WWI USMC Scope Case...

[cplnorton]

1) As I recall, the first shipment was 350 rifles.

2) 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) 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?

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) 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.

8) 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.

1) The 350 number is not correct. The actual real number was 500 for the first shipment.

2) The article you are talking about is from Dec 1925. The article does not mention they were producing tapered Marine bases in 1916. But it does mention they were created and made at the depot. Which is what the evidence from Winchester shows as well, as WRA never had anything to do with the tapered bases. There were parts of the Philly Depot that were operational for weapons in 1918. Tim Plowman found proof of this at the DC Archives. There was also another location that was utilized as well that has not been made public.



3) Yes I have the evidence of those numbers.

4) The 937 number you are quoting is not correct, the actual number was 887. But that was just one count on scopes that is qouted in Senich. When you actually see the Quartermaster documents, there were many counts done. Not only on the scopes at difference periods of time, but for the actual rifles and parts of the sniper program has never been made public.

5) Yes I numerous counts of the scoped rifles that date from about 1911 to 1951. I do have the purchase orders of the Marines buying them pre WWI. I can track two purchases in 1911 and 1916. There were not as many as you think.

6) The rifles purchased with the tapper blocks in 1916 were mounted by Nieder. You have these documents as well, so if you check the date you will see this is correct. There is not any evidence the Marines was producing tappered blocks in 1916. If you have that evidence please provide it.

7) Yes I have a copy of the Pershing Wires. They are also available online to view. The Army orders are extremely important for what we are discussing, because you need to place the Marine orders and Army orders side by side to see what was going where. You have confused some of these Army orders and shipments as being Marine. And it's easy to do. It wasn't till I had all the WRA contract numbers and all the Army docuemntation that it finally made sense on what was actually Marine and what was Army. Because some of the shipments were at the same time.

8) Actually this is not correct either. Townsend was in charge of many of the sniper trials and testing that was done by the Army, and what you are quoting is from one of his books that are available online that is from post WWI. I can go back and post if need be his comments. But he said he did prefer the Mann Niedner tappered bases, but the Winchester #2 mount was very effective as well.

The Army in 1918 was actually happy with the "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchesters from WWI, and they are again discussed in the about 200 page Sniper trials by the Army in the early 20's.

[cplnorton]

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.

Yes I can prove it was taken in 1917 and was taken in France. When you actually look at the pictures around it, that are also numbered, you can tell where the picture was taken and narrrow it down to about Dec 1917.

The Springfield Marine mount rifles from Winchester had arrived in France by this time. This is a picture of one of those rifles

If you look in the lower left corner there is a Army Signal Corps number. I copied the backside of the pictures to authenticate my claim.

I also found a new version of this picture that no one knew existed. So there is actually two of these pictures in the Archives. I will post both, as well as the backsides.

First Picture 4337 and the back of it.






This has never been published or made available online. It is a darker version of Picture 4337. Here is Picture 4338

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

1) The 350 number is not correct. The actual real number was 500 for the first shipment.

Are you certain it wasn't broken into two lots?

2) The article you are talking about is from Dec 1925. The article does not mention they were producing tapered Marine bases in 1916. But it does mention they were created and made at the depot. Which is what the evidence from Winchester shows as well, as WRA never had anything to do with the tapered bases. There were parts of the Philly Depot that were operational for weapons in 1918. Tim Plowman found proof of this at the DC Archives. There was also another location that was utilized as well that has not been made public.

No, the article is not from 1925, it is from 1916. You are terrible about making unfounded assumptions.

Norton, how can you say the other location has not been made public when you are referencing public records? I know of another location also. Odd that you should mention it at this particular time.

"Known as the taper block Marine Corps type" is an interesting phrase. We will be discussing it in the future, no doubt.

3) Yes I have the evidence of those numbers.

4) The 937 number you are quoting is not correct, the actual number was 887. But that was just one count on scopes that is qouted in Senich. When you actually see the Quartermaster documents, there were many counts done. Not only on the scopes at difference periods of time, but for the actual rifles and parts of the sniper program has never been made public.

I stated I didn't remember the exact number, but I was referencing a letter, not Senich, although I think the letter is published in Senich.

5) Yes I numerous counts of the scoped rifles that date from about 1911 to 1951. I do have the purchase orders of the Marines buying them pre WWI. I can track two purchases in 1911 and 1916. There were not as many as you think.

Yet again, you pretend to know what I think. I can assure you that you are wrong.

6) The rifles purchased with the tapper blocks in 1916 were mounted by Nieder. You have these documents as well, so if you check the date you will see this is correct. There is not any evidence the Marines was producing tappered blocks in 1916. If you have that evidence please provide it.

You are wrong again. There is definitive evidence that the Marines were producing tapered blocks as early as 1916 and, yes, I have a copy of it.

7) Yes I have a copy of the Pershing Wires. They are also available online to view. The Army orders are extremely important for what we are discussing, because you need to place the Marine orders and Army orders side by side to see what was going where. You have confused some of these Army orders and shipments as being Marine. And it's easy to do. It wasn't till I had all the WRA contract numbers and all the Army docuemntation that it finally made sense on what was actually Marine and what was Army. Because some of the shipments were at the same time.

I have confused no such thing. I have repeatedly, even within this thread, said 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. If you can prove that first WRA shipment was for 500 rifles, there may have been a waypoint.

8) Actually this is not correct either. Townsend was in charge of many of the sniper trials and testing that was done by the Army, and what you are quoting is from one of his books that are available online that is from post WWI. I can go back and post if need be his comments. But he said he did prefer the Mann Niedner tappered bases, but the Winchester #2 mount was very effective as well.

Yet again you pretend to know what I am thinking when you have no clue whatsoever. No, I am not quoting any book of Townsend's. Post all you wish to post. If it is not dated 1916 or earlier, you are not posting my source, in which Townsend specifically states the WRA #2 mounts and bases will not return to zero after removal and replacement. Others found the same problem, which precipitated the Corps rifle team switch to tapered bases, as the Corps' consensus was that the #2 WRA mounting system was useless to a sniper. Yet you now claim they ordered 500 rifles with those "useless" mounts and bases - utter nonsense.

The Army in 1918 was actually happy with the "Marine Mount" A5's from Winchesters from WWI, and they are again discussed in the about 200 page Sniper trials by the Army in the early 20's.

There is a huge difference between "Marine Mounts" and tapered bases. Remember "tapered bases Marine Corps type"? More on this later.

What you are calling a "Marine Mount" is actually the WRA commercial bases required to mount an A5 on an '03 on 7.2" centers, regardless of who owned the rifle, to this day.

[cplnorton]

1) Are you certain it wasn't broken into two lots?

2) No, the article is not from 1925, it is from 1916. You are terrible about making unfounded assumptions.

3)Norton, how can you say the other location has not been made public when you are referencing public records? I know of another location also. Odd that you should mention it at this particular time.

4)You are wrong again. There is definitive evidence that the Marines were producing tapered blocks as early as 1916 and, yes, I have a copy of it.

5)Yet again you pretend to know what I am thinking when you have no clue whatsoever. No, I am not quoting any book of Townsend's. Post all you wish to post. If it is not dated 1916 or earlier, you are not posting my source, in which Townsend specifically states the WRA #2 mounts and bases will not return to zero after removal and replacement. Others found the same problem, which precipitated the Corps rifle team switch to tapered bases, as the Corps' consensus was that the #2 WRA mounting system was useless to a sniper. Yet you now claim they ordered 500 rifles with those "useless" mounts and bases - utter nonsense.

6)There is a huge difference between "Marine Mounts" and tapered bases. Remember "tapered bases Marine Corps type"? More on this later. What you are calling a "Marine Mount" is actually the WRA commercial bases required to mount an A5 on an '03 on 7.2" centers, regardless of who owned the rifle, to this day.

1) It was. But not with a shipment of 350. There was a 360 shipment that was Army. And again Jim I have little doubt you are confusing Army A5 shipments and records as Marine. This is why I keep stating you have to know what the Army shipments were. Becase there is no way to track the Marine shipments without knowing the Army ones.

2) The only Tappered blocks in 1916 I have seen documented were purchased off Nieder. I do not believe there is evidence that the Marines were producing the tappered blocks in 1916. If you have something that is definite proof of this, and contradicts my statement, please post it.

3) I am only referencing "Some" Public records. The records form the National Archives are public. But what you don't know is there are "private" archives as well, where you have to have to pay to publish their research. So I am quoting some copyrighted documents as well.

4) Please post it. Because I am not aware of anything that will specifically say the Marines were producing tappered blocks in 1916. The Marines were "Using" Tappered blocks in 1916. I will agree 100% with that statement, but I honestly doubt they made the tappered blocks in 1916.

5) Again please post your proof. I have provided a lot of proof on the A5's to back up my claims in all our various Internet Arugments over the years. But you will very seldom post anything that provides evidence to your claims. I know of mentions from Townsends books. But the others, of which I have the sniper trial reports that Townsend was a part of, do not state this. The Army in 1918 was actually very happy with the Springfield Marine mounts which used Clamping screws. They were just not happy about them being lost in the field.

6) Everyone was copying the Mann tappered blocks back then. They were used by the Army, the Marines, and everyone commercially. The only two bases produced by WRA in the WWI era for the 1903 Springfield, were the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center and the Sprinfield "Marine" which was a 7.2'' on center.

What you probably haven't thought of, only the military, or a member of a NRA shooting club had access to the 1903 Springfields till post WWI. NO ONE else had access to the 1903 Springfields when WRA started to produce these bases. This was till about 1919/20 when the laws changed and the 1903's could be sold to anyone and you no longer had to be a member of a shooting club.

So when Winchester produced the "Springfield" and "Springfield Marine" bases they developed them for the military in mind. And actually the Army is the one who nicknamed the WRA Springfield bases "Marine." They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.

The Army kept on asking for the "Marine" mount, because that is how the Army identified it. They wanted the same identical rifle as the Marines had received from WRA. Because the Army had trialed the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center earlier and HATED them, because they said it didn't provide enough strength to the Scope mounted on the rifle.

So the Army is actually the who nicknamed the WRA "Marine" bases and the name just stuck after that. The Marines and WRA before the Army nickname in 1918 called them the "Special" base with #2 mount. Because they were "Special and new" over the old 6'' Springfield base that was first made for sniper use.

[cplnorton]

You know I can see this heading right towards all of our other discussions.

The discussion has changed from the 8 loop case that first started this and I am getting ready to leave for vacation shortly. When I get back I will actually take all my research and compile it. Most of it is already written out as I made a cheat sheat to research.

I do want to shoot it over to a Magazine, just to make sure they won't publish it first. But if they pass, I will just go ahead and post it ALL on a new topic and we can discuss it.

Sorry to the OP for raining on your post. Jim and I disagree on this topic, and are both very passionate on it. And both of us believe the other is full of crap and making stuff up.

On a side note I'm taking my kids to Florida. So everyone have a great week!

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Yes I can prove it was taken in 1917 and was taken in France. When you actually look at the pictures around it, that are also numbered, you can tell where the picture was taken and narrrow it down to about Dec 1917.

I believe it was taken in 1917, but what about the picture makes you think it was taken in France? You do realize that the SC staged a lot of their photos? "Through the Wheat" is an excellent example. It was staged here in the states.

You don't see the prominent flaw in your assertion that the picture is of a Marine in France?

By the way, with hundreds of SG photographers working at the same time, there is absolutely no way the pictures can be in chronological order. In addition to that, the SC number is supposed to be 6-digits, and those two are 4-digit numbers.

The Springfield Marine mount rifles from Winchester had arrived in France by this time. This is a picture of one of those rifles

How in heck could you possibly know either of those statements to be true? Are you clairvoyant? Do you really believe they sent 500 sniper rifles to France for two regiments? That is just silly.

If you look in the lower left corner there is a Army Signal Corps number. I copied the backside of the pictures to authenticate my claim.

A picture of Gen Pershing eating popcorn and reading a Playboy on the back of those photos would not "authenticate" your claims. It is nothing but a picture of a Marine aiming a rifle with #2 WRA mounts, of which we all know the Marines had a'plenty. If this is the kind of "evidence" you have, you have a long row to hoe.

[lyman]

thank you both for keeping the discussion civil!!

[cplnorton]

1) What about the picture makes you think it was taken in France? You do realize that the SC staged a lot of their photos? "Through the Wheat" is an excellent example. It was staged here in the states.

2) You don't see the prominent flaw in your assertion that the picture is of a Marine in France?

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

5) It is nothing but a picture of a Marine aiming a rifle with #2 WRA mounts, of which we all know the Marines had a'plenty. If this is the kind of "evidence" you have, you have a long row to hoe.

1) Are you really going to argue that the picture titled "Marines in France" wasn't taken in France?

2) The Marines didn't start wearing Army Uniforms or Puttees until early 1918. I think there are still pics of Marines wearing Marine uniforms till around March 1918 in Photos. You would have to ask a WWI expert like Stever Girard or Kevin Seldon for sure on when the last pics are.

3) Yes

4) I agreed with only one thing you have said in this statement. It is the #2 mounts on the A5. But that is what the Marine Contract states they were. I strongly disagree with your statement they had a Plenty of those rifles before WWI

[cplnorton]

In addition to that, the SC number is supposed to be 6-digits, and those two are 4-digit numbers.

You are not correct in this statement. There are even 3 digit numbered Signal Corps Photos. Here is a whole page of 4's. And there are many more pages after this of 4 digits as well.

Including the 2 pics above which are listed in this AEF Catalouge, and published in March 1918. Actually Credit goes to Tim Traxler on this find.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

... And both of us believe the other is full of crap and making stuff up.

Again you claim to know what i think, and again you are wrong. I don't think you make it up at all. I think you connect isolated documents to form a scenario you want to be true. It's like the photo of the marine you posted above. if you go back in time, the first time you saw that picture you were convinced it was the official Marine sniper rifle because you wanted the rifle you had purchased to be one and they looked alike If I am wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

I hope your family has a pleasant vacation.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

1) Are you really going to argue that the picture titled "Marines in France" wasn't taken in France?

Can you tell me how many SC pictures were staged? Is there anything in that picture that reminds you of France?

2) The Marines didn't start wearing Army Uniforms or Puttees until early 1918. I think there are still pics of Marines wearing Marine uniforms till around March 1918 in Photos. You would have to ask a WWI expert like Stever Girard or Kevin Seldon for sure on when the last pics are.

The uniform is not the issue (except for the campaign hat).

3) Yes

I am speechless.

4) I agreed with only one thing you have said in this statement. It is the #2 mounts on the A5. But that is what the Marine Contract states they were. I strongly disagree with your statement they had a Plenty of those rifles before WWI

I guess that issue would depend on the meaning of "a'plenty". In this instance, it only has to be one.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

1) It was. But not with a shipment of 350. There was a 360 shipment that was Army. And again Jim I have little doubt you are confusing Army A5 shipments and records as Marine. This is why I keep stating you have to know what the Army shipments were. Becase there is no way to track the Marine shipments without knowing the Army ones.

I need to make a rubber stamp of this reply. I am not confusing any shipments because I don't know didly about the shipments.

2) The only Tappered blocks in 1916 I have seen documented were purchased off Nieder. I do not believe there is evidence that the Marines were producing the tappered blocks in 1916. If you have something that is definite proof of this, and contradicts my statement, please post it.

I will in the near future. Like you, I am getting my ducks in a row.

3) I am only referencing "Some" Public records. The records form the National Archives are public. But what you don't know is there are "private" archives as well, where you have to have to pay to publish their research. So I am quoting some copyrighted documents as well.

You think I am not aware that private archives exist? The last fifteen years of my life was spent doing research on thermophillic digestion. I would wager I know of more "for profit" archives than do you. Why do you continue to claim you know what I think or what I know? Is it a compulsion?

4) Please post it. Because I am not aware of anything that will specifically say the Marines were producing tappered blocks in 1916. The Marines were "Using" Tappered blocks in 1916. I will agree 100% with that statement, but I honestly doubt they made the tappered blocks in 1916.

Doubt what you wish.

5) Again please post your proof. I have provided a lot of proof on the A5's to back up my claims in all our various Internet Arugments over the years. But you will very seldom post anything that provides evidence to your claims. I know of mentions from Townsends books. But the others, of which I have the sniper trial reports that Townsend was a part of, do not state this. The Army in 1918 was actually very happy with the Springfield Marine mounts which used Clamping screws. They were just not happy about them being lost in the field.

I have seen you post spurious items that everyone already has or is of no value in proving anything, but you avoid publishing items like the contracts and shipping documents you claim to possess.

6) Everyone was copying the Mann tappered blocks back then. They were used by the Army, the Marines, and everyone commercially. The only two bases produced by WRA in the WWI era for the 1903 Springfield, were the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center and the Sprinfield "Marine" which was a 7.2'' on center.

If you didn't make such off the wall statements such as the last one, I might be more inclined to believe some of your garb. You cannot possibly know that WRA did not make a tapered base during or before WWI. Like you said, everyone was copying the tapered block, and you are going to tell me WRA just sat back and did nothing to protect their turf? Come on, get real.

What you probably haven't thought of, only the military, or a member of a NRA shooting club had access to the 1903 Springfields till post WWI. NO ONE else had access to the 1903 Springfields when WRA started to produce these bases. This was till about 1919/20 when the laws changed and the 1903's could be sold to anyone and you no longer had to be a member of a shooting club.

You do realize that any community of any size had a shooting club in those days?

RUBBER STAMP! (for your knowing what I have thought of, or haven't thought of)

So when Winchester produced the "Springfield" and "Springfield Marine" bases they developed them for the military in mind. And actually the Army is the one who nicknamed the WRA Springfield bases "Marine." They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.

I suspect when about the third customer walked in and ordered an A5 to be mounted on his match rifle on 7.2" centers, WRA whipped those bases out within 24 hrs.

I am just amazed when you claim to know why someone did something 100 years ago with nothing to back up your assertion. Please don't tell me you have a document that states why WRA developed the long spacing bases, or that you have another document that verifies the Army nicknaming the bases, etc. You make this stuff up and present it as fact. Stick a "In My Opinion" in front of those sentences and you will sound more credible.

When you say "They were not labeled by WRA or the Mariens in their orders.", are you telling me the bases and mounts are not specified in the orders? I would expect to see "modified #2 mounts and bases" or something similar.

The Army kept on asking for the "Marine" mount, because that is how the Army identified it. They wanted the same identical rifle as the Marines had received from WRA. Because the Army had trialed the "Springfield" bases which were 6'' on center earlier and HATED them, because they said it didn't provide enough strength to the Scope mounted on the rifle.

So the Army kept asking for the "Marine" mounts? Remember a few posts back when I said we would get back to those "Marine mounts"? Once again, I am leaning towards a big misunderstanding of nomenclature as the root of our disagreements. Exactly how did the Army describe those "Marine mounts"?

So the Army is actually the who nicknamed the WRA "Marine" bases and the name just stuck after that. The Marines and WRA before the Army nickname in 1918 called them the "Special" base with #2 mount. Because they were "Special and new" over the old 6'' Springfield base that was first made for sniper use.

What did WRA and the Marines call the modified #2 mounts and tapered bases? I presume you have the contracts for those orders, do you not? If only 150 of them were ever made, how do you account for the hundreds known to exist today? I have four of them myself, and they aren't rare at all. They show up on eBay on a weekly basis.



Enjoy your vacation. I am going fishing with my "new" 9-0 Penn reel and 160 lb rod. I hope Bobby Ray didn't forget to plug up the hole in the beaver dam.

[Smokeeaterpilot]

Jouster has gotten more posts on this thread in the past several days than the entire forum has in the past several months between you two.

I, for one have enjoyed this heated exchange.

[clintonhater]

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...

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.

[clintonhater]

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...

Actually it was Crossman who had the harshest things to say about the A5, esp. its internal design, but all the published comments by Whelen that I've run across were on the whole pretty favorable. In The American Rifle, however, he observed that failure of the clamp-on mounts to return to zero could be a significant problem--sometimes amounting, he said, to an error of 2 MOA (an extreme case, I think). For that reason, he strongly recommended Niedner's tapered mounts.