WWI USMC Scope Case...

[Smokeeaterpilot]

And I do want to say something. Andrew Stolinski spent many weeks pulling every WWI Sniper document in the Archives for me. If it wasn't for those, much of the A5 story would still be missing.

So thank you Andrew for that. I know that was a lot of work.

You're gratitude is very much appreciated. It was my pleasure to help.

But I would like to point out I hardly pulled every document. Just hit several locations of interest that I thought may be of use to you. There's a lot more.

All the best!
A/S

[cplnorton]

You're gratitude is very much appreciated. It was my pleasure to help.

But I would like to point out I hardly pulled every document. Just hit several locations of interest that I thought may be of use to you. There's a lot more.

All the best!
A/S

Well you found a huge amount of documents for me. I am very grateful.

If you think there is more than you have already found, I say lets hit some more boxes. lol

[clintonhater]

Could you post the spelling of the last name on the case? Thank you.

Since the OP has apparently lost interest in the matter, it appears to me to be "Derrey."

[cplnorton]

Since the OP has apparently lost interest in the matter, it appears to me to be "Derrey."

I looked up the Derrey name. I don't see any hits with an initial of ?. W. Derrey. There is a Marine named Richard W. Derry that was pre WWI. But his name is spelled Derry, not Derrey and it looks like 1916 is the last date for him in the musters.

I thought it might be Denney too. The first initial, I'm not positive on, but the second is for sure a W. There were a ton of Denney's that served in the Marine rosters, but no hit for a ?. W. Denny in WWI that I see. There is a D.W. Denney in the late 1800s, and random W. Denny's in WWII. But none that seem to have an initial that could match that first one.

I only spent about 10 minutes looking, but I'm not seeing a hit to a WWI Marine named that. I will spend more time today when I get time.

But now that we know the Army had A5 snipers too, A LOT of them. I did a quick 2 minute search in the Army files and saw this. I didn't look anymore into him at all, but this could be a hit for that name. That is the problem with a name on the case, especially when it's initials and a last name and nothing else. Prove it's Marine, Army, Civilian or what.

And since everything has only ever been considered as being Marine, and no one knew the Army had them too. All this data needs to be scrutinized to see if there are Army hits with the same name.

[cplnorton]

There was also a R.W. Derrey who served in the Navy in WWII on the USS Gridley. And I have Navy documents that detail A5's used by the Navy on board ships even that late.

And no one knows this at all, because I have never disclosed this to anyone other than John Beard. Because I was trying to document what happened to them before I went public. But there were A5's purchased by the Navy in WWI before the MArines. A huge shipment of them actually. I just have no clue what they did with them, but they shipped from Winchester.

So heck this could even be a Navy hit from WWII for all we know. lol

It's an aboslute nightmare to go just by a name on a case. Because is it Army, Navy, or Marines? A civilian? Or stamped by someone later even? It's just too many possibilities to say 100% what it is. Especially when it's just a name and initials.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

...3) I think your timeline of the first shipment of WRA Marine sniper rifles is not correct, and I think that is why we disagree so much.

I presume you have a document that specifically states it is the first shipment and that shipment was after March of 1918?

...Just no one knew the Army had WRA produced "Marine" A5's.

Actually, it has long been a well known fact that the Army had copies of the Marine sniper rifles. I think the subject is even discussed in Pegler's book, but it may have been one of the others.

Just wait a little longer Jim and it will all be made public.

I'm not going anywhere.

[cplnorton]

I presume you have a document that specifically states it is the first shipment and that shipment was after March of 1918?

This is not correct. I do have the March 1918 documents. Both from WRA and the Army. Andrew found them at the Archives.

The first shipment of WRA A5 mounted rifles that went to the Marines predates your date by several months.

The first Army order of Marine Mount A5's was completed on March 19, 1918, and even this was the 2nd actual shipment of completed rifles the Army received, which was for 135 rifles.

You are confusing Army shipments with Marine.

[clintonhater]

I thought it might be Denney too. The first initial, I'm not positive on, but the second is for sure a W.

Don't think it's Denney. First initial is "R".

[cplnorton]

Don't think it's Denney. First initial is "R".

Yeah I sort of think you are right. I think it's R.W. Derrey.

I think that WWII Navy hit to that destoryer is probably the most logical answer of all the names I saw. I went back and looked and the Navy recieved over 500 in WWI.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

This is not correct. I do have the March 1918 documents. Both from WRA and the Army. Andrew found them at the Archives.

The first shipment of WRA A5 mounted rifles that went to the Marines predates your date by several months.

You might want to review what I stated. I stated the rifles were initially issued in March, 1918. I do not know, nor do I care, when they were shipped. I do know their final destination, where they were first issued to Marine candidates for the OSD sniper school scheduled to be completed in mid-1918.

The first Army order of Marine Mount A5's was completed on March 19, 1918, and even this was the 2nd actual shipment of completed rifles the Army received, which was for 135 rifles.

I have known for years that the Army received A5 rifles from WRA. I had no reason to chase those down. My goal is, and always has been, the serial numbers of Niedner's 150 rifles. I do wonder what happened to the Army rifles, but I know of no evidence any of them have surfaced to date.

You are confusing Army shipments with Marine.

I am doing no such thing. You are confusing what I said, with something you think I said. When I advised you to be careful when reading old documents, I should have included my posts.

[cplnorton]

You might want to review what I stated. I stated the rifles were initially issued in March, 1918. I do not know, nor do I care, when they were shipped. I do know their final destination, where they were first issued to Marine candidates for the OSD sniper school scheduled to be completed in mid-1918.

Acutally I do not agree with this either. The location of where the first WRA MArine A5 rifles shipped is mentioned in the USMC, WRA, and Army documents. There is no mention that they were shipped or used by the Marines at Sniper School. And where they actually shipped, it is highly illogical the Mariens sent them back.

[cplnorton]

You have to understand there were 3 different makers of the A5's just in about a Calendar year.

The first 150 were mounted by Niedner, until he was fired bc the FBI opened an investigation on him as a potentianl German Saboteur. His rifles were also considered highly suspect of sabotage.

After Niedner is fired, a couple days later the contact to mount 500 was given to the WRA company in July 1917. These were completed much earlier than anyone thinks.

Also in July 1917, Marines were sent to School at WRA to learn how to mount scopes themselves. These Marines finished the actual school for sure by December 1917. Then the Marines 2nd contract was just for A5 scopes that were to be delievered starting April 1918. These scopes were not to be mounted by WRA, but were instead to be mounted by the Actual Marines.

My personal opinoin the rifles you see in the Sniper School pictures are probably mounted by the MArines themselves.


This is only the data on the Marines. Now you must add the Army and Navy into the equation as well.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

You have to understand there were 3 different makers of the A5's just in about a Calendar year.
The first 150 were mounted by Niedner, until he was fired bc the FBI opened an investigation on him as a potentianl German Saboteur. His rifles were also considered highly suspect of sabotage.
After Niedner is fired, a couple days later the contact to mount 500 was given to the WRA company in July 1917. These were completed much earlier than anyone thinks.

I am not sure how you know what everyone thinks, but I think it took less than 30-days to complete.

Also in July 1917, Marines were sent to School at WRA to learn how to mount scopes themselves. These Marines finished the actual school for sure by December 1917. Then the Marines 2nd contract was just for A5 scopes that were to be delievered starting April 1918. These scopes were not to be mounted by WRA, but were instead to be mounted by the Actual Marines.

You have now affirmed what I have said all along. The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade. I can document the Marines making tapered bases in 1916. A nagging question, in my mind, has been why the Corps chose Niedner to make the first 150 rifles.

You have a document that states Marine were going to mount A5 scopes on '03's? My question is why? They already had more sniper rifles than they would need to equip both the 4th and 6th Brigades with rifles left over. Subsequent orders of sniper rifles would be senseless, and the Corps did not waste money. I can see them buying spare scopes to offset scope attrition, but assembling more sniper rifles makes no sense at all. Not at all.

My personal opinoin the rifles you see in the Sniper School pictures are probably mounted by the MArines themselves.

Your opinion, like mine, carries no weight. Let's stick to documents, photos, and existing equipment and forget supposition. I believe the first shipment of rifles came from WRA, and they had tapered bases installed by WRA (ignoring the Niedner rifles).

Just how long was this training session at WRA? How many men were trained, and exactly what were they trained to do? Where did they go once they completed their training? Can you support this claim using the Muster Rolls?

This is only the data on the Marines. Now you must add the Army and Navy into the equation as well.

You can document the Army and Navy ordering A5 sniper rifles in mid-1917? 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.

[cplnorton]

1) I am not sure how you know what everyone thinks, but I think it took less than 30-days to complete.

2) You have now affirmed what I have said all along. The Marines emptied their armories of armorers to outfit the 4th Brigade. I can document the Marines making tapered bases in 1916. A nagging question, in my mind, has been why the Corps chose Niedner to make the first 150 rifles.

3) You have a document that states Marine were going to mount A5 scopes on '03's? My question is why? They already had more sniper rifles than they would need to equip both the 4th and 6th Brigades with rifles left over. Subsequent orders of sniper rifles would be senseless, and the Corps did not waste money. I can see them buying spare scopes to offset scope attrition, but assembling more sniper rifles makes no sense at all. Not at all.

4) I believe the first shipment of rifles came from WRA, and they had tapered bases installed by WRA (ignoring the Niedner rifles).

5) Just how long was this training session at WRA? How many men were trained, and exactly what were they trained to do? Where did they go once they completed their training? Can you support this claim using the Muster Rolls?

6) You can document the Army and Navy ordering A5 sniper rifles in mid-1917?

1) John Beard told me that in the beginning he sent you a copy of my July 2nd 1917 initial order to WRA. On that order they quote they will mount the 500 rifles and ship them within 30 days. But it didn't happen that way. It was longer than 30 days, and they were shipped in at least 2 lots. But they were completed in 1917. The Marine order of 500 was done several months before the Army ordered their first contract in January 1918.

2) In my reasearch Niedner is the one who mounted the rifles in 1916 for the rifle teams. You have those documents as well. The Philly Depot was not operational yet to mount them in house. Hence probably the reason Niedner was initally used.

3) From day one, the target number of sniper rifles by the Marines was 1650. That was always the plan even when Niedner was involved in the beginning, and even after Neidner was fired, the 1650 number remained intact. I have counts at the Philly Depot leading into WWII that show the majority of these still existed. But not in the way you think they did.

4) I can now prove the Marines and Army "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchester had Clamp screws for the mounts. I have the orders for replacement clamp screws becasue they were getting lost in the field. The Tappered Mann Niedner bases do not clamp screws (Thumb Screws). But the Winchester Springfield Marine bases did, and those rifles are the rifles photographed in the detailed original WWI WRA records. That is also the rifle pictured in late 1917 in France.

5) The training session started in July 1917 and was for sure finished by Dec 1917. But it actually probably ended a fuzz earlier. I just can confirm it was done in December because WRA mentions they were filing all the docuemnts from the program as it was done. They probably trained along with Winchester as WRA mounted the 500 rifles for the Marines. And once the 500 rifles were complete, it appears they left WRA at roughly the same time. They trained not only on how to repair the A5 scopes, but how to mount them. I can confirm this on the WRA side and the Marine side. And it makes sense. The Marines were screwed over by Nieder, and they decided to learn to do it themselves and not rely on others. Plus it cost money to pay Niedner and WRA to mount scopes, so it saved money as well to have them mounted in house

6. The Navy order was in 1917, and it was over 500. That is a rabbit hole I haven't down yet. They might have been used on some type of Naval weapons on a ship. I have no clue. I just can confirm they were bought and paid for and where they were shipped. The Army rifles were all mounted by WRA and all shipped in 1918, starting in Feb 1918 to be exact.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

1) John Beard told me that in the beginning he sent you a copy of my July 2nd 1917 initial order to WRA. On that order they quote they will mount the 500 rifles and ship them within 30 days. But it didn't happen that way. It was longer than 30 days, and they were shipped in at least 2 lots. But they were completed in 1917. The Marine order of 500 was done several months before the Army ordered their first contract in January 1918.

I do not have a copy of that order.

Note: I went back and reviewed all my correspondence with John, and John did send me a copy of a notation of the order from a WRA ledger, but not the order/contract itself. I just want to clarify a quick answer.

As I recall, the first shipment was 350 rifles.

2) In my reasearch Niedner is the one who mounted the rifles in 1916 for the rifle teams. You have those documents as well. The Philly Depot was not operational yet to mount them in house. Hence probably the reason Niedner was initally used.

The Corps was making tapered bases in 1916. According to an article in the Marine Gazette, Philly wasn't operational as an armory until 1919.

3) From day one, the target number of sniper rifles by the Marines was 1650. That was always the plan even when Niedner was involved in the beginning, and even after Neidner was fired, the 1650 number remained intact. I have counts at the Philly Depot leading into WWII that show the majority of these still existed. But not in the way you think they did.

The Corps was about 10,000 men before the war, and received a mandate to increase strength to 75,000 men for the war. They maxed out at 75,101 men in 1918. They were expecting a long drawn out war of attrition in trench warfare. When they stopped the Huns at Belleau Woods with a record number of casualties, they knew they had to change tactics and go to "Indian Tactics". They also had the problem of Gen. Pershing not wanting them in France. They knew the 5th Brigade was their limit in the war. The first order of 500 rifles had filled the need for their sniper program. They would need no more sniper rifles. Now you are telling me they assembled another 1150 rifles? I presume you have solid evidence those contracts were filled?

For the upteenth time, you have no idea what I think. The rifles existed as around 937 A5 surplus scopes at Philly. Show me evidence that all those scopes were purchased in 1918. Before you say, "Aww heck, Jim. They wouldn't purchase scopes they didn't need after WWI." Especially, since you are telling me they assembled over a thousand sniper rifles they didn't need in 1918.

4) I can now prove the Marines and Army "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchester had Clamp screws for the mounts. I have the orders for replacement clamp screws becasue they were getting lost in the field. The Tappered Mann Niedner bases do not clamp screws (Thumb Screws). But the Winchester Springfield Marine bases did, and those rifles are the rifles photographed in the detailed original WWI WRA records. That is also the rifle pictured in late 1917 in France.

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.

I look forward to seeing any evidence you have that links those WRA photos to the first order of sniper rifles for the Marines. Since WRA made the #2 bases, I am certain they pushed their use by the Marines, and I would expect to find a copious number of pictures of 1903's with #2 bases in WRA's files, as well as the Corps's.

Do you have any idea how many A5 scoped rifles the Marines had on hand with #2 bases? They didn't throw them away. Nor did they cease R&PT training in WWI. They actually set up a program to train the wives of Marines to shoot. I even have the pictures to prove it. So, unless that order is somehow linked to the sniper program in your documents, it means squat.

5) The training session started in July 1917 and was for sure finished by Dec 1917. But it actually probably ended a fuzz earlier. I just can confirm it was done in December because WRA mentions they were filing all the docuemnts from the program as it was done. They probably trained along with Winchester as WRA mounted the 500 rifles for the Marines. And once the 500 rifles were complete, it appears they left WRA at roughly the same time. They trained not only on how to repair the A5 scopes, but how to mount them. I can confirm this on the WRA side and the Marine side. And it makes sense. The Marines were screwed over by Nieder, and they decided to learn to do it themselves and not rely on others. Plus it cost money to pay Niedner and WRA to mount scopes, so it saved money as well to have them mounted in house

I can show the Marines were making tapered bases as early as 1916. They never did have to use Niedner. The choice to use Niedner was based on factors that may be considered a bit strange.

One more time - the Corp drained itself of armorers outfitting the 5th and 6th Regiments. OSD was not operational in 1917. The Recruit Depots were filled to the max training Marines to outfit the 5th Brigade. The Corps was stretched to the limit as it increased in size by a factor of 7.5 which demanded the Corps use a whole lot of outside resources. It made perfect sense, and still does in today's Corp, to use commercial armories to help train their armorers. Who better than WRA? The Corps had been making tapered bases and mounting A5 scopes for a long time, and didn't need WRA to show them how, they just needed them to train armorers. If you are going to fight a war, you had better have one ass load of armorers on hand, or like David, learn to throw stones. I would wager the Corps sent Marines to Ford Motor Company to learn to fix vehicles, but it still doesn't have squat to do with the sniper program.

6. The Navy order was in 1917, and it was over 500. That is a rabbit hole I haven't down yet. They might have been used on some type of Naval weapons on a ship. I have no clue. I just can confirm they were bought and paid for and where they were shipped. The Army rifles were all mounted by WRA and all shipped in 1918, starting in Feb 1918 to be exact.

I am sure you have perused Pershing's wires. If so, you know that Pershing condemned the WS scopes early in 1918, and demanded better equipment from SA. So the Army order makes perfect sense, but I know nothing about that order and it has nothing to do with what we are discussing.

Townsend Whelan had condemned the WRA #2 mounts and bases as crap long before the war started, just before the Corps started using tapered bases. I seem to remember Crossman condemning them also. Captain Fay was a close friend of both men, as was Daulty Smith. Do you think the change to tapered bases was a coincidence? Now you tell me the men who made that change were going to reverse themselves and buy sniper rifles with crap mounts and bases? That was never going to happen.