Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle View Post
    I think the only person confused may be you. You have absolute faith in a document found in the archives, yet you deny the extant examples by claiming them to be fakes. A document is just that, a piece of paper. You are unable, or incapable, of explaining the existence of the many existing examples of 8-loop "Penguin" scope cases, most of them inked to actual living Marine WWI snipers, with some of them traceable back to the families that originally sold them. You claim that no "Penguin" scope cases were ordered - where in your one document does it so state? Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

    No one disputes your document, it is what it is. Despite that document, the existing scope cases tell a different story, and I believe my eyes over any document, and so will most of those who read these posts. And the dimensions? What is the dispute over dimensions?

    Yes I have 100% faith in the actual detailed contracts from WRA. On these I can actually trace when they were paid, how much they cost, the dates they shipped, and some of them where they actually shipped to.

    As far as an argument of dimensions. It wasn't an argument about dimensions. Our argument was what was the WWI sniper case and most specifically what this document actually states. When I first shared this document with you in the beginning, I stated the actual contract in WWI was for a 6 loop case. And whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases are, it's not detailed in the WWI docs. When I presented the contract to you as proof, you argued that I read the document wrong and this document was proof that you were right.

    You stated that they meant there were an additional 2 loops on the cases that are not mentioned. Therefore this document proved you were right and they meant 8 loop cases. We had like over 10 pages of arguing what this document actually meant. Me arguing the document meant 6 and you arguing it meant 8. A large part of our argument was this document and what it meant. lol

    That is why I posted the dimensions of the cases side by side, to prove the WRA contract was for a 6 loop case, not a 8.

    Whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases, now someone needs to find the actual documents. Because there was nothing that happened back then without a papertrail.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle View Post
    Better yet, where are the hundreds of 6-loop scope cases you claim the Marines used?

    The Marines received 1650 cases in about a calendar year during the war. The Army received 900. That is over 2500 cases total.

    I forget how many named 8 loops you claim to know of, like 10 or something. I know of three named 6 loop cases now.

    Regardless that is a crap ton of missing cases. So that really doesn't tell you anything.

  3. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
    Yes I have 100% faith in the actual detailed contracts from WRA. On these I can actually trace when they were paid, how much they cost, the dates they shipped, and some of them where they actually shipped to.
    Assuming you have such documents, no problem here.

    As far as an argument of dimensions. It wasn't an argument about dimensions. Our argument was what was the WWI sniper case and most specifically what this document actually states. When I first shared this document with you in the beginning,...
    You did no such thing. Someone else sent me that document.

    ...I stated the actual contract in WWI was for a 6 loop case. And whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases are, it's not detailed in the WWI docs. When I presented the contract to you as proof, you argued that I read the document wrong and this document was proof that you were right.
    I did state you misread the document. You presented the contract as proof of what exactly?

    You stated that they meant there were an additional 2 loops on the cases that are not mentioned. Therefore this document proved you were right and they meant 8 loop cases. We had like over 10 pages of arguing what this document actually meant. Me arguing the document meant 6 and you arguing it meant 8. A large part of our argument was this document and what it meant. lol
    Our disagreement is whether, or not, the original snipers were issued 8-loop or 6-loop scope cases. I can, and have, produced photos of numerous (I have more) sniper scope cases, and all are 8-loop scope cases. You can't produce even one, even though you maintain hundreds were issued. Produce some examples. I have always maintained that nothing is written in stone when it comes to '03's. Until then, the weight of evidence is in favor of the 8-loop scope case. It is as simple as that.

    That is why I posted the dimensions of the cases side by side, to prove the WRA contract was for a 6 loop case, not a 8.
    Thank you.

    Whatever the story is on the 8 loop cases, now someone needs to find the actual documents. Because there was nothing that happened back then without a papertrail.
    There are a myriad of instances where paper military trails are flawed, or downright incorrect, or missing entirely. You don't want to go there. Actually, I hope someone does find the 8-loop paper trail. I don't do this for my benefit, I do it (argue my points) to keep people from establishing incorrect history. I do the same thing with Confederate history, but a hundred years of BS rewritten history has made that cause very difficult. I lucked into a time capsule of WWI Marine sniper history, thanks to a Marine at Camp LeJeune. Over 200 pages of who did what, why they did it, where they did it, and when they did it; complete with photos I have seen nowhere else. To date, nothing stated in those documents has been refuted by anyone. Sadly, those documents do not mention the origin of the scope cases, but the pictures depicting snipers, with scope cases, are all of 8-loop scope cases.

    Keep looking.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle View Post

    1) You did no such thing. Someone else sent me that document.

    2) I did state you misread the document. You presented the contract as proof of what exactly?

    3) Our disagreement is whether, or not, the original snipers were issued 8-loop or 6-loop scope cases. I can, and have, produced photos of numerous (I have more) sniper scope cases, and all are 8-loop scope cases. You can't produce even one, even though you maintain hundreds were issued. Produce some examples. I have always maintained that nothing is written in stone when it comes to '03's. Until then, the weight of evidence is in favor of the 8-loop scope case. It is as simple as that.

    4) There are a myriad of instances where paper military trails are flawed, or downright incorrect, or missing entirely. You don't want to go there. Actually, I hope someone does find the 8-loop paper trail. I don't do this for my benefit, I do it (argue my points) to keep people from establishing incorrect history. I do the same thing with Confederate history, but a hundred years of BS rewritten history has made that cause very difficult. I lucked into a time capsule of WWI Marine sniper history, thanks to a Marine at Camp LeJeune. Over 200 pages of who did what, why they did it, where they did it, and when they did it; complete with photos I have seen nowhere else. To date, nothing stated in those documents has been refuted by anyone. Sadly, those documents do not mention the origin of the scope cases, but the pictures depicting snipers, with scope cases, are all of 8-loop scope cases.

    Keep looking.

    I numbered your areas that I respond to below.


    1) I quoted parts of the document to you in our argument, and sent an original copy of the document to Tom Jackson. Tom then shared the original docment with you, and then you put it out on Jouster.

    2) The detailed WRA Contracts for A5 leather sniper cases from WWI all state they are for a 6 loop case. There is not one Winchester contract in 1917/18/19 that details a 8 loop case being shipped to the Marines or Army from Winchester. So as of right now, no one knows where the 8 loop cases came from, or when they were received.

    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.

    4) You can never find the complete story in one location. You have to hit many locations so you can docment it from all sides. In all honestly, I have the Marine documents on the A5 program, and the Army actually does a better job of detailing it, than the Marines do.

    But that is because the Army duplicated the entire WWI Marine A5 sniper program in 1918. The Army was waiting for the WRA Model of 1918 sniper and WRA was taking too long, and with a shortage of Warner Swaseys, the Army purchased the exact same "Marine Model" A5's off WRA.

    So the Army highly detailed the WWI Marine sniper program, because they wanted to copy it.

    Most of the A5 research I've read on this forum and in books, is actually not Marine. It's actually info from the Army program that has been mistaken as being Marine Corps. Just no one knew the Army had WRA produced "Marine" A5's.

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

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    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.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
    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

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Smokeeaterpilot View Post
    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
    Last edited by cplnorton; 08-05-2017 at 04:59.

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle View Post
    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."

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clintonhater View Post
    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.


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Van Wert, OH
    Posts
    2,194

    Default

    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.

    Last edited by cplnorton; 08-05-2017 at 08:03.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •