Named Scope Cases

[cplnorton]

during that time frame was the Army using Warner Swasey scopes?

Yes, I can say they absolutory were. They were not only using it, but they were constantly building new ones until the summer of 1918.

The only reason the Army bought A5 snipers starting in Jan 1918 was because of two reasons.

1) They ordred several thousand Warner Swasey scopes at the beginning of the war in 1917. But the lenses of the WS were made by Kodak, and there was a shortage of the material to make the lenses. So Warner Swasey said it would be a while before they could supply the scopes Ordnance ordered. So Ordnance had no choice but to look elsewhere for scopes, so the A5 scope was chosen becasue there were basically no other options available. Ordnance didn't finally receive the WS scopes until the summer of 1918. Nearly six months after they had bought the first A5's.

2) The 2nd reason is the Army actually didn't like US made scopes at all. They loved the German made glass of the time such as Zeiss and Goertz. So the Army wanted German Glass on their M1903's. But the war started in Europe in 1914 and they could not order any. So they decided they would try to make their own version of the Goerz Scope. From basically 1914 to 1923, they tried over and over to copy the German Glass. This was ALWAYS their first choice.

If the Army had their way, they would have had M1903's with Goerz German scopes on them. But it didn't work out that way. Even though they were not that fond of the Warner Swasey either, they saw the WS as superior to the A5.

So you are correct that the Warner Swasey was the official sniper rifle of the US Army till the summer of 1918 when the last ones were actually made. It also explains why they didn't have A5 sniper rifles, because the WS rifle they already had was seen as better.

But because a series of unfortunate events, the Army had no choice but to buy Winchester A5 scopes in the Marine mount with thumbscrews starting in Jan 1918.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The Army supplied the report on why they hated the A5 scope, and the easiest thing to fix was the 6'' spacing. So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

The Marines were the first to buy the new 7.2'' spacing in July 1917. Well the Army was desperate for sniper rifles and by Dec 1917 they knew they had no other choice than to buy A5's. So they wanted to make sure they got the new 7.2'' spacing that the Marines had got a few months previous, so they made a big deal that they had to be the exact same rifles as the Marines. So WRA started to call the 7.2'' spacing "Marine" to separate it from the 6'' spacing that the Army hated.

This is Sgt. Victor Czegka's rifle with which he won the Wimbledon Cup during the 1909 National Matches at Camp Perry. Please note the 7.2" spacing and the Niedner type tapered bases. It was 8 years before you claim WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing. 1908 was the first year for the '03 at the National Matches, but you can rest assured that some of the '03's had 7.2" spacing. I can post a few '03's on 7.2" spacing that pre-date 1917 if you desire, including your own rifle.

Marine Sgt. Victor Czegka's Krag Won 1909 National Match w-7.2 Spacing _ Annotated.jpg

This Army rifle is serial number 359062, manufactured about 10-Jan-1909, and this picture was taken from the WRA files at the Cody Museum. Anyone can download it, and I left the Identifier on the picture to ease locating it. Note the 7.2" spacing on this Army rifle. The annotation is as downloaded from WRA files.

Army Rifle SA 367312.jpg

Your letter does not say what you claim, nor in the way you claim. I am even more convinced that you do not have the documents to back up your claims. Not one of the documents you have posted supports your claim that either the Army, or the Marines, ever ordered scoped rifles from WRA with "Springfield Marine" bases. The preponderance of physical evidence posted above indicates the exact opposite. The Marines ordered their rifles as Major Holcomb and company desired, with Niedner taper bases.

I am not trying to be rude, but you need to find a knowledgeable person you trust, have them assess your research, and give you an honest opinion. It is called peer review, and your work seriously needs it. Good luck with your book.

[cplnorton]

Jim all the data you just posted isn't correct.

The rifle you identify as the one Marine Victor Czegkas won the 1909 Wimbledon Cup, was not his rifle. I have supplied that pic so I don't know if you are just taking another one of mine or you actually found it. If you found it go back and look at the citation for it again. I'll give you a chance to correct yourself or I can correct you if you can't provide the actual citation bc its just one of my pics you found. It is available online so the citation is available.

The Winchester rifle you identify as 359062 is not correct either. That is not the serial of that rifle. That rifle you just pictured is a different serial number. So I'm giving you the opportunity again to correct the serial number or I can correct it for you.

I know there is no amount of evidence I can ever post that would make you admit you aren't correct. I'm not posting it for you, I'm posting it for the reader so they know this info you are posting isn't correct and they need to research it themselves.

Post your findings when you go back and research these two rifles and I will tell you if you are correct or not.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Mea Culpa. The serial number is 367312. I was looking at the other photo and mistyped. Changes nothing. This is an enlargement of the serial number in the photo. It's an early '03 on 7.2" spacing. You were, and are, wrong when you made the bizarre assertion that WRA created the 7.2" spacing in 1917. How many examples do you need to see before you admit you are wrong?

Army 1903 SN 367312 Close Up - Annotated.jpg.

I have had that photo of Czegka's rifle for a long time, before your presence on the scene. If I am wrong, I have been wrong for a long time. Whoever owned the rifle, it is still a rifle on 7.2" spacing with the weirdest looking scope I have ever seen. But I am a tough old bird, enlighten me.

Do you really believe WRA created the 7.2" spacing in 1917?

[nf1e]

Like watching a Chinese pinga ponga.

[cplnorton]

The pic you just posted of serial 367312 is not correct either. That is another one of my pics and to a different rifle. I dont believe I have ever shared the original unedited pics of 367312 outside some close friends. But it is not the same rifle Jim posted earlier. I zoomed in on that pic to show the spacing but the original full size pic of the rifle it is a hacked up Frankenstein. I have detailed pics of all these rifles you are posting from different angles. I can post the correct serial of the rifle you posted earlier with the high def pics I have not made public when I get home. Unless you have another guess?


On the rifle you identified as Victors rifle he used to win a 1000 yard match in 1909. I shouldn't even have to correct this bc you can look at it and tell it didn't win a 1000 yard match. But Jim is finding my research and not understanding it as I never posted the citation.

Even without the citation can anyone tell me why anyone studying the picture would know it wasn't one used in 1909 to win a 1000 yard rifle competition?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

You are way off base, my friend. I downloaded that picture, and others, from the Museum of the West, and the Catalog number is still attached for anyone to go to their website and download it themselves. I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

I see what appears to be a 22 round, and if so, this might be one of Niedner's trick 22 conversions. I will check it out to be certain. Thanks for the info, but it is still a rifle with a 7.2" spacing, which was the reason I posted it. But I suspect you are never going to admit you were wrong.

The 7.2" spacing has been around as long as has the A5 scope, or longer. I can't believe we are even discussing the matter. Have you ever read Jim Howe's gunsmithing book?

Are you OK? You are not making any sense. You are making wild accusations that are baseless, and not actually posting anything germane to the discussion. No one is stealing your stuff. Take a break and relax. This is just a friendly discussion about '03's.

[cplnorton]

Jim I know you didn't zoom in on serial 367312, Because there is no possible way ANYONE can confuse that rifle with the one you posted earlier.

So go ahead and post the unedited pic of 367312. Because if you post the unedited pic of that rife people will know you confuse your data more than if you just admit you found some of my pics and thought they were the same rifle.

I can post an unedited pic of 367312. I will post it when I get home. Anyone will be able to see there is no way to confuse the 2 rifles.

You are also twisting what I said. I never said WRA invented 7.2 spacing in general. I said they invented the bases that were 7.2 spacing for the A5 scope in 1917. Those bases were called Marine by WRA.

Finally you are telling me I am not making any sense. You just posted a .22 rifle stating it won a 1000 yard match. Then you say you have to research it. The rifle is indeed a Niedner built .22 rifle with a scope built by Niedner himself. I have the citation. You found my pic and somehow created a whole story that a Marine used it in 1909 to win a 1000 yard Match.

Reasons exactly like this is why I always make sure to notate your posts that someone reading them should fact check everything you say and come to their own conclusions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

Yes, Steve, you said it.

Someone please download that picture I posted and blow up the serial number. As for the rest of his rant, I have no idea what he is talking about, and he knows it. It is amusing in a way.

You are losing it, Steve. Accusing me of stealing your data is not cool, nor a sign of maturity. I would have to hack into your computer, and my little grandchildren know more about computers than I do. You seem to think that once you download data, that it is yours. I guess it has never occurred to you that other people can download the same public domain data from the same source you did? You are one sad sack.

At one time, I thought you had data that supported your claims in some abstract way. I now realize you have nothing that substantiates your claims. I have no doubt you have numerous documents, but you can't produce any document that definitively supports your position, can you? That is why you continually avoid answering simple, direct questions. You make these off-the-wall assertions, and produce a document or two that you say verifies your position, when in reality, if one reads them as they are written, they do not support anything you say. When called on it, you change the subject with some long-winded diatribe, usually filled with accusations towards whomever is asking for a straight answer.

This is a forum for collectors. We don't trade in gold, or indulge in nefarious acts. We collect weapons for fun, and most of us like to show off our "stuff". I enjoy seeing what others have been lucky enough to acquire. We collectors have a lot in common. We try to help each other. That is why I got involved in the WWI sniper rifle business. I saw a lot of people investing their hard-earned dollars buying suspect rifles. When someone passes out bad information as fact, the collector can lose a lot of money if they act on it. I had a lot of information I had never published. I decided it was time to let other collectors see what I have found, so that they can make sound judgements when they purchase an item. It is as simple as that.

One last note. That 300K series scoped rifle you own has no indicator it was ever a Marine rifle. Not a single one. It may have been a team rifle, but the odds are long that it was a Marine team rifle (there were 80 teams at Camp Perry in 1909). By the way, its scope is on 7.2" spacing. Your rifle is my third example.

Have a nice day, Steve. Try to tone it down a bit in future posts. Wild, unsupported accusations are not cool.

[cplnorton]

This Army rifle is serial number 359062, manufactured about 10-Jan-1909, and this picture was taken from the WRA files at the Cody Museum. Anyone can download it, and I left the Identifier on the picture to ease locating it. Note the 7.2" spacing on this Army rifle. The annotation is as downloaded from WRA files.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51577[/ATTACH]

Mea Culpa. The serial number is 367312. I was looking at the other photo and mistyped. Changes nothing. This is an enlargement of the serial number in the photo. It's an early '03 on 7.2" spacing.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]51583[/ATTACH].

I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

You can say you zoomed in on serial 367312. But if that was the case, it actually makes your research skills look worse as ANYONE can tell these two rifles are different.

You first claimed the picture was serial 3590962, then tried to pass it off as serial 367312. You also claim 367312 has 7.2'' spacing. But 367312 is not 7.2'' spacing, nor it is the first pic you posted.

It's very easy when you have the unedited pics side by side that these are two different rifles.

The actual serial of the rifle Jim posted is 659062. He misidentified the rifle twice.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Norton, if I stole your picture, how did I know where to download it off Museum of the West archives? You act like you are 12 years old.

There are actually three rifles, as shown below, as downloaded off Museum of the West.

Army Rifle SA 359062.jpg

Army Rifle SA 659068.jpg

Army Rifle SA 367312.jpg

Norton is doing this to avoid answering my original question. He does nonsense like this when he realizes he can't answer questions that reveal his faulty "research".

OK, Steve. Enlighten us all, post any document that verifies, specifically, that the Marines and the Army ordered scoped rifles from WRA with "Springfield Marines" bases. You can't do it, can you?

[cplnorton]

If you really did have those pics, and actually thought those two rifles were the same rifle, then that is even worse in my opinion. Because I cannot fathom any researcher not being able to tell those two rifles are different.

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own. I will always make a point on any of your posts to warn people to fact check your info.

I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now. Anyone can go research it anytime. One day we will even publish more on this topic as I have found a considerable more since we first did the website six years ago.

Here is a link to the website that anyone reading this can access and research more.

https://usmcweaponry.com/usmc-m1903-a5-sniper-rifle/

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own.

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. All this posted nonsense, and you still avoided providing us any document that supports your position. I provided mine for all to see and judge for themselves, and I not only encourage people to review what I have presented, I encourage it. According to you, the information I provided should not physically exist, yet it does exist for all to see.

I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now.

You have posted nothing that "proves" your point. You couldn't provide the name of that "96-year-old Marine sniper/runner" you claim to have talked to, because he doesn't exist; and you can't provide any document that proves the Marines or Army ordered sniper rifles with scopes mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases, because no such document exist.

Until next time, get your act together.