Tweet
What's more interesting to me than when the work was done was his wife's remark that "he doesn't mean what he says," which, combined with the reference to "German clubs," suggests he did not fear to conceal his distain for Wilson's program of demonizing "the Huns"--propaganda as vicious as anything produced by the Third Reich. Was that why he was being investigated by the FBI in the first place?
-
-
That is my understanding. Niedner was an old Indian fighter and was Mayor of his town, and proud of his German heritage. He had many influential friends, and was considered a nice guy. I guess he let his mouth overload his brain.Comment
-
So am I.
I believe you have a valid interpretation of this issue. Michael Petrov and I both just assumed Niedner was referring to the time interval of his work and never gave it much thought, but further examination on my part supports your version more so than mine. On the grand scheme of things, it makes little difference, since the goal was, and is, to identify and locate the rifles; but I believe you are correct. What this tells me is the Corps never had any intention of awarding the 500 rifle contract to Niedner, as he thought.....This is Neidner's own handwriting from his June 1917 Ledger. He put down the date of June 1st as the date. July 13th he went back and marked it was paid. This is confirmed by flipping over to Neidner's seperate CASH journal, and looking at the date July 13th 1917 which again says he was paid $1500 by the Marine Corps. The FBI went looking for Neidner on June 28th 1917, and he was already gone from the Philadlephia Depot. So he didn't work on these rifles from June 1st to July 13th. That is not correct at all.
JimComment
-
If you look at Niedner's ledger, $1,500 was a huge sum of money for the man. Philadelphia is about 320 miles from Malden, so it wasn't so far away. The powers that were running the Corps sniper program needed, or better yet, wanted the Mann-Niedner mounts for the rifle, so Niedner was the ticket. At the time Niedner was doing the mounts, time really was no big issue. There is a Niedner ledger entry where the Corps paid him $140. I believe that was payment for the use of the M-N mounts on the remaining rifles assembled by WRA, but I have no proof of same. Although I assume one exists, I have not seen a patent for the Mann-Niedner base.
jtLast edited by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle; 08-25-2016, 08:29.Comment
-
At this time Neidner was a small time gunsmith. He mostly did work for organizations around the Massachusetss area. He worked out of a small garage at his house, so that is why it became necessary to go to the Philly Depot to accomplish a larger work order.
It doesn't say the exact date, but in the middle of June it appears when he was done with the Marine contract he went out drinking. While drunk he talked with 3 guys and made some comments that he just had finished converted rifles for the military and he hoped the people who used his rifles would be killed or something like that. He was a German Immigrant, so the 3 guys contacted the FBI and told them he said this. Which the FBI was concerned he might have potentially sabotaged the rifles.
That is why the FBI was interviewing everyone around him, and you see the comment from his wife.
But that is what launched the investigation into Neidner and they were actively contacting Philadelphia Depot with concerns that Neidner might have sabotaged the sniper rifles on June 28th 1917. This I'm sure is what actually cancelled his contract. I imagine if the FBI tells you they are investigating him for sabotaging those rifles, the Marines weren't going to have him back to do more. So you then see four days later the Marines call Winchester and have them contracted to finish the remaining rifles. Which Winchester was not ready for this contract it seems at all, and you see them seem sort of concerned about it.
The blocks were not patented by Neidner. They were pattented by Dr. Franklin Mann. The same person who the Mann Acccuracy devices are named after. He did record breaking studies on ammo accuracy at the turn of the century and was really quite famous at the time. He is the one who owned all the patents to these tapered blocks. But he passed away in 1916. All the records from back then state that since Mann and Niedner had worked together many times and were friends, he continued to use Mann's blocks after he passed. But I have never found any evidence at all that Neidner gained legal control of these patents after he died though. So I do not beleive Neidner would have even been legally able to sell those rights.
But this is why also the blocks are also named Mann- Neidner blocks. Because they were created by Dr. Mann, and used by Neidner on his rifles. But this is OUR name today we call them. That is not what they were called back then. They were not called Marine blocks, or special Marine Blocks or anything like that. In fact Neidner used them on all his rifles, so these were not exclusive to the Marines.
But back then the official names of these blocks were Mann Tappered blocks. The Marines only called them Tappered blocks.
As far as WRA using the Mann Neidner blocks, everything I have read on the WRA side and the actual Marine documents. I am pretty convinced that Winchester did not use the Mann Neidner blocks. All the detailed contracts and even the actual Wincehster pictures from this time show them using another block that they had named the Springfield Marine Block. But I don't want to get in this argument at this time. lol I'm emotionally spent on all whole discussion already. So I'm not going to get into it. But I honeslty didn't find anything that makes me think that WRA used a Mann Neidner tappered block desing. Everything pointed to one WRA had actually created which they named Marine. That is why all the confusion. Everyone has always assumed the Mann Neidner was the Marine blocks, when Winchester had their own design they named Marine. The whole confusion of all this, is a play on words.
Brophy was onto this I think. And you can sort of pick some of this in his book. He just didn't have the Marine side documents which I think would have probably pushed him over the edge about it.
It's like Trench Gun shotguns. You will never find anywhere back then they called them Trench Guns. That is our collector name for them. Back then they were called Riot Guns with Bayonet adaptor. Many times people confuse the terms we call stuff now and assume they called them the same back then. They didn't.
But like I said I don't want to get in that fight right now.Last edited by cplnorton; 08-25-2016, 01:04.Comment
-
Are you saying Niedner had a contract for all the rifles initially?
I can provide a document from the period where the Marines refer to them as "taper block Marine Corps type". The following is from a Marine Corps document. (The system will not let me post the clip - will try again later).But back then the official names of these blocks were Mann Tappered blocks. The Marines only called them Tappered blocks.
How do you explain all the modified scopes having Mann-Neidner bases? I'm not sure what pictures to which you refer, but I would love to see a picture of a WWI USMC documented sniper rifle without Mann-Niedner bases.As far as WRA using the Mann Neidner blocks, everything I have read on the WRA side and the actual Marine documents. I am pretty convinced that Winchester did not use the Mann Neidner blocks. All the detailed contracts and even the actual Wincehster pictures from this time show them using another block that they had named the Springfield Marine Block.
The "Marine Springfield Mount" is a block that is required to mount an A5 scope on 7.2" centers. All 03 rifles with scopes mounted on 7.2" centers use them to this day. They are not particular to the Corps, and every commercial gunsmith that mounted an A5 scope on 7.2" centers used those bases. If I recall, the WRA drawing of this base is dated 1925 or so.Everyone has always assumed the Mann Neidner was the Marine blocks, when Winchester had their own design they named Marine. The whole confusion of all this, is a play on words.
Are you now conceding that WRA mounted the scopes and not the Philly Depot?Last edited by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle; 08-25-2016, 02:43.Comment
-
Jim look at exactly what I said. I said there is NO proof that Winchester used the Mann Neidner, or a tappered block. When did I EVER say Philadelphina Depot didn't use them? And I said the Marines called them Tappered blocks. Well how is what you are saying any different than what I am saying? Everything I say in this post is about the rifles done during the 1917/18 era. Post WWI is a totally different era in the A5 history.
Now you come back and say you have proof from a document. Well Jim I'm the one who sent this out to everyone back in Febuary, so I am quite familiar with this one. First it's not NOT a Marine document as you state. It's from the Marine Gazette or Leatherneck Magazine dated Dec 1925, that is talking about the currect activities at the Philadelphia Depot. So it's not the official document you portay it to be. It's a magazine.
And what you haven't figured out in all this Jim, and I said this earlier, is they never stopped putting A5 rifles together. From the Marine team docs, it looks like they made them as needed, and they were still building them as late as 1941 for the training.
There is not just one tappered block out there Jim. This is a big clue to all of this. And as I said the Marines called them Tappered blocks. But that isn't what Winchester called them.
If you are going to imply that you have some kind of proof that WRA made a tappered block design, you might want to make the Magazine doesn't say the tappered block design was developed and made at Philadelphia Depot.
Last edited by cplnorton; 08-26-2016, 05:11.Comment
-
Jim I'm going to be completely honest. If you haven't figured out by now, if I say something anymore I have a document that backs up what I said. I will never say I'm not wrong on something, because if you say that, you are full of it. Because with every document you find, you learn that much more. And we are finding new documents every week. A researcher friend jus yesterday pulled out a bunch of sniper docs in France, so I'm excited to see what they say. But if I say it anymore Jim, I have a document to back it up.
Jim, I've decided I'm not going to post anymore documents for you. All I'm doing is making your research better and it cost me a lot of money to figure this all out, and a better part of a year to find. If you want to know this stuff, I suggest you go find it. Just as I did.
If you think Winchester used a tappered block design, find proof. There is nothing on the Winchester side that says this in anyway. There is nothing on the Marine side that says Winchester used a tappered block design.
In fact if you use logic on this Jim.
Adolf Neidner said in the FBI report that he was going to finish all the Marine rifles when he was done with his vacation. This is detailed in the FBI report. In fact it sounds like Neidner didn't even know his contract was cancelled when he was interviewed by the FBI.
June 28th, a week or two after he completed the first 150 rifles at Philly. The FBI contacted the Philadelphia Depot and said we suspect all the rifles Neidner just did for you are sabotaged. They wanted the rifles to be examined for flaws, as they thought Neidner did something to them that could hurt the shooter.
Four days later the Marines contacted Winchester to do all the remaining contracts that Neinder was supposed to do.
Do you seriously think the Philadelphia Depot said four days later, "Hey Winchester, this Neidner guys design is so great, that the FBI is at our door step saying all of his riles are sabotaged. But can you please go ahead and make the rifles exactly like Neidner did for us?
And this is just logical thinking Jim. This isn't even factoring in that I have detailed Despriptions of the contracts and original Winchester factory pictures.Last edited by cplnorton; 08-26-2016, 05:18.Comment
-
Jim for the rest of what you said, It's not even worth discussing. Because it would take me posting documents, and I'm done with that. In fact I'm really done with this whole thing. Anything I say, you just argue with it. And I'm not even sure where you are pulling your info from.
I think I have provided enough that the reader can decide on this whole conversation. And this isn't worth the frustration anymore. So I'm going to bow out of this one.
Good luck to you Jim on your research.Last edited by cplnorton; 08-26-2016, 04:40.Comment
-
The only document I have ever received from you that I didn't already have was the FBI report. Don't think you are doing my research, because you aren't. In the past five years I have filled quite a few cardboard boxes with documents, and I am certain you have a few by now. You are pulling a lot of documents, and that is fine; but don't ignore the physical evidence. I have advised you to be cautious in what you say. I will give you an example. In our email exchange, you expressed the belief that the Philly Depot mounted the scopes for the Corps - not WRA. I knew that the Philly Depot didn't have an Ordnance Section until after the war (they did not repair or work on rifles until after the war - check it out). It is highly unlikely the Philly Depot mounted any of the scopes, as they were very busy equipping the 4th and 5th Brigades for war.
My search has always been to identify the rifles, and I am not concerned with who mounted what or when. Along the way, I have found some of the same documents you have found, but I concentrated on physical evidence more so than documents. If you own a 1969 Pinto, you don't need a document to prove Ford made a 1969 Pinto. You dismiss the 8-loop scope cases by saying they are fakes. They aren't, as any high-end collector will tell you. Some can be traced back to the still living family members who originally sold them. I have done so, and so have others. FYI, it appears the 8-loop scope cases were the first issued, and later in the year, I believe there were 6-loop cases issued. That is why I have always been interested in Pvt. Groupe's scope case - it is a 6-loop. I would drive half way across the country to examine it as I have done with 8-loop scope cases that are "un-published" so to speak. Your document doesn't change the physical fact that all the known early scope cases are 8-loop. The purpose of my original post was to see if I could find a 6-loop scope case from early 1918.
You seem to think you are the only person who has pulled documents. I can assure you that we both have been preceded by many, many researchers. I just want to identify the rifles, and I doubt your documents will ever do that for me.
To me, any discussion about 03's is worth the frustration.
Good luck.
JimLast edited by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle; 08-26-2016, 04:40.Comment
-
"Mommy ,mommy stop them from yelling ,my head hurts"
I respect both Jim and Steve and the research they have done and will continue to do.
But were comparing apples and oranges here . Jim for most of his research life has been involved in Serial Numbers.
And Steve gravitates towards the snipers along with serial number research.
So ,all the data on this subject is not found yet and actually will never be.
There are things I do know about the USMC in the first half of the 20th Century.
They never had two nickels to rub together(because they were afraid to cut the one the had in half)
To the Navy department,the USMC was the Orphanage,where all the outdated ,broken or worn out equipment went.
And when it got there The USMC was overjoyed to get it.
At the USMC "unservicable " meant "new arrival".
The Navy Department was never ,lets say Kind to the USMC and following WW1 Gen.Pershing wanted
the USMC absorbed into the Army,but the Navy didn't ,Because of lost of revenue for them.
The Sniper programs in the USMC have never completely been explored as far a serial numbers ,when concerning 1903s,
and may never be.Serial numbers in the archive between WRA and SA are somewhat ambiguous,due to the fact that
30/06 ammunition had become problematic and WRA was doing so much testing(of ammo and rifle tests) to come
to a conclusive answer.A great deal of the correspondence between SA and WRA is about this problem.
The final answer is that the USMC would accept almost anything that they could use to be better,they may never be an answer for the Scope Scabbard
and its configuration ,because they got what they could whenever possible.
The USMC use of the VB grenade and launcher sums it all up.By 1918 ,The French and US Armies discontinued use of it ,because of one reason,
It was Dangerous. Low and behold the USMC used it till the beginning of WW2,and had plenty of them in their Ordnance system.
I think they refer to this as dumpster diving.
Respectfully submitted
Ed ByrnsComment
Comment