Sniper Rifles

[Smokeeaterpilot]

It isn't likely that anyone is going to "write off" a block of rifles that include every known authenticate Marine A5 rifles SN identified to date. Exactly why did WRA need such a huge number of rifles to test ammo? Ammo testing is normally done with pressure guns, rail guns, or something equivalent to same. The idea when testing ammo is to 1. Prove the ammo is safe (pressure) to fire in typical rifles, and 2. Take the human element out of the accuracy test. An ammo company testing ammo by letting old Joe Blow blaze away at some target with a 1903 he got from SA just sounds silly. WRA had more rifles in that block than they had employees. I do not claim to know why they had so many 03's in such a tight block, but I would wager it wasn't for testing ammo.

jt

Respectfully, disagree.

It specifically lists the rifles have been used for "testing ammunition." It mentions nothing as telescoped rifles or mounted with A5s or any sort of "optics" (for lack of a better term).

The correspondence is VERY detailed. If they were mounted with any sort of telescopes. It would be included in the shipping order.

It also lists M1917 rifles which were included in the shipment as well. They do not make any mention of any telescopes mounted the rifle.

If there was anything in the document to imply anything mounted, I'm sure Frank Mallory would have included in his database when constructing the SRS lists.

I usually don't participate in these discussions since I'm not well versed on the subject as others. But I can say definitively that the rifles in question were used with ammunition testing at WRA (M1903s and M1917s), testing was complete and they wanted order to where to ship them. Nothing more.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Respectfully, disagree.

Disagree with what exactly?

It specifically lists the rifles are to be used for "testing ammunition."

What is "it"?

It mentions nothing as they telescoped rifles or mounted with A5s or any sort of "optics"

I didn't mention it either.

The correspondence is VERY detailed. If they were mounted with any sort of telescopes. It would be included in the shipping order.

Only if the order preceded the shipment - right?

It also lists M1917 rifles which were included in the shipment as well. They do not make any mention of any telescopes mounted the rifle.

I didn't say they did.

If there was anything in the document to imply anything mounted, I'm sure Frank Mallory would have included in his database when constructing the SRS lists.

Most likely.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. No one, to my knowledge, has made any statement whatsoever about the rifles being shipped to WRA to have scopes mounted. What I said, and further implied, is that one who believes those rifles, that outnumber all WRA employees by many multiples to one, were sent to WRA for WRA to use to "test ammunition", would have to be one really gullible individual.

Of course, your document explains the oddity of all the known USMC A5 sniper rifles being included in that serial number expanse of that group of rifles? A rather narrow grouping at that. To repeat myself, no one with a curious mind is going to dismiss the existence of the WRA block of rifles based on any documents found by Mallory or anyone else. There was a war going on with a huge demand for 1903 Springfields and someone had to present a reason for transferring a large number of those 1903 rifles to WRA instead of the 4th Brigade, the Rainbow Division, and many others engaged, or to be engaged, in combat. If you look at contemporary documents, the M16 was issued to all Marines complete with a cleaning rod and cleaning kit. I can assure you those documents are BS. I was issued a M16 in 1970 with no rod or cleaning kit as was the rest of my company.

jt

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Disagree with what exactly?



What is "it"?



I didn't mention it either.



Only if the order preceded the shipment - right?



I didn't say they did.



Most likely.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. No one, to my knowledge, has made any statement whatsoever about the rifles being shipped to WRA to have scopes mounted. What I said, and further implied, is that one who believes those rifles, that outnumber all WRA employees by many multiples to one, were sent to WRA for WRA to use to "test ammunition", would have to be one really gullible individual.

Of course, your document explains the oddity of all the known USMC A5 sniper rifles being included in that serial number expanse of that group of rifles? A rather narrow grouping at that. To repeat myself, no one with a curious mind is going to dismiss the existence of the WRA block of rifles based on any documents found by Mallory or anyone else. There was a war going on with a huge demand for 1903 Springfields and someone had to present a reason for transferring a large number of those 1903 rifles to WRA instead of the 4th Brigade, the Rainbow Division, and many others engaged, or to be engaged, in combat. If you look at contemporary documents, the M16 was issued to all Marines complete with a cleaning rod and cleaning kit. I can assure you those documents are BS. I was issued a M16 in 1970 with no rod or cleaning kit as was the rest of my company.

jt

Then I could be mistaken to the intent of your original statement. You stated you wouldn't wager they were used for testing ammunition. Whereas it specifically states they were.

I have heard several people make claim (not saying you are or have) that those SN block of "INSP OF ORDNANCE WRA CO" are A5 sniper rifles. Or had some sort or link to sniper rifles. That is not the case in those SRS hits. If they were made into sniper rifles later, it's possible but on March 26, 1919 they did not exist in such configuration. But if they were made into sniper rifles later, that's speculation, but entirely possible. I'm just stating what is recorded to those SNs.

The shipping order is very detailed, the SN of rifle, model of the rifle (M1903 or M1917), when it was received, where it was manufactured (SA or RIA), damage during testing (broken stock, stock split, etc.), number of rounds fired and equipment mounted to it (few were pressure gauges some had nothing mounted to it as it states), spare parts list included in the shipment (being as specific to stocks and broken stocks). If anything else was specific to the rifle, it would have mentioned it. If A5 scopes mounted to the rifle would certainly have been included.

It does not say "why" the rifles were used for testing ammunition. Ammunition was a problem during that timeframe but that is a separate discussion topic. So I'll leave that one separate from here.

It specifically says that the rifles were used for testing ammunition, ammunition testing has been completed at the plant and they wanted shipping orders of where to send them next.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Since the document is so detailed, tell us what kind of ammo testing was performed that required so many rifles?

The document, to which you refer, was written after the war was over. The armories were awash in surplus weapons at that time. The 400(+) sniper rifles that went to France with the 11th and 13th Regiments were still in France. Upon their return, the Corps had at minimum, 400 surplus sniper rifles, which makes the idea that the Corps built more sniper rifles after the war sound absolutely ridiculous (another subject entirely). We know WRA assembled the Corps sniper rifles, and all known examples fall within the serial number range of this block of rifles we are discussing. Does it not seem reasonable that WRA used rifles from this block of rifles they had on hand to build sniper rifles, versus asking for even more 1903's at a time when the demand for 1903's was highest and SA was on the hot seat?

Had WRA asked for more rifles to fill their obligation to the Corps, don't you think SA would have shipped newly made rifles to WRA, having distributed every available rifle they had to the National Guard units and the Corps to arm future combat troops? If I had been running SA at the time and WRA asked for a thousand rifles, I would have told them to use what they had on hand and then call me back when the stock was depleted. Forget documents for a minute, and try to explain the situation you believe existed that would account for the known physical evidence.

By the way, have you seen the 6-loop scope case for sale? The seller states it is a commercial unit from the 1920-28 time frame.

jt

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Since the document is so detailed, tell us what kind of ammo testing was performed that required so many rifles?

The document, to which you refer, was written after the war was over. The armories were awash in surplus weapons at that time. The 400(+) sniper rifles that went to France with the 11th and 13th Regiments were still in France. Upon their return, the Corps had at minimum, 400 surplus sniper rifles, which makes the idea that the Corps built more sniper rifles after the war sound absolutely ridiculous (another subject entirely). We know WRA assembled the Corps sniper rifles, and all known examples fall within the serial number range of this block of rifles we are discussing. Does it not seem reasonable that WRA used rifles from this block of rifles they had on hand to build sniper rifles, versus asking for even more 1903's at a time when the demand for 1903's was highest and SA was on the hot seat?

Had WRA asked for more rifles to fill their obligation to the Corps, don't you think SA would have shipped newly made rifles to WRA, having distributed every available rifle they had to the National Guard units and the Corps to arm future combat troops? If I had been running SA at the time and WRA asked for a thousand rifles, I would have told them to use what they had on hand and then call me back when the stock was depleted. Forget documents for a minute, and try to explain the situation you believe existed that would account for the known physical evidence.

By the way, have you seen the 6-loop scope case for sale? The seller states it is a commercial unit from the 1920-28 time frame.

jt

You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.

I am merely stating specifically what is included in the documentation.

All these rifles were received at different dates and not one shipment. Some of the rifles were received for testing as early as August of 1917 (1 rifle may have been June 1917 but slight smudge where it would be a "6" or an "8"). These rifles were received at various dates from August 1917 until testing was concluded. Each one with a specific date of when it was received at the plant. And they were received scattered throughout the testing phase.

The document is stating testing of the ammunition was complete and they were requesting orders where to ship them.

I don't want to get into "why" or "how." I just want to stick with what is documented. Anything more is outside my research goals, which is just to collect data. I am just relaying the a portion of the data that contained within that correspondence.

As far as the 6-loop scope case. I know there's a couple different variations in scope cases, but I'll be honest I wouldn't be able to tell the different between it and another variation. So if I saw it I probably wouldn't realize it.

[cplnorton]

Jim I am lost by your posts. If you haven't seen the WRA Ordnance inspected document from 1919, how do you know those rifles had anything to do with the Marine A5 rifles?

On the six loop case on ebay. There is actually a name on the case that appears much older than the rest of the writing. Did you run his name against the Marine rosters? Because it's interesting.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim I am lost by your posts. If you haven't seen the WRA Ordnance inspected document from 1919, how do you know those rifles had anything to do with the Marine A5 rifles?

Did I say I hadn't seen the document? If you are confused by my questions, think about those of us you are trying to convince that SA had some stash of 1903's they dribbled to WRA for ammo testing, all made within a short time period in 1916, at a time when the military was short of 1903's and waiting for armament to deploy.

I have not seen, nor have you presented, any document that precludes an association of the two groups of rifles. On the other hand I have stated it is notable that one group encompasses the other. One needs no document to make that observation.

On the six loop case on ebay. There is actually a name on the case that appears much older than the rest of the writing. Did you run his name against the Marine rosters? Because it's interesting.

All I can see is a name written with a lighter ink than the remainder of the script, if indeed both are written in ink. I could duplicate the effect with the pens lying on my desk.

The owner clearly states the origin of the case as being post war commercial. I see no basis, nor reason, to dispute his statement.

jt

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

[QUOTE=Smokeeaterpilot;475382]You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.]/quote]

"The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question." If one never speculates, one does no research. Speculation is the heart of research.

I am merely stating specifically what is included in the documentation.

No issue with that.

"All these rifles were received at different dates and not one shipment. Some of the rifles were received for testing as early as August of 1917 (1 rifle may have been June 1917 but slight smudge where it would be a "6" or an "8"). These rifles were received at various dates from August 1917 until testing was concluded. Each one with a specific date of when it was received at the plant. And they were received scattered throughout the testing phase.

If each rifle was received on a differing date, I don't think there were that many days in the period of interest. Would you like to make a correction in your statement?

I don't want to get into "why" or "how." I just want to stick with what is documented. Anything more is outside my research goals, which is just to collect data.

That isn't research, it just the gathering of data. Data tells a story, you might get the right story or you may be off a tad, but use the data and tell your story. It's history. History is what interest people. I'm sure a stack of documents would hold some amusement for some people, but it would be better if you interpreted the data and expressed your viewpoint. Be careful interpreting the data - therein the big bopper resides. For example: CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles, yet there is not one word in those documents that precludes that notion. I have little interest in ammo testing, but what the documents tell me was that WRA had a stockpile of 1903's that they could have used to construct the sniper rifles. They further tell me that the sniper rifles fall into that block of rifles nicely. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt

[cplnorton]

CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt

Yes I do believe that, but it's because the Marine/WRA documents state that WRA did not provide the rifles that Winchester mounted the A5 scopes on for the Marines. The documents clearly state that the Marines Furnished the rifles to WRA, for Winchester to mount the A5 scopes. Also if you double check the serials that WRA inpsected in that 1919 date in the SRS. They all do not fall in the 600k range as you state. There are low number RIA's on that document, and even high number SA serials on that document. Not including the 1917 rifles on that document. So if you are going to use that 1919 WRA document to prove that all Marine A5 serials fall in that 600k range, the document clearly state there are serials outside that range. You can check the SRS and look for WRA inspected serials with the same date and you will see what I mean.

Also you are basing the Marine A5 serial ranges off the roughly 8 that are in the SRS, that Frank found at the archives. I have those documents that Frank pulled those serials off of. If you check the dates of those serials in the SRS. They are mostly 1930, with a couple like 1926. But these are not WWI dated documents.

If you actually read the real documents that Frank pulled those serials off of, they do not say A5 rifle. In fact check out the SRS, Frank does not even say A5 fitted rifle as he does on the early 400k rifles. Frank only states they are SGS rifles. And the MArine document only states they are 1903 Telescopic equipped rifles. Which by this time the Marines had also purchased Fecker scopes, so there is always the possibility these rifles were not even A5, as they had Fecker scopes at this time as well.

But if you say those 8 serials from the SRS, dated in the 1930's are proof they all fall in that 600k range, there are other MArine documents from this time that are not published, that have Telescopic equipped rifle serials outside this 600k range. Tim Plowman found them at the National Archives. So you can't even say they all fall into the 600k range now.

The Marines for sure recieved 650 A5 rifles during the war. There is only (1) 100% for sure A5 recorded in the Marine docs during WWI that is known. It clearly states it is equipped with a A5 scope and is in France in early 1918. The rest are recorded roughly 10 years later when the MArines also had Fecker Scopes. And at that time there are serials recorded outside the 600k range.

There is just not enough proof to make any claims on serial ranges when you have a handful that aren't even for sure, and they had 650. Any claims made are just speculation.

[cplnorton]

All I can see is a name written with a lighter ink than the remainder of the script, if indeed both are written in ink. I could duplicate the effect with the pens lying on my desk.

The owner clearly states the origin of the case as being post war commercial. I see no basis, nor reason, to dispute his statement.

jt

I sort of did that for a reason Jim, as I knew you would make the argument that a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. I 100% agree with you, but I wanted you to see my point. If you go back and read our discussion on the other post, on the 6 vs 8 loop cases, that is the exact same argument I was making to you. But you said that was wrong as you said that a handwritten name on a 8 loop case was proof that is what they used. But as you just said, anyone can replicate that. That is why a document is undeniable, but a hand written name on a case is not.

In the WRA documents they clearly state that the Marines had 6 loop cases. It is mentioned several times. So even though that ebay seller says 6 loop is commercial, the original Winchester documents are a much more reliable source of information than a ebay seller

[Smokeeaterpilot]

[QUOTE=Marine A5 Sniper Rifle;475402]

You're getting into speculation, I don't do that. Not saying anything is wrong with that or you are wrong with doing it. Just not what I do.]/quote]

"The strict definition of scientific research is performing a methodical study in order to prove a hypothesis or answer a specific question." If one never speculates, one does no research. Speculation is the heart of research.



No issue with that.



If each rifle was received on a differing date, I don't think there were that many days in the period of interest. Would you like to make a correction in your statement?



That isn't research, it just the gathering of data. Data tells a story, you might get the right story or you may be off a tad, but use the data and tell your story. It's history. History is what interest people. I'm sure a stack of documents would hold some amusement for some people, but it would be better if you interpreted the data and expressed your viewpoint. Be careful interpreting the data - therein the big bopper resides. For example: CplNorton seems to believe the documents dismiss the notion that the WRA block of rifles was used to produce the WRA sniper rifles, yet there is not one word in those documents that precludes that notion. I have little interest in ammo testing, but what the documents tell me was that WRA had a stockpile of 1903's that they could have used to construct the sniper rifles. They further tell me that the sniper rifles fall into that block of rifles nicely. The fact that all the known sniper rifles fall neatly into that block of rifles lends further credence to the idea they were so used. To me, the documents are supportive of the idea that the WRA block of rifles were the source of the sniper rifles.

Good luck.

jt

I accumulate data and record my findings. Should a question or discussion arises where they can provide valuable information or offer a definitive answer on a topic, then I will share what is documented. As I have here.

I stick to what is factual and separate it from is not substantiated. I'm not interested in contributing to conjecture.

Here the facts are simple.
1) This document states there are rifles at the WRA Plant which were used in ammunition testing and ammunition testing is complete.
2) The Ordnance officer is requesting shipping orders due to the fact that testing has been completed.
3) Each rifle was recorded and certain information included in the document (see above for what is included).
4) Some rifles were mounted with equipment, the only equipment mentioned were pressure gauges.
5) These rifles include (M1903 and M1917 rifles)(The model 1903 SNs include 260k RI made and SA made 600k-1 million).
6) There is no mention of the scope or intent of the ammunition testing, merely notification that testing was complete. The document is a request for shipping orders, it is not a review of the test itself.
7) The rifles were not received for testing the same day. They were received at different intervals between August 1917 and when testing was noted as concluded on the date of the document. The dates are scattered throughout that period. It does not state the specific date when the test itself was concluded. But one can definitively state that as of March 26, 1919 testing was concluded. To answer your question, no I would not want to revise my statement. It is very clear when the rifle was received by serial number and by month, day and year. All dates varying from the range noted above.
8) If there were any possibility of the rifles being shipped and fitted with scopes, it would be documented. You can review SRS hit such as:
"473298 SGS 022814 FITTED W/ A5 SCOPE BY WRA C" That is another shipping order which details a rifle that has been shipped fitted with an A5 scope. When a rifle has been shipped or received, if it was fitted with a telescope, it was noted in the paperwork. And yes I have that paperwork as well, so it is not based on opinion. It is documented.


I'm not interested in getting into arguments. I am interested in separating opinion from what is documented. Here what is documented is very specific and detailed.

Going beyond what is documented is opinion, which is fine. However, assumptions were made about those serial numbers blocks and that particular citation without reviewing the data contained within. Which would fit as a perfect definition as conclusions based on incomplete information.

If you would like to discuss details about what is documented within the correspondence, I would be happy to and answer questions specific to what was documented. Anything beyond that would be conjecture on my part and I am not interested in it because I would not be able to prove it. Other individuals may wish to form theories based on that data, that is fine. It's just not what I do. I'm just offering information what I have recorded.

Anything is possible, however I am only answering what I can state definitively. Beyond that is outside my research goals.

Respectfully,

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

.... So if you are going to use that 1919 WRA document to prove that all Marine A5 serials fall in that 600k range, the document clearly state there are serials outside that range.

Please stick to what I say, not what you think I said. I have never said any such thing. Don't waste bandwidth.

Also you are basing the Marine A5 serial ranges off the roughly 8 that are in the SRS, that Frank found at the archives. I have those documents that Frank pulled those serials off of. If you check the dates of those serials in the SRS. They are mostly 1930, with a couple like 1926. But these are not WWI dated documents.

Once again, please stick to what I have stated, not what you want me to say. I have no idea what you are talking about. I am doing no such thing, and I am not aware of any 8-SRS Corps sniper rifles in the SRS. Please be more specific and quit guessing as to what I am doing.

If you actually read the real documents that Frank pulled those serials off of, they do not say A5 rifle. In fact check out the SRS, Frank does not even say A5 fitted rifle as he does on the early 400k rifles. Frank only states they are SGS rifles. And the MArine document only states they are 1903 Telescopic equipped rifles. Which by this time the Marines had also purchased Fecker scopes, so there is always the possibility these rifles were not even A5, as they had Fecker scopes at this time as well.

What are you talking about? I have copies of those documents. Please show me where I made any statements that led you to such BS.

But if you say those 8 serials from the SRS, dated in the 1930's are proof they all fall in that 600k range, there are other MArine documents from this time that are not published, that have Telescopic equipped rifle serials outside this 600k range. Tim Plowman found them at the National Archives. So you can't even say they all fall into the 600k range now.

I have no idea as to the 8 serial numbers to which you refer. Where in the world did you pull this crap out of a hat? Please show me where I said they all fell into the 600K range. Are you related to Hilliary Clinton? From the 30(+) verified and 40(+) possibles I have in my database, I can freely state that all the rifles DO NOT fall exclusively into the 600K range. Quit making crap up, Hilliary.

The Marines for sure recieved 650 A5 rifles during the war. There is only (1) 100% for sure A5 recorded in the Marine docs during WWI that is known. It clearly states it is equipped with a A5 scope and is in France in early 1918. The rest are recorded roughly 10 years later when the MArines also had Fecker Scopes. And at that time there are serials recorded outside the 600k range.

You are stating as fact what is clearly not. I have Marine documents that positively prove you wrong.

There is just not enough proof to make any claims on serial ranges when you have a handful that aren't even for sure, and they had 650. Any claims made are just speculation.

No kidding? Look at your previous statement and tell me you weren't speculating:-). The purpose of my research was to identify 150 rifles on which A. O. Niedner mounted scopes for the Marine Corps. I have identified 24.7% of them (handful? - BS). In the process, I found a larger number of WRA rifles. I have identified the Marines who ran the sniper program, and by whose authority they ran same. I discovered why they chose the particular combination of components for the rifles, and have found the actual sniper course curriculum used at the OSD SOS school. But I make no claims as to "serial number ranges", regardless of your repeated erroneous posts. I have made certain observations about the WRA rifles, as stated above; but no more.

You do not know what I have - period. You have collected copies of documents that have been known and available for decades. Somehow that has made you all-knowing as to the WWI Marine sniper program. Please understand I am not trying to be rude (as you have been), but you have merely touched the surface of the subject.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

[QUOTE=Smokeeaterpilot;475411]

I accumulate data and record my findings. Should a question or discussion arises where they can provide valuable information or offer a definitive answer on a topic, then I will share what is documented. As I have here.

Wonderful.

I stick to what is factual and separate it from is not substantiated. I'm not interested in contributing to conjecture.

Good.

Here the facts are simple.....7) The rifles were not received for testing the same day. They were received at different intervals between August 1917 and when testing was noted as concluded on the date of the document.

Noted.

If there were any possibility of the rifles being shipped and fitted with scopes, it would be documented.

Pure conjecture.

When a rifle has been shipped or received, if it was fitted with a telescope, it was noted in the paperwork.

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.

And yes I have that paperwork as well, so it is not based on opinion. It is documented.

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

I'm not interested in getting into arguments. I am interested in separating opinion from what is documented. Here what is documented is very specific and detailed.

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.

Going beyond what is documented is opinion, which is fine. However, assumptions were made about those serial numbers blocks and that particular citation without reviewing the data contained within. Which would fit as a perfect definition as conclusions based on incomplete information.

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'm just offering information what I have recorded.

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

[cplnorton]

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.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I sort of did that for a reason Jim, as I knew you would make the argument that a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. I 100% agree with you, but I wanted you to see my point. If you go back and read our discussion on the other post, on the 6 vs 8 loop cases, that is the exact same argument I was making to you. But you said that was wrong as you said that a handwritten name on a 8 loop case was proof that is what they used. But as you just said, anyone can replicate that. That is why a document is undeniable, but a hand written name on a case is not.

You are quite confused Anyone can read for themselves what I said. And you wasted your time, as I never said a hand written name on a scope case means nothing. If it can be traced to its source and matched to a known sniper, it is means a lot.

Please point out where I said a handwritten name on a case does not prove anything. Would you consider an Indian Treaty an "undeniable" document? Native Americans might take exception to your assertion that a written document is "undeniable" as to the accuracy of its contents. Your statement has absolutely no basis in truth. Moreover, any order made from any vendor during WWI was subject to change during manufacturing depending on numerous variables beyond the control of the manufacturer. It is called "force majeure", and such clauses are normally found in any contract, even today.

In the WRA documents they clearly state that the Marines had 6 loop cases. It is mentioned several times. So even though that ebay seller says 6 loop is commercial, the original Winchester documents are a much more reliable source of information than a Ebay seller.

Your documents do NOT say the Marines had, or ever possessed, 6-loop cases. It says 6-loop cases were ordered. Huge difference therein.

Are you saying the eBay seller does not know the origin of the case he is selling? What is the basis for that claim? Then go through the list of snipers names and show us one named "F. Allen". Good luck with that. I had already checked.

If they had 8 loop cases, you need to find a document like this Jim that proves it.

No I do not. First of all, I don't care what cases they had. Secondly, the preponderance of physical evidence will demonstrate what the Marines actually had. The cases are proof within themselves. All identical, snipers that can be traced through OSD SOS sniper school using USMC records, all from differing sources (families of the sniper for the most part), one source still living that will certify the case he sold belonged to his father who was an OSD trained sniper, and the fact that you cannot produce a single 6-loop case that can be connected to any sniper, certainly carries way more weight than your document.

A handwritten name is just not enough proof as you just said.

I said no such thing. Why do you make stuff up?

This is posted with written premission from the Cody Museum. These documents can not be used by anyone without written permission.

I had rather see the letter of "written permission".

jt