Early Marine Scoped Rifle

[cplnorton]

This rifle has more provenance than your 300K series rifle you claim to be a WWI Marine sniper rifle. On what do you base your statement that the rifle is not a Marine rifle? Since you like to compare your rifle to others, maybe you could compare your rifle to this one, point by point, showing why you think one is a Marine rifle while the other isn't. It would be educational.

Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.

I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.

Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

[lyman]

1903's used what is called O&E blocks, correct?

that one pictured has an odd screw pattern, not at all like the (admittedly very few) originals I have seen

[lyman]

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

lordy,

that reminded me of a M1 rifle that I saw as a show for a few years that had every single part stamped NM, all apparently by hand, and the seller thought it was a real deal National Match M1,,


looked like someone bought a few stamp sets and wore out the N and M one each part,


amazine

[cplnorton]

Here's the auction description when it was sold. It describes all the fake stamps in the auction listing, just in case Jim tries to argue those pics aren't to the rifle in Senich's book.

This is why I keep on cautioning everyone on all these sniper posts that you need to fact check every statement made. Because this rifle was presented as undeniable proof.

The stock is an 03A3 stock. The handguard is a WWII replacement. The blocks are a target type post WWII and likely made for the Model 70. The provenannce is fake.

This rifle was AT BEST one built in between the wars, and someone added the fake USMC stamps and B-5 scope to try to pass it as a WWI era sniper. At worst the whole rifle was faked, and the scope was mounted at that time.

I actually think how bad this rifle is, it was one they found built in between the wars and they stamped USMC to "enhance" the value of it.

It's a real shame Senich put this rifle in his book. As I said I have a lot of respect for Senich and his research. But anyone should know this rifle is fake.

I don't know who owns this rifle now. I just know who brought it to me and thankfully he listened to me and did not buy it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

...To Jim, this rifle was 100% proof ( it was not only Marine) but it had WWI Marine bases made by Winchester and proved the Marines had (7' 2'') spacing pre-1917.

I never made any statement as to who made the bases. The disagreement concerned the 7.2" spacing you claim WRA created in 1917.

This first pic below is of actual WWI Marine bases made by Winchester. These blocks were created in 1917 (by Winchester) to give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. These bases are the blocks Jim claims are "definitely " on the rifle in Senich's book.

You are yet again mistaken. I never said they were WRA bases. I said the bases were on 7.2" spacing, which they are. Misrepresenting what I say will not change the fact that you were wrong.

Here are actual real pics of Senich's rifle from his book. First a side shot of the bases. Notice the U shaped groove that I pointed out earlier, that Jim said wasn't there. The same U groove is on the rear sight too.

I actually said I didn't see the groove, but it really doesn't matter, as there was never any issue with the type of bases, other than they are on 7.2" spacing.

These scope bases are from the Korean to Vietnam timeframe, just as I stated earlier. I also don't think they are even for a 1903, I think they are for a Model 70. These bases are not the WWI Marine bases Jim states he knows for sure are on Senich's rifle, nor is the spacing the same so they can be swapped.

"...know''s for sure" does not appear in my post. Nice rifle though. It's on 7.2" spacing!! Wow!!

To be clear, I don't care what bases are on this rifle. That was never the issue. The bases shown allow the attachment of a scope on 7.2" spacing, which Steve claims was "created" by WRA in 1917. This particular 1910 era rifle has a scope mounted on 7.2" spacing. In those days, there were many fine gunsmiths who made whatever they needed due to the general lack of availability of commercial goods in those days. It was a different time. One could argue the rifle was scoped much later, but if that were true, why would a modern gunsmith use mounts, such as those on this rifle, that hadn't been available in his lifetime? You can make the same argument for any scoped '03. No one can actually tell when a rifle was scoped, especially if it was scoped with a 100-year-old scope and mounts.

Judge for yourself what is most likely.

Goodnight all. Enjoy life while you can.

[cplnorton]

1903's used what is called O&E blocks, correct?

that one pictured has an odd screw pattern, not at all like the (admittedly very few) originals I have seen

Yes, John Unertl copied the Unertl O & E off the WWI WRA Springfield Marine bases.

The blocks are nearly identical except for slight differences in the machining at the ends of the block.

They are nothing like the blocks on the Senich Rifle.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thanks for posting the auction site listing.

The rifle is definitely not a sniper rifle, nor did I ever claim it to be, nor did Senich. It's a rebuild.

If the rifle was an old match rifle, the elongated front base could have been used to switch back and forth from 7.2" spacing to 6" spacing, depending on the range of the match. Seems logical.

[cplnorton]

Shown below is a 1910 rifle with a B5 scope with #1 WRA mounts on 7.2" spacing, which means the very early #1 mount is mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases.

It is an early USMC scoped rifle in WRA #1 mounts on 7.2" spacing, which requires "Springfield Marine" bases.

The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.

Springfield Marine bases were ONLY made by Winchester. But then it becomes:

You are yet again mistaken. I never said they were WRA bases. I said the bases were on 7.2" spacing, which they are. Misrepresenting what I say will not change the fact that you were wrong.

.

[cplnorton]

You keep saying it is a fake. A fake what? It is just a scoped Marine rifle. No one has claimed it to be anything else.

So I'm guessing even after seeing those pics and that provenance you going to double down and say this rifle is Marine, and it was drilled and tapped pre WWI?

I'm just curious.



.

[nf1e]

Just to add a little humor to the show, I laser etched a whole bunch of M14 parts with NM just for the halibut. Connector rods, selector switch, trigger group, sling swivels, sling keepers and a few bolts. I also posted along with these, don't believe anything you hear or read and only half what you think you see. Saw photos of my fakes used a proof by a few of the wannabes that showed how clueless they actually were.
With out formal research as cplnorton has done it is awfully easy to interpret other's writings as fact when they are often times based on the writers personal thoughts and not necessarily fact.

[Allen]

Just to add a little humor to the show, I laser etched a whole bunch of M14 parts with NM just for the halibut. Connector rods, selector switch, trigger group, sling swivels, sling keepers and a few bolts. I also posted along with these, don't believe anything you hear or read and only half what you think you see. Saw photos of my fakes used a proof by a few of the wannabes that showed how clueless they actually were.
With out formal research as cplnorton has done it is awfully easy to interpret other's writings as fact when they are often times based on the writers personal thoughts and not necessarily fact.

NM connector rods, selector, swivels and keepers? LOL

[nf1e]

NM connector rods, selector, swivels and keepers? LOL

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

[Allen]

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

Why not though? Everyone shoots full auto fire at national match ranges, right? Sooner or later you're bound to hit the bullseye.

[lyman]

Yep, it was done as a joke totally. NM auto switch and connector rod got me chuckling when I saw them used as proof. There is one born every day. Whatta Hobby!

I took a silver paint pen, and had my wife (better handwriting) put PIETHON on the barrel of a new in box RG 22 short I picked up in an estate, and to a Jennings 25 that was chromed and with a gold paint pen had her write Gold Cup on the slide,


some folks at the gunshow got a kick out of it, some were confused

[Allen]

I took a silver paint pen, and had my wife (better handwriting) put PIETHON on the barrel of a new in box RG 22 short I picked up in an estate, and to a Jennings 25 that was chromed and with a gold paint pen had her write Gold Cup on the slide,


some folks at the gunshow got a kick out of it, some were confused

The paint was worth more than the pistols.