 3lb break. The top of the tigger guard was draw filed to remove material to allow a good "bite" into the wood. Several other things were done to the rifle, but no bearing on the discussion for your fine rifle here.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

Steve, once again you have turned up an outstanding piece of history through your network of connections, and I don't know how you do it. Your photography skills are on a parallel with John Holbrook over in the 1911 Forum, I wish I had your skills. Genuine, put together, wartime expedient, whatever...that is a cool rifle. Thanks for sharing.

[cplnorton]

I hope this is ok to do as long as I cite it. And since this picture was from WWII, I imagine the govt owns the copyright to it and it would fall under public domain anyways. But this is the picture from page 252 of Grunt Gear by Alec Tulkoff of a Marine A5 on a 1903. With the P42 camo jacket in the pics, this must be around 1943 or later. It's labeled as being taken of a sniper in training in the South Pacific.

Even though it doesn't show my scope rings. The one thing that really sticks out to me is the finish on the rifle. The receiver looks like a dark magnesium park and the thing that really sticks out to me is the middle band. It looks like it's a deep high polish blued finish. That is very uncommon on a Marine rifle.

Now looking at my rifle. One of the first things I noticed on it when I got it was the middle band has a very high polish blued finish. Also note the rifle in the pic has the S stock. Which I've now found more straight stock pics of snipers in WWII than C stocks.

But this is one of the best up close pics I've ever seen of a real sniper. This one also had the small size (non USMC) sight hood on it, but I cannot fit in the scanner I have all the way to copy it.

But if nothing else I bet Jim will like the pic of the 1903 with the A5.

[cplnorton]

Steve, once again you have turned up an outstanding piece of history through your network of connections, and I don't know how you do it. Your photography skills are on a parallel with John Holbrook over in the 1911 Forum, I wish I had your skills. Genuine, put together, wartime expedient, whatever...that is a cool rifle. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Jeff! I will have to get with you offline. It's actually pretty easy to do. I have barely $50 in my photobooth and I used a old panasonic camera from like 2005. lol

[CPC]

Either way it's a great rifle. But since we are trying to make comparisons to establish originality does it make a difference if the handguard shape in the picture showing the A5 has a completely different profile than the rifle in question? Doesn't Steve's have more of a unertl profile?
CC

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Nice pic of a Win A5 in Winchester modified mounts. Note the larger knobs and absence of the grasshopper spring. Those are the mounts I would have expected to see. I deer hunt with one just like that. You can take it apart and clean the lenses in a couple of minutes without dismounting the scope. Too bad you guys ran the price of an A5 out of sight.

Note the different bases also. Those are Mann-Neidner bases in the last photo.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Jim are by chance the Mann-Neidner bases taller than the Unertl's? Would that explain why the front block needed to be shimmed? The Unertl front block is shorter than the Mann Neidner base?

I was thinking too, after reading that the scopes and blocks were ordered together, they were probably shipped together. So yeah now I'm pretty convinced my rifle had an Unertl on it from when it was original built.

Now Unertl's were prone to breaking so I wonder what the process was if was broken in the field? What was the replacement scope? I imagine replacement unertls were hard to get until very late in the war. Just because all the new ones were probably used to make new snipers.

Now here is another question, since the one A5 in the pic above has Mann Neidner blocks, will those USMC modified mounts on the A5 scopes only fit the Mann Neidner blocks? So I guess I'm wondering if they would have had to use #2 rings to fit unertl blocks because the Mann Neidner USMC modified ones wouldn't attach to Unertl's? I know it's grasping at straws. Just trying to think outside the box.

[cplnorton]

I did get brave this morning. I had to know if the front block had an E under it. So I took it off. I was a little nervous doing it, but at the same time I had to know. lol But it came off just fine and I got it back on just fine. So I feel much better.

But both blocks are marked O and E, so I think they are original to the rifle.

One thing I did find interesting the shim is much smaller than it looks in my pics. It just has a lot of dried grease that got caught under it. It also has a lot of rust. And it's actually only one solid one piece brass shim, and then a small thin shim for the side, which is exactly like the one that is under the rear block.

I measured the shim with my calipers, and I think my pics make it look much bigger than it actually is. Both shims together at their thickest point even with the grease, it measure .0620 on my digital calipers. So I think it's much smaller than most thought.

Here are the pics.















The screws were longer and cut down. The tops were filed down as well.








And there is a punch mark on the bottom of the receiver that was applied after finish. The other marks look finished over. I don't know if this means anything or not.

[cplnorton]

This is the other thing. It's hard to get a pic of it, but when I twist it in the light the follower has SERIAL written on it and then it looks like numbers. I can halfway make out a 1 and 4 but the rest is worn off. But it reminds me of how the top of the bolt is electropenciled. It's just worn down a lot.

But the IAL is the only letters I can really capture with my camera. I might have to try taking it outside in the light and see if I can get a pic of it better.

I tried to highlight it a little so you guys can see it. I don't know if this will help.

[cplnorton]

I think too the S stock is original to the rifle and is a real sniper stock. The area around the sight base has really been dished out. There was a lot of material removed. In fact from the side you can actually see the drawing number on the sight base.

Please excuse the dog hair. I didn't catch it till I was editing the pics and I was too lazy to go back down and take more pics. But you can really see in these pics how much wood was removed around that base.

Also I'm finding more pics of S stocks during the War than C's. I'm really starting to think the S stock sniper was much more prevalent that we thought.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim are by chance the Mann-Neidner bases taller than the Unertl's? Would that explain why the front block needed to be shimmed? The Unertl front block is shorter than the Mann Neidner base?

I was thinking too, after reading that the scopes and blocks were ordered together, they were probably shipped together. So yeah now I'm pretty convinced my rifle had an Unertl on it from when it was original built.

Now Unertl's were prone to breaking so I wonder what the process was if was broken in the field? What was the replacement scope? I imagine replacement unertls were hard to get until very late in the war. Just because all the new ones were probably used to make new snipers.

Now here is another question, since the one A5 in the pic above has Mann Neidner blocks, will those USMC modified mounts on the A5 scopes only fit the Mann Neidner blocks? So I guess I'm wondering if they would have had to use #2 rings to fit unertl blocks because the Mann Neidner USMC modified ones wouldn't attach to Unertl's? I know it's grasping at straws. Just trying to think outside the box.

The height of a front Neidner base is 0.475" and it is 0.500" - 0.480" wide by 1" long. Look at your handguard hole to see if it would clear.

jt

[cplnorton]

Ok I am sort of a amateur with calipers and my calipers are a cheap $20 pair of digitals from harbor freight. So I know I'm off some, but this will give you a general idea of it. Just don't take my measurements to be 100% perfect.


The hole of the my handguard is .05280 wide and 1.0110 long. The front Unertl block with shim is .5075 tall measured from the middle of the barrel.


This is probably a stupid question. But will the modified USMC Winchester scope fit on Unertl blocks? Or do you have to change the blocks over to the Mann Neidners for a USMC A5 to be put on?

It seems now every instance I find of the modified USMC A5 the rifle has the MAnn Neidner mounts as well. So I'm wondering would they have to change the rings on the A5 back to #2's to get them to slide on Unertl blocks? I know I'm grasping at straws. But just curious if there is any other explanation on that scope other than a civilian putting it on there.

But yeah if I didn't make it clear earlier, I 100% agree with everyone's assessment that it would have been made and had a Unertl on it originally.

By the way thank you for your help guys! Especially Jim for answering all my dumb questions on the A5. This is a wonderful learning experience and I've really learned a lot. So thanks so much guys! I appreciate everyone's input!

[Promo]

No the Mann Neidner scope blocks are different. They use a recoil-locking technique.

[cplnorton]

No the Mann Neidner scope blocks are different. They use a recoil-locking technique.

So if you had to put a A5 on Unertl bases you would have to change the rings to #2's to do it?

And I would imagine you cannot interchange the Mann Neidner bases with Unertl bases on the receiver and barrel because they probably have different locations for the screw holes? I doubt they would be the same patterns and would interchange would they?

Am I correct in my thinking?