1909 Match 1903 with Winchester A5 Scope

[cplnorton]

I still believe, but don't know how to prove, that the Marine bases came to be in response to the Mann-Neidner bases which were on 7.2" spacing.

I was thinking this as well today honestly. I have a set of Mann Neidner bases and the modified scope, and I have the Winchester made Marine bases on my rifle. When you you compare them, the Winchester Marine bases seem to be just a simplified version of the Manns. It seems they took the design of the Mann, scaled it down to fit the existing standard mount of the A5 scope, and that was about it.

This was one of the points that I was going to bring up as well. I can't prove it 100% for sure either. But I think I could make a compelling case on why this might have happened.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Take a look at this one, Steve. It is from an old post, (JB's as I recall), and the pic was taken in France. Take a long look at the rifle on the far left in the stacked arms. It is a Winchester modified scope (big knobs on 7.2" centers - sounds like tits). It can only be one of the 150 Niedner rifles.

jt

[Fred]

I've got that photo on a Stereo optic card.

[cplnorton]

I'm compiling all my info into and uploading everything. I have really slow internet, so it makes it a really slow process.

Yeah I have that pic too, that is one I have been working on with the WWI guys on picking their brain. They think it's probably the 5th Marine Regiment in France. And yeah I think it's probably the Mann Neidner too. I wish the pic was a little better.

But Neidner converted the 150 rifles in May/June 1917. Some had to go over. That was pretty early still.

[cplnorton]

I’ve been debating on how much info to show on all this because you can get into a lot of detail on this subject really fast. But I figured I would post this sort of shortened version of my notes and see where it goes.

But what happened was Adolph Neidner was a German Immigrant. And after he had completed the 150 rifles for the Marine Corps in May/June 1917, he was accused of making anti American remarks and reported to the FBI. Neidner was accused of saying that he thought it was better that Germany won the war, and the most damning claim, he was accused of saying he hoped that everyone that used one of his rifles would die. Well when you are accused of that kind of statement, not even weeks after completing the work on rifles for Marine sharpshooters for France. That is something that really draws attention, especially back then as they were paranoid of all the Germans in the US anyways.

So because of the accusation, it launched a detailed FBI investigation of Neidner and the work he had done for the Marines at Philly. Which I’m sure was not fun for him, but fortunate for us, the FBI detailed almost the whole process in their investigation. The main thing the FBI seemed concerned over, was if Neidner could have done something to make the rifles fail.

The first big shocker to me when I read the FBI report, Neidner converted the rifles at the actual Marine Corps Depot in Philadelphia. It seems most of the info out there says that the Marines sent their rifles to Neidner to convert at his location, or he made the mounts and sold them to the Marines. But that isn’t what it is saying here.

Basically at this time, Neidner was working out of his home on a very small scale. It sounds like he was mostly working on fellow rifle team member rifles in the Massachusetts area. He had no employees, and the easiest way to put it, he would probably be called a Garage shop gunsmith today. So I imagine because of this, he traveled to the Marine Depot at Philadelphia to do the actual conversions. He was a contractor basically. At this time there were a lot of civilians working at the Depot so this was nothing uncommon at all and it isn’t even uncommon today. It think it still happens today at PWS Quantico.

But Neidner converted a total of 150 rifles in that May/June 1917 time frame at Philly. For this work, the Marine Corps paid Neidner $1500.
From reading the report, the 150 rifles converted by Neidner were supposed to be just the start. He made a statement in the report, "that he is shortly to equip 1500 additional rifles for the same use." So to me this 150 sounds like a test or trial group, and he was supposed to return to do more. But then the investigation happened, which I think cancelled it all. I have more evidence that supports this claim later on.

One thing the report doesn’t state is the actual date he was accused of making the comments, but I can see by the end of June, 1917, the FBI was already investigating him. So they started the investigation not even weeks after he was done building the rifles. In fact, Neidner when he was done with the conversion, used the $1500 he received off the Marines and took his family on a month long vacation to Milwaukee. And it was while on this vacation, the FBI went in and interviewed everyone, and they were looking for him.

The one thing that strikes me about the report, the FBI was very concerned Neidner could have sabotaged those 150 rifles he built in some way. And they even interviewed someone from Iver Johnson to see if that was possible, and the expert from Iver Johnson said yes.

I can still see dates in August 1917 that they are still interviewing people about him. And there are even dates all the way into 1918 in there as well. It seems this was a active investigation for a while and it wasn’t just dropped.

This is the cliff notes of the investigation and Instead of detailing every single detail, I figured I would just attach the 15 page FBI report. I don’t know if it will be too small to read. If it is, I think you could download the pictures and blow them up and read them. But here is a link to the FBI report. It’s 15 pages.

http://s1282.photobucket.com/user/cplnorton11/slideshow/Neidner%20FBI%20investigation

[cplnorton]

So we have established Neidner had converted the 150 rifles in May/June 1917. On June 15th, 1917 in the Fort Wayne Paper, this picture appears stating that the Marines were testing a new telescoped rifle. The detail of the rifle isn’t the best in the mount area. But it has to be a Neidner rifle as those blocks are pretty big. Too big to be regular mount. I think I might have located the microfilm this came from, and luckily it is only an hour away from my house. So I’m going to go find the original and see if I can get a better copy of this picture.



So again this was June 15th, 1917. Neidner had barely finished the first 150 rifles. Now combine what this says, with the statement by Neidner that he was supposed to go back very shortly and equip another 1500 rifles. I think it’s pretty safe to assume the Marines wanted more than those first 150 rifles to use in the war.

So this equation now enters the picture. I found this in the magazine Man at Arms. I lost my notes of which issue this came out of. But I swear it was the middle of 1917. At least that is what I keep on thinking. I really think it’s about the same time, right after Neidner got in trouble with the FBI. Which makes me think the Marines couldn’t or wouldn’t have used Neidner anymore because he was still under investigation by the FBI. So they might have turned to Winchester. But stupid me, I lost what issue it was in, and can’t find it again.

**Edit, I finally found it again. It was in The Marines Magazine, dated July 1917. It's Volume 2, issue no 8***



Now we know Winchester was training Marines in the setup and repair of the A5 telescopic sight. So to me when you say “setup” that makes me think they were being trained to not only repair, but to install scopes on rifles. Which this was even common when I was in the Marines. I remember Marines traveling all the time to civilian companies to be trained in whatever skill they could bring back and do for the Corps. Because if you can get a Marine to do the work, you save money, and you can avoid a civilian company to do the work. And it was a Win Win for Winchester because at this time they were making alot of other weapons and probably ammo for the war effort. And they would also be selling the Marines the parts.

[cplnorton]

In Brophy’s book on page 507, he shows a factory drawing from Winchester that shows the two different styles of scope blocks for the 1903 Springfield rifle. The one on the right is called the Springfield Marine. The one on the left is the one that attaches to the rear sight base. Which is the 6 on center, and the Marine is a 7.2. Like Jim mentioned earlier.



Now this drawing is dated 1926, but as we already detailed, that 6 on center block on the left, I bet is the exact same one we see in that picture Jim posted from 1912, and the ones on the rifles at SA from 1914. I think even though the drawing is dated 1926, these were around a lot sooner than that date. And I’ve found several times the same item was drawn different ways over multiple years in the online records at Winchester.

Now the mounts on my rifle, are the ones in that Winchester drawing labeled Springfield Marine. And we can place a rifle that appears to be identical to mine in France during the war.

One thing also that I think backs up my theory that those Springfield Marine Mounts were around before that 1926 date is serial 659062 in Brophys book, on page 504. It’s at the Cody museum and also has the Springfield Marine blocks. In fact, it’s the rifle I compared mine to at the beginning of this whole post. It has a 6/17 barrel date. And there is even a second at Cody, serial 661696, that also seems like a match to my rifle, but the blocks are missing on it. But I suspect it had the Marine mounts as well.

It’s a little bit of a coincidence that you have have two rifles at Cody that seem to have the WRA Marine mounts. And they seem to correlate to when the Marines were there training on the A5 since they are mid 1917 dated range. And that fits pretty well to the time period Neidner got himself into a world of trouble with the FBI and should have been building more rifles for the Marines.

This is my last piece I have found so far. This was in the Handbook of Ordnance Data. And it’s dated November 1918 I think if I remember right.



I think this is what has thrown people off. I think at this time, there are two distinct Marine Mounts for the 1903. One that was created by Neidner, and one that was created by Winchester. These scopes are coming from Winchester, to the Marines. And if you take the sentence and break it apart and read it like this, “Produced by the Winchester Repeating Arms company, with a special Marine Corps Mounting”

I speculate that those 500 coming to the Marines from Winchester, had the Winchester Marine mount, like the one drawn above in Brophy's book. Neidner had the control of the tappered base from everything I can research, and I think Winchester wouldn't have wanted anything to do with it anyways. To me, especially back then, if he was under investigation by the FBI, and they were worried he could have potentially sabotaged those rifles. I just can’t see them letting him back in to Philly to convert anymore.


I speculate that Winchester trained Marines, took their training back to Philly, took the shipment of scopes from Winchester, and built rifles themselves after Neidner got himself into trouble with the FBI.

This is my hunch. Can I prove anything past the paperwork I provided, NOT IN ANYWAY. But one of you might have the key to finish this puzzle and if not right now, maybe one of us will find it looking. This all has to be documented at the archives if it really did happen.

So that's my crazy idea. And hell I will be the first to admit I might be missing something or reading something wrong. And if we find one document it might crash my whole theory. lol

I think this just gives us a new place to look, and maybe some new ideas to think about.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

OK. First of all, Winchester built the 500 rifles using the Mann-Niedner bases, as every single one of the original rifles found to date have the Mann-Niedner bases. Of the hundreds of the Winchester modified scopes that have turned up over the years, 100% of them have the Mann-Niedner bases. I am not speaking of the profuse number of outright fakes that have been sold over the net either. I was fortunate to have been introduced to some high end collectors that have stuff I never imagined. When you see an original rifle and the "kit" that came with it, understand who was involved with starting the program for the Corps, and the process of distribution of the rifles and how the snipers were picked and trained and by whom, and the "power" that enabled them to do so, you will sit back and smile. You will also understand why the Corps needed those 150 rifles when they did and why they picked Niedner to do the job. By the way, Niedner started the job on 1 June 1917 and finished on 13 July 1917.

Second, about a month after Niedner completed the 150 rifles, there is a record of him selling something to the War Department. I believe that sale was the right to use the Mann-Niedner bases, or even the 500 Mann-Niedner bases themselves. Either way, Winchester did indeed install the Mann-Niedner bases on those 500 rifles and more. I always wondered why the switch to Winchester to finish the job, and you have provided the answer to that question also.

You are my new best friend. Someday, you have to tell me where you found this stuff. I have known (suspected) for years the 150 rifles came from the USMC Philly Depot, but couldn't prove it. You have done that and I profusely thank you. If you are interested, I have a new target, and I will split the cost with you or pay for it using your researcher, who is obviously better than mine. I will call you Monday and explain, as your goals may not be synonymous with my own.

One more hurdle, and it is a big one. The hunt is afoot.

jt

PS
Have a good time with the kids this weekend. They are way more important than this stuff, and they grow up too fast. I would surrender the solution to this mystery in a heart beat for a chance to go back and spend one more day with my youngest daughter as a kid. She is a mean old attorney now, and blowing her belly is no longer an option.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I wonder if Niedner ever new how much money his big mouth cost him? That FBI report gives an insight to Niedner's personality of which I was previously unaware. Our heroes had flaws.

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim you could be 100% right. I have a lot of questions, a lot of speculation, and several scenarios that would work, and I can't prove any of them 100%. Which drives me up the freaking wall. lol

And I should say too, I'm not saying my rifle is the (S) word. I don't know what it is for certain. On my rifle, the million dollar question is, how soon did Winchester manufacture those Marine bases? I feel comfortable in saying they were for sure made at least by 1917, but how much sooner than that did they make them? That answer could be a huge clue to help identify my rifle that much more.

Now it might make sense if Neidner did sell the rights to the tappered bases to the Marines. I found a mention in a Jan, 1926 Philadelphia Ordnance Repair article in the Marine Corps Gazette that said this, "Telescope sight bases, known as the taper block Marine Corps type, were developed and are made at the Depot."

So now a good question is, that article is from 1926, and it sounds like they are still manufacturing those mann neidner style bases at the Depot. So did Philly convert some of those A5 scopes at a later time, after WWI? Maybe they converted some of the scopes in that mid 1920's time period, for the Marine rifle team rifles.

I agree there are for sure more than 150 of those converted scopes, but I sort of think the conversion might have been done by Philly as well.

I sort of study the Mann Blocks in the photos, and there seems to be a couple different lengths of the tappered blocks that are made for the receiver. I have a set of Mann Neidner blocks for a 1903 that I am 100% convinced that are real, just because of how and where I found them. And they came with a Marine modified A5 scope. But my rear base for the receiver, completely covers the full length of the receiver. .

Looking at some in photos on A5's from the beginning of WWII, they as well seem like they cover the full length of the receiver. But I found a picture in a Townsend Whelen book from like the 20's, that credits the rifle as a Neidner made custom rifle, with his tappered blocks. But in this picture, the rear block is shorter in length, than what I see in many of the Marine pics. It also is shorter than the one I have to compare in person.

This is the pic in Whelen's book. But notice the base on the rear receiver is shorter? It doesn't really prove anything at all, but it's a neat pic of a Neidner rifle from the time period, so it might be a useful picture to compare, if we can ever find some really good pics of one we suspect Neidner converted at Philly.




As I said, I have a Marine modified A5, and later today I will try to post some pics of the conversion on it. I have no doubt it's real, but man it was sort of hacked apart. The quality of the work is top notch, but they were not worried about making it look pretty. It looks like crap. lol Which I have always thought, if Winchester would have converted that scope, they would have made it look a lot nicer. Now it could be possible it was one of the first 150, I don't know? That is a possibility.

But if that Philly article is right from 1926, and they did indeed make those bases in that timeframe. We might be looking at different periods in Marine history where they were still being made. Which complicates this even more on trying to figure it all out. We might be looking at conversions done by the Marines at Philly, after WWI. I still think Winchester might not have converted any, but I have no proof at all to back up this claim. And I will be the first to say I could be 100% wrong. It's just my gut feeling on it. But I will post some pics of my scope later on when I have more time to take some pics.

[cplnorton]

I thought I would post real quick a couple of pictures that I think are interesting, before the wife drags me away for the day. lol

I think someone posted this picture several years back on milsurps. In fact I think JB and you (Jim) were trying to figure it out back then. This is one of the next ones I'm going to throw up to the uniform guys and see if they can date it and tell me more. But the rifle seems more like the style of mine but it is so hard to tell any details, especially on the mpunts in this pic.. All i can say is, it does not appear to be a Mann Neidner to me.

This pic might be a early pic, especially looking at the style of boots on the man to the left. But I think one of you pointed out back then that the snaps on the cartriage belt might be later. So I'm going to throw it up to the uniform guys and see if they can help. The rifle has a low wood stock and it looks like the large knob on the windage, so I think that at least dates the rifle after the 1910-11 timeframe. But you guys know way more about the 1903 rifle than I do.





Also I found this one in a post that I think you made. This again looks like one that is like mine. You might be able to date this.

[cplnorton]

One last pic for now. This was taken at Winchester in 1943, when they were showing off their handiwork. From the fancy wood, especially on the carbine, they look like they might be ones Winchester would have kept as show pieces.

A good friend showed me this pic, and the rifle looks like mine. In fact, I almost wonder if it is one of the two 1917 rifles at the Cody museum today. Just a picture of it taken in 1943.

[louis]

Wow Steve!! This is some research. Thanks for posting your info I really appreciate it. I enjoy reading the history of these marine rifles.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Sgt. LaValley

Steve, you are prolific, to say the least. Let me introduce you to Sgt. Leslie David LaValley, Scout Sniper, USMC. Leslie died in a car accident in 1996, and most likely was the last living WWI Scout Sniper. Sgt LaValley was also an Instructor at the OSD Sniper School at Quantico, as was a couple of his friends. He never got to ply his trade, as the war ended before he got to France.




The photo is blurred on purpose to hide certain attributes of the rifle. I hate fakers and refuse to assist them in any way. Below is another picture of him. Same guy. Note the neat as hell USMC coveralls, you uniform guys. He is carrying a Winchester (Steve) A5 sniper rifle with a Winchester modified A5 scope in Winchester modified mounts specifically made BY WINCHESTER for the Corps sniper rifles of WWI. He was one heck of a shot. The third photo is of him and two other instructors on the OSD Sniper School rifle range that used to be behind the administrative buildings on your left as you come into Quantico MB from the south side. A second rifle range, built by Gunner Calvin A. Lloyd in the same location, took its place. Gunner Lloyd shot himself in the butts of that range. Believe it or not, no one in the Corps seemed aware of the original range until I showed them photos of it. It had a German bunker duplicated from a real one in France on the backside, used for OSD training

A friend of mine owns his scope and case. Notice anything odd about the scope? If you can spot it, I will tell you what it is.

Any questions?


Looking forward to talking to you.
jt

[cplnorton]

I've seen you mention something online about a object attached to a scope to help in low dusk light. I haven't got far in my research and know nothing of it. I sort of imagine that might be what you are talking about. But I'm on my phone and I can't see too details in the picture.

The Funny thing is, I used to know a Sniper named Lindsey and he looked exactly like this WWI Marine. lol