WWI USMC Scope Case...

[cplnorton]

Are you thinking of the "bore-scopes" used to bore-sight naval guns by means of bronze bushings around the tube that centered them in the gun's bore? Would assume these were purchased without mounts. These were still being sold by surplus dealers into the '30s (for next to nothing!), complete in their fitted wooden cases.

I will comment on your's Clarence before I leave, I will save Jim for when I get back from Vacation. We just argue back and forth anyways. So I will reply to your comments Jim when I get back.

But no these were actual real A5 scopes. The only thing that is weird about the order. On one document it lists they were a combination of A5, B5, etc. Then on another doc they only list it as A5 scopes. But over 500 were shipped, it was actually 513 to be exact.

Some of them appear to have been available for sale post WWI. But I do have counts of some still in service on ships into WWII. So they didn't sell them all.

I honestly don't know what they were used for. But they were for sure going to the Navy and not the Marines or Army.
It is very clear on that. I will wait to post the WRA contract because it also details other contracts on the same page.

But I will post this. This is where they were for sale post WWI. They were advertised in that Man at Arms or Arms and the Man, or whatever that magazine was. I always screw up it's name, without looking back at my notes.

I was in the process of trying to figure these out and just off the cuff mentioned it in the exchange.

You been doing well by the way, I need to hit you up on something else I'm researching for the 1903A1 Unertls for an aricle I'm writing and I want your opinion on it. I will email you when I get back.

But here you go.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

]

Interesting that it doesn't mention the type of mounts and bases, especially since we know some of them had the modified mounts and tapered bases. The depot sales were the source of the scopes with the modified #2 mounts and tapered bases we see on today's market. The A5's, if they had unmodified mounts, should have red letters if they are of WWI vintage. All A5's had red lettering until May of 1923. Of course, the Marines, or anyone else, could have painted them white, but it would be simple enough to remove the white paint with a solvent to see if there is red paint underneath.

Stay tuned. It will get even better. My goal is the serial numbers of the Niedner rifles; so this discussion is something of a distraction for me. But any good researcher will search for the truth and everything else be damned.

Take the modified #2 mounts found on Niedner's rifles. Someone spent a lot of time and money modifying those mounts. Niedner didn't do it because Michael Petrov told me Niedner's knurling tool was distinctly different from the one used to make the knobs, and Michael should have known, because he owned Niedner's knurling tool. Were they made with the sockets already milled off for easy attachment to the tapered bases? Or did Niedner mill the sockets off and then attach his bases? Why make only 150 modified mounts if WRA already had a contract to assemble rifles with plain Jane #2 mounts? If they made the modified mounts with the sockets intact, why has no one ever seen such a mount on a rifle, or even a picture of one, in over 100 years? If the Corp was so determined to avoid the #2 mount and its re-zero issue, which is a huge issue for a sniper, why order 500 of the suckers when the solution was already being installed at the time by Niedner at Philly Depot.

A bigger question now arises, if you believe Norton's fantasy. If they only made 150 modified mounts (the ones Niedner installed), just where the hell did the hundreds of A5 scopes with modified mounts and tapered bases we know to exist come from? I have four of them, and I have friends who have even more. They are for sale on eBay on almost any given day. There are two partial sets for sale on eBay right now. So what is the answer?

Let's look at nomenclature. What were the modified mounts called by WRA and/or the Marines? I started calling them "Modified #2 Mounts" (please note that no one else does) because that is what they are and I couldn't find any other name for them in all these wonderful documents we have. Would it make sense to call them "Marine Mounts"? They were made for the Marines. They are modified #2 mounts, so maybe we just call them by their real name, "#2 Mounts". How about "Marine #2 Mounts"? Seen any of those names before? I have a growing sneaky feeling that Norton's "Marine Mounts" and my "Modified #2 Mounts" are the same mount. If that is the case, he and I agree in every respect, except for their physical appearance.

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

First USMC Order for 500 Rifles 1.jpg

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.

[cplnorton]

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]41639[/ATTACH]

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.

And Jim who's research is this? You have once again take something I found in a PRIVATE archives and posted it publically implying it is your research. You did not ask my permission to post this. You did the same thing when I provided a document to Tom Jackson and Tom Jackson sent it to you. You are exactly why I watermark my research now, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Earlier in this Post I said John Beard provided you a copy of this document, in an argument you had with John Beard in Private when he told were not correct in what you think happened with the Marine A5's. So he sent this this ONE document, in the hopes that you would understand. Which in this post you lied and said John Beard didn't sent it to you. THEN YOU LITERALLY POST THE DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED FROM JOHN AFTER YOU DENIED GETTING IT.

I found this document, and PAID TO USED THE RESEACH BECAUSE IT IS COPYRIGHTED. So I hope you know you are posting copyrighted info that you didn't pay to you the reseach. THIS IS NOT FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

You have no idea how any of this is because you didn't find, nor do you have any of the companion documents that go with it, and you don't have a clue where it even came from. And even if you had a clue where it came from, you would have never found it.

I think it's an absolute insult that you have to post my research online in this way. I provided this document to John Beard in private. I did not send this to you. And John has apologized to me for sending this to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And you know how I can prove it's my document, I edited it and cropped it. So if you found this, which I know you didn't. POST THE ENTIRE PAGE IT CAME FROM. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T FIND IT.

AGAIN YOU ARE POSTING COPYRIGHTED INFO THAT I AM THE ONE WHO PAID TO USE. YOU DIDN'T. IT'S VERY DISPRESPECTUL TO POST RESEACH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND OR MADE PUBLIC BY ANYONE, AND THEN IMPLY IT IS YOURS.

THEN YOU EARLIER CLAIM I CANNOT PROVIDE ANY NEW INFO. AND ALL MY INFO IS OLD RESEARCH AND NOT WORTH ANYTHING. BUT THE ONLY THING OF VALUE YOU EVER POST IS MY RESEARCH.

REMOVE IT JIM AND YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Does this mean you aren't gong to respond to the post?

[cplnorton]

It means you have now admitted what I already have know since the first week I researched the A5's. That you have never seen the actual real documents from the Winchester Sniper program. But for years you have claimed to be the expert on this forum and have detailed you knew all about them. But you have always posted info thst was false.

Anyone who has the real documents from the Marines or WRA has the companion document to this contract 25900 that is detailed.

You just outed yourself Jim. You have been making claims for years without any real documents to back them up.

From now on guys when Jim posts somehting ask him for proof. If he doesn't provide it you know what is going on.

[cplnorton]

I have never seen the actual contract

This is the only correct statement you have said on this post. But you will tell anyone you know what the Winchester rifles were and where they went.

Without seeing the actual contract?

You have been making stuff up for years Jim.

[Kaliman]

I have no dog in the fight regards to Sniper Rifles, but I do happen to know something about research, ethics, etc.

We have one party, calling themselves a "good researcher", who hasn't provided any documents because he believes traits and pictures are more important.

A document is just that, a piece of paper

Ignoring physical documentation of contracts and correspondance of the Marine Corps using the 6 looped cases, uses a logical fallacy as a point. It's like trying to prove God doesn't exist.

Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

Then, when pictures are posted, claims they are staged (with no evidence at all to suggest that). I mean, it was captioned as France. This is getting to conspiracy levels of denial.

First of all, I have never seen one shred of evidence that photo was taken in France in late 1917. If you have it, produce it, otherwise it is just a BS claim on your part.

Then there's the plain conjecture. How are you going to say "your opinion carries no weight, I BELIEVE..."

Your opinion, like mine, carries no weight. Let's stick to documents, photos, and existing equipment and forget supposition. I believe

Surely something like this could be documented in a correspondence from the 4th Marine Brigade, or AARs, no? Or more conjecture?

Remember, the Marines had all the sniper rifles they would ever need by the end of 1917. Probably more, since organized combat use of snipers by the Marines in WWi is a bit sketchy, particularly after Belleau Woods. Trench warfare was a heaven for snipers, but after Belleau Woods, the type of walking assaults the Marines used to take enemy positions did not lend itself to hidden snipers supporting the troops. The Marine assaults were so fast a sniper would have to shoot on the run.

I thought this was supposed to be rock hard research?

I believe my eyes over any document

I think the letter is published in Senich.

I don't know didly about those shipments, other than the destination of one particular shipment. I don't even know its point of origin

So which is it???

Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade

The post who made this claim has posted absolutely nothing however, ironic.

but you avoid publishing items like the contracts and shipping documents you claim to possess

Why can't you have a discussion without being rude?

if you believe Norton's fantasy.

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

The best part of this is Post #47 where this researcher POSTS SOMEONE ELSES RESEARCH WITHOUT PERMISSION. Very ethical research there.

I don't claim to know much of anything about sniper rifles. But I know some seriously flawed research and arguments when I see them.

[cplnorton]

By the way to everyone else who is reading this post. This is WRA contract 25900, which were the only 500 rifles that WRA mounted A5's on Marine rifles for the war.

Anyone who has the actual Marine documents has the companion document with the detailed description that accompanies this.

Also Winchester actually took pics of these rifles in WW1 and they are in a private archives I found. So yes I have the companion doc to this and have the actual WRA detailed factory pics of the rifles.

The Army copied the contract 25900 in WRA contact R315 which was ordered on Jan 15th 1918 and delivered by March 19th 1918. These were the identical rifles in everyway as contract 25900.

And that was not the only Army contract of mounted rifles from WRA. The Army had more Marine mount A5's from WRA than the Marines

Every one including Jim has mistaken R315 as Marine. That is why their timetables are always off on what really happened.

Jim will be on shortly and say I don't know what he means and he has evidence thst proves me wrong but he will never post it.

But he can't prove me wrong on this. He's never seen the documents.

[cplnorton]

Thank you Kaliman. I greatly appreciate your response.

[cplnorton]

I'm not going to argue with Jim anymore. I will publish my research soon and it will speak for itself. He's a lost cause anyways. He has made up his mind and even if I showed him irrefutable proof. He would still argue it.

If Jim makes any statements or makes claims of knowledge. I would ask for proof. I wouldn't believe anything He said unless I can see it in black and white

Also there are are many of who research this stuff and have lots of info that we would share. But it costs a considerable amount of money and time to find it. And many of us publish this info in magazines. Including myself.

A lot of us would share more but people like Jim are dishonest and will post it implying it is there's. In some vain attempt to prove they are an expert. Which makes the rest of us not want to share our info in public and makes us keep our info private. Which is sad.

We should be policing our own on this. It's dishonest. And there would be so much more willingness to share research if we confront this when it happens.

It's unacceptable to me.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It means you have now admitted what I already have know since the first week I researched the A5's. That you have never seen the actual real documents from the Winchester Sniper program. But for years you have claimed to be the expert on this forum and have detailed you knew all about them. But you have always posted info thst was false.

Anyone who has the real documents from the Marines or WRA has the companion document to this contract 25900 that is detailed.

You just outed yourself Jim. You have been making claims for years without any real documents to back them up.

From now on guys when Jim posts somehting ask him for proof. If he doesn't provide it you know what is going on.

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

Norton, I have been on this forum for years, and I have never claimed to be an expert on anything. If you had bothered to read my posts, I have repeatedly stated I didn't have a copy of the contract. To be honest, I have never had to deal with someone like you. For whatever reason, you will make the most absurd accusations without hesitation. You also make claims we all know to be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

I do have one question. Why did you tell my Cody researcher the documents I was looking for (the very contracts we are discussing) weren't in the Cody files? If you deny it, I will post his email. Why would you lower yourself by lying to the man? Does all this mean that much to you? I see you posting on every forum I know of, and some of it is accurate, but I see you making claims I know you can't back up. I am yet to see you post any document that definitively backs up your side of this issue. I seriously believe you have misinterpreted the documents you have. Maybe not. If I am wrong, I will admit it.

As for posting what I have, not too long ago I decided to post everything I had, and started the process. I stated I would provide anything I had that anyone wanted to see. I started posting my information, but after days of posting, or preparing posts, I had not a single inquiry for any backup data for what I was posting. Not a word or a question from you. I decided I was doing a lot of work for nothing. That deal is now off the table. So please tell me what part of that series of posts you had seen before on or in any venue.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

[cplnorton]

I spent thousands and six months of my life finding the Cody documents. You couldn't find thrm and you wanted me to tell you the exact locations whee I found them while at the same time trashing me on this forum saying I know nothing. And you had already stole some of my research at that time and posted it as yours.

I'm not giving you any research anymore. What did you expect me to tell you where to find it, when you couldn't?

You tell me all the time what a great Researcher you are and I'm a beginner. So I figured you could find it yourself. I certainly did.

And I didn't lie. I told your researcher the documents you really want are at the archives. Which they are

[Kaliman]

I think you are losing control, Norton. You sound like a whining twelve year old that has had his feelings hurt. Man up, dude; and get a grip. Please don't tell me you are crying at your keyboard.

As for your accusations, I swear I didn't kill Kennedy, as I was no where near Dallas that day.

be false (you have a Copyright on a document which, according to you, Cody already has a Copyright?). Most of the members of this forum have lived long useful lives, and can spot a wanna-be in a heartbeat. You had the opportunity to be of great value to this forum, but chose an alternate path instead.

Regardless of all that, Mr. Norton, you do need to maintain some semblance of stability during these exchanges.

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I spent thousands and six months of my life finding the Cody documents. You couldn't find thrm and you wanted me to tell you the exact locations whee I found them while at the same time trashing me on this forum saying I know nothing. And you had already stole some of my research at that time and posted it as yours.

Whoa, dude. I offered to split the cost from the beginning and you refused (still got the emails). So I hired my own researcher who spent a week doing gosh knows what and then you tell him that the documents I am searching for aren't at Cody and he quits and bills me $1000. The ledger entry I posted came from Cody. You told me you used a female employee as a researcher and now you are claiming to have found them yourself?

Please enlighten everyone as to what research of yours I have posted and claimed to have found myself, as well as the post where I claim you know nothing.

You might get some people to believe your wild accusations, but people who have been reading these posts all along know better.

I'm not giving you any research anymore. What did you expect me to tell you where to find it, when you couldn't?

What research have you given me? Do you have me confused with someone else or have you lost your mind?

You tell me all the time what a great Researcher you are and I'm a beginner. So I figured you could find it yourself. I certainly did.

Produce one single example of where I made such a statement. And in case you are still on this planet, neither one of us had found anything in the archives. We pay others to do it for us.

And I didn't lie. I told your researcher the documents you really want are at the archives. Which they are

Are you telling me that ledger entry came from the DC archives when you just posted that they came from Cody?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Man Jim, you really get nasty when you're cornered. You got found out to be fraudenty using other people's research so you have to make it personal to cover your tracks. Sad really.

Who might you be? If you are referring to the ledger entry, I got that from JB, not Norton, and I haven't used it for anything. Covering what tracks? You obviously have not been reading the posts.

I'll State once again that for a self proclaimed prolific researcher, you would be laughed out of academia not only for your lack of research ethics, but also your obvious immaturity.

I haven't seen any of your statements previously. Since it is obvious you are talking nonsense, I presume you are a friend of Norton's. You need to learn to spell before you start making goofy claims. Research is defined by the use of other people's efforts. You ever read a technical paper? Unfortunately, nothing Norton has ever posted has been any use to me, since my sole goal is the serial numbers of Niedner's rifles. So tell me what research Norton has done to further that goal?

Making wild claims does not enhance one's credibility. If you are going to attack me, be specific for the sake of the other forum members.