WWI Sniper Scope Cases

[cplnorton]

Jim, as I said earlier we will agree to disagree on this.

The snipers names are very easy to find. Just look down the Marine rosters from WWI and pick out the ones going to sniper school. Here is your Gunner Estock and a couple more from the same page he was on.

[TDP0311]

Gunner Estock and Sgt LeValley came from regular duties in Cuba to HQ Company, Overseas Depot in Quantico in June of 1918. Gunner Estock was an instructor at this course, and both men would transfer to 3/11 and deploy with the 5th Marine Brigade in the late fall of 1918, with Gunner Estock taking a commission as a 2nd Lt. Due to the late timing of their departure, they would not see combat. It also is very likely the rifles they deployed with would be from the WRA contract, as the earlier Neidner built rifles would have left with the 5th & 6th in 1917.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve, Are you saying you believe the existing 8-loop scope cases with sniper's names in them are all fakes?

Jim

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Gunner Estock and Sgt LeValley came from regular duties in Cuba to HQ Company, Overseas Depot in Quantico in June of 1918. Gunner Estock was an instructor at this course, and both men would transfer to 3/11 and deploy with the 5th Marine Brigade in the late fall of 1918, with Gunner Estock taking a commission as a 2nd Lt. Due to the late timing of their departure, they would not see combat. It also is very likely the rifles they deployed with would be from the WRA contract, as the earlier Neidner built rifles would have left with the 5th & 6th in 1917.

The Neidner rifles left with the 6th Regiment, as the 5th was already in France before Neidner started his work.

Jim.

[TDP0311]

Archival documents we have found show Niedner began his main mounting run in May (some were done considerably earlier), and finished in early June. He was paid before the 5th Marines, who sailed during the 3rd week of June departed. There was ample time for the portion allotted to the 5th Marines to leave with them for France.

[cplnorton]

Jim this is my honest thoughts on this.

A Winchester contract detailing 8 loops going to the Marine Corps is undeniable proof. A Marine picture that you can document to WWI, where you could count 8 loops on a case is proof it's possible. A Marine Corps letterhead document decribing a 8 loop case would also be proof. I do not think any reasonable person would argue that a 8 loop case is not Marine, if presented with one of these facts. If I was presented with this info, I would be ok cool. Yeah they did have 8 loop cases.

A typewritten name in a case that was found 80 to 100 years after it was made. I don't see that as absolute proof. Especially when you consider you only see a few of them. I see that as something of interest and it would need a lot more research. And to confirm it and say it is fact, you would need to find documentation or a photo from WWI to prove it. I think basing all your evidence on a few cases, without any documentation from WWI, leaves a lot of room for argument.

It especially raises arguments when you say that the 8 loop was the Marine contract, when the WRA docs specifically state it was a 6 loop.

I think to prove it, you need to find a document or a picture from WWI. You need something from that time period that proves it is possible the Marines had a 8 loop case.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

At least you spelled his name correctly - I didn't. You need to check your dates. The dates Niedner did the work and the date, at least the month, he was paid are fairly well known. You are incorrect on both counts.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Steve, You need to carefully reread my posts. I can only caution you against accepting typewritten words over physical proof.

jt

[cplnorton]

Well Jim, I have to admit I'm lost with this discussion. I really am. As I told you privately this is why I finally decided to stop sending you all the new documentation that I found a while ago. It just leads to a fight because you say the documents are wrong. But I don't get how anyone can argue that if Winchester says the Marine Contract specifically states they were 6 loop cases, that somehow Winchester was wrong about what they were shipping?

Now you are arguing with TDP0311 and I have no clue where you are basing this argument on.

On August 18, 1917, the FBI interviewed Adolph Neidner and this is exaclty what Neidner said himself to the FBI Agents. This was 3 months after Neidner compeleted the work.



This is from Neidner's own Journal and is from Micheael Petrov's papers. After he passed, his notes were archived. I found the location of his notes, and had all the Marine notes pulled from the Neidner files. Many of which Micheal never shared with anyone. It was just lucky this stuff was archived and not lost to the ages when Petrov passed. 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.




So how can you say TDP0311 is wrong? When Neidner himself even says what TDP0311 is saying is correct? I'm lost with all this Jim. Where is what you are saying coming from? If what TDP0311 is wrong, post proof he is wrong.

[cplnorton]

Neidner also converted several rifles for the Marines in August/September 1916. This is proven again in the Neidner Journal.

To me TDP0311's point that it's possible rifles left with the 5th Regiment, is very feasible. I don't think anyone can prove otherwise at this point.

[clintonhater]

What we don't know is if those 6-loop scope cases were actually made and delivered since neither of us has seen one that can be traced to any sniper or even the Corps itself.
jt

There's one associated with an identified sniper shown in Brophy, p. 506, which perhaps you've forgotten, as I don't doubt you're very familiar with the book. Another, though not traceable to USMC, is shown on the same page. (The latter is black leather, which Joe Poyer said meant post-war production.) The 8-loop case shown on p. 503 he calls a "standard commercial" case.

However, nobody is too great an "authority" to made mistakes; a couple of Brophy's comments about the differences between the A5 and 5A are incorrect.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There's one associated with an identified sniper shown in Brophy, p. 506, which perhaps you've forgotten, as I don't doubt you're very familiar with the book. Another, though not traceable to USMC, is shown on the same page. (The latter is black leather, which Joe Poyer said meant post-war production.) The 8-loop case shown on p. 503 he calls a "standard commercial" case.

However, nobody is too great an "authority" to made mistakes; a couple of Brophy's comments about the differences between the A5 and 5A are incorrect.

The scope case you refer to is the Pvt. A. A. Groupe scope case, and yes, I am familiar with it and the fact it is a 6-loop scope case. I was hoping whoever owns it would post more pictures of it. Pvt. Groupe was one of the later trained snipers at OSD.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Well Jim,....So how can you say TDP0311 is wrong? When Neidner himself even says what TDP0311 is saying is correct? I'm lost with all this Jim. Where is what you are saying coming from? If what TDP0311 is wrong, post proof he is wrong.

Post proof he is wrong? He can't post proof he is right.

A number of years ago, Michael Petrov asked me to find what happened to Niedner's 150 rifles. He supplied me with a number of ledger entries showing work performed by Niedner doing work for the Corps. His original premise, as was mine, was that the 150-rifles were intended for the 4th Brigade. At that time, the general consensus was that the Corps had very few snipers in WWI, which would make the need for 150-sniper rifles questionable. Since that time, it has been discovered that the Marines had a plan for a sniper program from day-1, and it was a large operation run by some of the most competent Marines in the Corps.

I have the entire page for the Niedner ledger snippet you posted, but it is too large to include in this post and keeps getting my post kicked out of the system. So you know I am not BS'ing, the first date on the page is "July 9" and the ledger entry page number is "76". Please note the FBI entry you note is for work performed for the U. S. Army, not the Marine Corps. I don't see a connection. Unless there is some proof otherwise, I will take Niedner at his word and presume the ledger entry is correct.

I might point out that there was no rush to get sniper rifles to the 4th Brigade. The Henderson was continually making trips to France and the trip time was about 10-days one way. The Marines knew they faced months of training once they arrived in France. It only seems logical the rifles went with the 6th Marines. Until someone proves otherwise, I will continue to do so. It doesn't really make much difference who took them to France.

Jim

[cplnorton]

Please note the FBI entry you note is for work performed for the U. S. Army, not the Marine Corps. I don't see a connection. Unless there is some proof otherwise, I will take Niedner at his word and presume the ledger entry is correct.

Here is your proof Jim. All you need to do is read the next couple lines. Neidner did the work in May and June exactly as TDP0311 said.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

OK, point made; now how do you reconcile the differing date intervals, both coming from Niedner? Do you automatically assume the FBI report is correct? Whoever is recording it is only writing down what Niedner is saying. You have presented two documents that present two conflicting dates. I am not trying to be argumentative, I am just trying to follow your line of reasoning, and you must have some reason for believing the FBI report over Niedner's ledger.

May I point out that it really makes no difference which months Niedner did the work, whether it was May and June or June and July, just as it doesn't matter whether the rifles went to France with the 5th or 6th Regiment. Amusingly enough, there was no Ordnance Department at the Marine Philly Depot until AFTER WWI. Makes one wonder why they picked the Philly Depot to modify the rifles. Could the work have been done at the Philly Arsenal - the Frankfort Arsenal?

Jim