Sniper Rifles

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim,

All I am doing is pointing out some holes in your statements, that are not supported by the documents. When I do so, I usually post the actual Marine or Winchester document for everyone to read. You then take it personal and start making a lot of claims. Some I really question. It's just constructive criticism Jim. You shouldn't take it so personal.

I take none of this diatribe as personal, nor do I know of any of my statements I have made that you pointed out "holes", whatever that means. Maybe you can give us some examples. While at that task, please list a few of the "claims" I have made that you reference. You are the one who has made definitive claims, and I was giving the "constructive criticism". I can promise you, that in the future, I see you make statements like "ignore the WRA block of rifles", I will provide more constructive criticism. If you consider that "taking it personal", so be it. I call it having a differing opinion. When it comes to 1903 Springfields, my advice to you is never to say anything was not possible, or did not exist, or was "exactly as". Many of us have been guilty of such statements, and most of us paid a price.

What claim have I made that you "really question"? Rather than make cryptic CS comments no one can defend, be a man and spit it out.

I have noticed when I respond to your posts and raise questions, you ignore my questions entirely. Reason?

jt

[cplnorton]

Jim,

This has obviously become very personal to you as you are now resorting to personal attacks. In this post you have compared me to Hillary Clinton, implied you know way more than I could know, and are now accusing me of making stuff up.

I question a lot of the statements you make, and the evidence you say you have. But to argue it with you would not do any good. Even providing evidence that contradicts your statements, you will just say it's not correct, and then state your evidence trumps mine. But yet you never post your evidence so it can face peer review .

As for you saying I am making stuff up. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone that would make a claim like that against me.

Once it gets personal like this, I'm out Jim. I will not go into the gutter with you. So I will not respond to you anymore.

To the OP, Johnathon, sorry I was part of hijacking your post with all this nonsense. You have a wonderful collecting and something to be really proud of!

[Smokeeaterpilot]

[QUOTE=Marine A5 Sniper Rifle;475428]

Wonderful.



Good.



Noted.



Pure conjecture.



More conjecture on your part. You have looked at a few hundreds of documents and you can definitively state what would be contained in EVERY document? As a former Marine 0141 (I had 3-MOS's), I can assure you that is more BS.



I have it as well. What has that got to do with the subject at hand?




If you discount opinions, there would be no need for this forum. Opinions, or hypothesis, are the foundation of research. Try getting a research grant without an opinion.



You are assuming the shipping document precludes WRA from having used the rifles as a source for the sniper rifles. Please show me which statement in your document supports that possibility. If I were doing cancer research, and I used a sample a cohort was testing as a cure for the common cold and later published the fact that it didn't work; yet I discovered the sample cured cancer, are you telling me the sample didn't cure cancer because a document exist that states the sample was used for cold research? Your document proves what you stated, but negates nothing.



I respect that and thank you for your post. I have accumulated a lot, if not most, of the same documents you guys have collected. I like shipping documents because it is a "point in time". I am glad to see you guys doing this work, but others have preceded you. There was a time on the forum when we freely traded documents. I don't see much of that anymore. Like many others, I have a file cabinet filled with documents plus a few cardboard boxes. I am surprised you have no goal in mind. Having a premise to prove can make the hunt a lot more fun.

Again, good luck.

jt

I'll make this simple, your statements concerning the "Insp of Ordnance WRA Co" files were incorrect, simply because you did not have access to the document, period.

I was informing you of its contents simply because you lacked the means to access it. It does require time and money to access and review these files, so I don't share copies for free. I have provided posted the information that is contained within. Most of which was copy and paste.

Since you have not seen them, I'm not interested in arguing over its contents, since statements about them thus far have been incorrect. What is contained is detailed and concrete. If you have specific questions about what is documented and I have copies in my files (this or other scoped rifle files), the invitation is open since not everyone has quick access to the archives and I would be happy to discuss them.

But continuing an argument over something you haven't read. I am disinterested in continuing that.

Meeting adjourned.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

This has obviously become very personal to you as you are now resorting to personal attacks. In this post you have compared me to Hillary Clinton, implied you know way more than I could know, and are now accusing me of making stuff up.

You made up statements you say I made, but I made no such statements. If that isn't making up stuff, pray tell what is. I was not in any way referring to your collection of data.

"I question a lot of the statements you make, and the evidence you say you have. But to argue it with you would not do any good. Even providing evidence that contradicts your statements, you will just say it's not correct, and then state your evidence trumps mine. But yet you never post your evidence so it can face peer review.

What peer review? I have explained repeatedly that my interest does not include the arbitrary collection of data per se. My goal is to identify 150 specific rifles - period. I have formed opinions or have a curious interest in other aspects of the world we call 1903's. That is why I am a member of this forum. You seem to read into my statements things that don't belong there, and you have repeatedly claimed I have made statements I have not made. Now you say it is not worth the effort to argue about it because I would say my evidence trumps yours? Dude, what are you talking about? What evidence are you talking about? I have presented no evidence whatsoever. I have asked you repeatedly to show me where I made these statements, and you just ignore me.

As for you saying I am making stuff up. I think you would have a hard time finding anyone that would make a claim like that against me.

I am making that claim right now! You said I made statements I never made. That is making things up. Show me where I made those statements.

Once it gets personal like this, I'm out Jim. I will not go into the gutter with you. So I will not respond to you anymore.

That is your choice. I ask yet again. Show me where I made the statements you attribute to me, and tell me what evidence I gave.

To the OP, Johnathon, sorry I was part of hijacking your post with all this nonsense. You have a wonderful collecting and something to be really proud of!

Jon, I should apologize also. I hope I answered all your questions. This forum can be quite entertaining at times. I wish my wife had been more like yours. She sounds like a keeper for sure. jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I'll make this simple, your statements concerning the "Insp of Ordnance WRA Co" files were incorrect, simply because you did not have access to the document, period.

The only statement I made was the shipping document contains nothing that precludes WRA using the rifles as a source for the sniper rifles. I stand by that statement until someone proves me incorrect.

You have access to documents the rest of us don't have access to? Exactly what records would those be?

I was informing you of its contents simply because you lacked the means to access it.

What records do I lack the means to access?

It does require time and money to access and review these files, so I don't share copies for free. I have provided posted the information that is contained within. Most of which was copy and paste.

I know. I hire researchers to find records I want, and I can attest to the expense.

Since you have not seen them, I'm not interested in arguing over its contents, since statements about them thus far have been incorrect. What is contained is detailed and concrete. If you have specific questions about what is documented and I have copies in my files (this or other scoped rifle files), the invitation is open since not everyone has quick access to the archives and I would be happy to discuss them.

If you are referring to the National Archives, where on earth did you get the idea I don't have the means to access the records therein? I can leave my home in the early morning and be at the archives by noon. I have friends I visit in the DC area on a fairly regular basis. I even go to an occasional Orioles game.

As for my having seen the documents, you have no way of knowing if I have or haven't seen the, I will tell you now that I don't think I have seen that particular document, but it is not related to my area of interest.

You and Norton have been making a lot of unsubstantiated statements about what I know, say, and can do. Yet I don't think you know anything about me or what I have done. I have made no claims and presented no evidence, but I HAVE said that nothing in your document precludes the possibility WRA used rifles from that block to assemble the Marine sniper rifles.

{quote]But continuing an argument over something you haven't read. I am disinterested in continuing that.

I am not arguing over the contents of the document except for the statement made above. That can hardly be described as an argument. I have told you I have not read the document, nor do I have any plans to do so.

Meeting adjourned.

Well I'll be darned. You both retired without either of you answering a single question I asked. Your tactic is going to consist of accusing me of making wild statements I never made, ignore my requests for the location of the statement you claimed I made, then claim I am getting all personal, and then take the moral high ground and bow out of the discussion?

You know what that tells me? I am right when I say nothing in your document precludes WRA's use of rifles from that block to assemble the WRA Corps sniper rifles!

jt

[Promo]

Pretty simple ... since the SRS records for the ammo testing rifles date 1919, we can assume up to this date none of them had been turned into a sniper rifle. We do not know what happened to them afterwards, but up to that point we know they were no sniper rifles. That does not exclude other rifles in nearby serial ranges from possibly being shipped along with the "ammo testing rifles" for a factory conversion to a sniper rifle, but of course this is just a possibility among many others.

The discussed scope can with the 6 loops is very interesting in that the outer shape of it is unlike any I've seen before (talking on the can itself). However, the strap is similiar to the strap on known later USMC scope cans with 8 loops. So there are similarities between those two. The main difference are the inside dimensions, both the currently discussed 6 loop and known 8 loop scope are larger on the inside, hence they could have been made for the Mann Neidner modified scope rings (which are bigger). Considering that the scope can could had been commercially made, wouldn't make a sense to me - the scope would fall around on the inside if used with the commercial scope rings. Therefore I believe it to be of military origin, aside of the later added civil markings on it.

[cplnorton]

Therefore I believe it to be of military origin

There is a match in the Marine rosters to a F. Allen. His name was Forrest Allen. He was 2/6 and was in France pretty much the whole war. I have Marine Documents that say the 6th did have telescopic equipped rifles in France pretty early. So you never know, might have been his case. But I think it was military in origin as well.

If he didn't want so much for the package, I wouldn't mind owning it myself. It just sucks about all the additional writing. The name wouldn't bother me at all. But all the other stuff, that does.

[Promo]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me

[clintonhater]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me

Before either of you mortgages the farm to gain possession of this precious relic, take a close look at the range markings on the scope tube, and ask yourselves what it is that appears to be missing.

[cplnorton]

Before either of you mortgages the farm to gain possession of this precious relic, take a close look at the range markings on the scope tube, and ask yourselves what it is that appears to be missing.

Oh no I think there is a miscommunication. Those range markings aren't millitary. That is why I said above that the markings past the name bother me. I think the case was military and possibly the name could have been Marine, as there is a match. But a hand written name is circumstancial evidence at best, because anyone can add it.

The additional markings past the name is why I didn't want it. If it didn't have those and only had that name on it, I would probably make a play for it.

I do want a 6 loop case though.

[clintonhater]

Oh no I think there is a miscommunication. Those range markings aren't millitary.

"Non-military" isn't the problem; there should be red paint in the range markings to match the red paint in the index markings of the thimbles. (Red indicates manufacture before 1921 or '22.) In other words, the tube has been reblued. Even if paint had been reapplied to those markings (it's easy to do), tube looks far too pristine to have been used by a serious small-bore competitor, which the writing on the case top suggests was the user after Allen.

Looks like an excellent job of rebluing, but a non-original condition ought to be factored into the value.

[JWM]

I told you I would take the scope, you only have to tell me how much the can would be worth to you - and I'll check if the scope is worth the rest to me

Georg, if you buy the package and Cpl Norton buys the case at a reasonable price, I'll give you a nifty profit the scope should you decide to sell, as it would be a perfect match for my Wincheter sniper rifle!!!!!

[clintonhater]

...it would be a perfect match for my Wincheter sniper rifle!!!!!

An A5 on a Model 70?

[JWM]

An A5 on a Model 70?

No, but on the first commercially produced high power bolt action rifle produced by Winchester, via special order, through the Shooting Promotion Division. It was advertised as the Winchester Sniper Rifle Type No. 2, which was built on the 1903 Springfield action. It's pictured here: http://jamesdjulia.com/item/3076-394/

Here is the only other Type 2 known to have sold back in 2010: http://jamesdjulia.com/item/lot-1032...r-rifle-39207/

[JWM]

JRice79 - Magnificent collection you have there! Congratulations!

James