WWI USMC Scope Case...

[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.

[cplnorton]

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.

I will comment on your's Clarence before I leave, I will save Jim for when I get back from Vacation. We just argue back and forth anyways. So I will reply to your comments Jim when I get back.

But no these were actual real A5 scopes. The only thing that is weird about the order. On one document it lists they were a combination of A5, B5, etc. Then on another doc they only list it as A5 scopes. But over 500 were shipped, it was actually 513 to be exact.

Some of them appear to have been available for sale post WWI. But I do have counts of some still in service on ships into WWII. So they didn't sell them all.

I honestly don't know what they were used for. But they were for sure going to the Navy and not the Marines or Army.
It is very clear on that. I will wait to post the WRA contract because it also details other contracts on the same page.

But I will post this. This is where they were for sale post WWI. They were advertised in that Man at Arms or Arms and the Man, or whatever that magazine was. I always screw up it's name, without looking back at my notes.

I was in the process of trying to figure these out and just off the cuff mentioned it in the exchange.

You been doing well by the way, I need to hit you up on something else I'm researching for the 1903A1 Unertls for an aricle I'm writing and I want your opinion on it. I will email you when I get back.

But here you go.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

]

Interesting that it doesn't mention the type of mounts and bases, especially since we know some of them had the modified mounts and tapered bases. The depot sales were the source of the scopes with the modified #2 mounts and tapered bases we see on today's market. The A5's, if they had unmodified mounts, should have red letters if they are of WWI vintage. All A5's had red lettering until May of 1923. Of course, the Marines, or anyone else, could have painted them white, but it would be simple enough to remove the white paint with a solvent to see if there is red paint underneath.

Stay tuned. It will get even better. My goal is the serial numbers of the Niedner rifles; so this discussion is something of a distraction for me. But any good researcher will search for the truth and everything else be damned.

Take the modified #2 mounts found on Niedner's rifles. Someone spent a lot of time and money modifying those mounts. Niedner didn't do it because Michael Petrov told me Niedner's knurling tool was distinctly different from the one used to make the knobs, and Michael should have known, because he owned Niedner's knurling tool. Were they made with the sockets already milled off for easy attachment to the tapered bases? Or did Niedner mill the sockets off and then attach his bases? Why make only 150 modified mounts if WRA already had a contract to assemble rifles with plain Jane #2 mounts? If they made the modified mounts with the sockets intact, why has no one ever seen such a mount on a rifle, or even a picture of one, in over 100 years? If the Corp was so determined to avoid the #2 mount and its re-zero issue, which is a huge issue for a sniper, why order 500 of the suckers when the solution was already being installed at the time by Niedner at Philly Depot.

A bigger question now arises, if you believe Norton's fantasy. If they only made 150 modified mounts (the ones Niedner installed), just where the hell did the hundreds of A5 scopes with modified mounts and tapered bases we know to exist come from? I have four of them, and I have friends who have even more. They are for sale on eBay on almost any given day. There are two partial sets for sale on eBay right now. So what is the answer?

Let's look at nomenclature. What were the modified mounts called by WRA and/or the Marines? I started calling them "Modified #2 Mounts" (please note that no one else does) because that is what they are and I couldn't find any other name for them in all these wonderful documents we have. Would it make sense to call them "Marine Mounts"? They were made for the Marines. They are modified #2 mounts, so maybe we just call them by their real name, "#2 Mounts". How about "Marine #2 Mounts"? Seen any of those names before? I have a growing sneaky feeling that Norton's "Marine Mounts" and my "Modified #2 Mounts" are the same mount. If that is the case, he and I agree in every respect, except for their physical appearance.

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

First USMC Order for 500 Rifles 1.jpg

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.

[cplnorton]

Let's take a look at the WRA ledger notation for the Marine order for 500 rifles in July of 1917.

First USMC Order for 500 Rifles 1.jpg

That's the mysterious ledger entry. Let's say we are the clerk making that entry. We don't have a whole lot of room on the ledger, nor do we have a name for the exact mount being ordered, so what do we do? We call a spade a spade - we call it a #2 mount. It is just a ledger entry, not a contract. Who knew a bunch of knuckleheads would get into this huge argument over a ledger entry 100 plus years down the road?

Maybe the actual contract will clarify the issue. I have never seen the actual contract.

My money is on a misunderstanding in nomenclature.

And Jim who's research is this? You have once again take something I found in a PRIVATE archives and posted it publically implying it is your research. You did not ask my permission to post this. You did the same thing when I provided a document to Tom Jackson and Tom Jackson sent it to you. You are exactly why I watermark my research now, BECAUSE OF PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

Earlier in this Post I said John Beard provided you a copy of this document, in an argument you had with John Beard in Private when he told were not correct in what you think happened with the Marine A5's. So he sent this this ONE document, in the hopes that you would understand. Which in this post you lied and said John Beard didn't sent it to you. THEN YOU LITERALLY POST THE DOCUMENT YOU RECEIVED FROM JOHN AFTER YOU DENIED GETTING IT.

I found this document, and PAID TO USED THE RESEACH BECAUSE IT IS COPYRIGHTED. So I hope you know you are posting copyrighted info that you didn't pay to you the reseach. THIS IS NOT FROM THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

You have no idea how any of this is because you didn't find, nor do you have any of the companion documents that go with it, and you don't have a clue where it even came from. And even if you had a clue where it came from, you would have never found it.

I think it's an absolute insult that you have to post my research online in this way. I provided this document to John Beard in private. I did not send this to you. And John has apologized to me for sending this to you. You should be ashamed of yourself.

And you know how I can prove it's my document, I edited it and cropped it. So if you found this, which I know you didn't. POST THE ENTIRE PAGE IT CAME FROM. YOU CAN'T BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T FIND IT.

AGAIN YOU ARE POSTING COPYRIGHTED INFO THAT I AM THE ONE WHO PAID TO USE. YOU DIDN'T. IT'S VERY DISPRESPECTUL TO POST RESEACH THAT HAS NEVER BEEN FOUND OR MADE PUBLIC BY ANYONE, AND THEN IMPLY IT IS YOURS.

THEN YOU EARLIER CLAIM I CANNOT PROVIDE ANY NEW INFO. AND ALL MY INFO IS OLD RESEARCH AND NOT WORTH ANYTHING. BUT THE ONLY THING OF VALUE YOU EVER POST IS MY RESEARCH.

REMOVE IT JIM AND YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Oops. I think I hit a nerve.

Does this mean you aren't gong to respond to the post?

[cplnorton]

It means you have now admitted what I already have know since the first week I researched the A5's. That you have never seen the actual real documents from the Winchester Sniper program. But for years you have claimed to be the expert on this forum and have detailed you knew all about them. But you have always posted info thst was false.

Anyone who has the real documents from the Marines or WRA has the companion document to this contract 25900 that is detailed.

You just outed yourself Jim. You have been making claims for years without any real documents to back them up.

From now on guys when Jim posts somehting ask him for proof. If he doesn't provide it you know what is going on.