USMC Winchester A5 Springfield Marine Mount Rifle in France 1917

[cplnorton]

Great picture. Question. Is that the best scope that was available for use by US forces in that era? Looks like it would be better suited to use on a .22 rifle. Sincerely. bruce.

Nah, the A5 was outdated even by WWI. Winchester was selling the Military on their Model of 1918 Sniper scope mounted on a Sporterized WRA 1917 rifle.

Springfield Armory was focused on going to German Glass (Zeiss and Goerz) on the M1903 until WWI started and fell on WRA as the backup. Which even to WRA they state the A5 was outdated as early as 1917 that I have seen. Winchester states many times during the war that we will sell you these A5's as a tempory filler until the new model of 1918 scope is finished.

But even the Model of 1918 scope by WRA was copied off the German Glass of the time. It's just the war ended without it being finished and Frankford Arsenal picked up the design off WRA but couldn't get a version that could pass the trials either. And it was finally scraped in the mid 20's.

But if WWI hadn't started so early. You would have seen a M1903 with German Glass as the sniper. They were focused on it till the war started.

[cplnorton]

By the way the biggest complaint coming back to WRA from the Marines and Army using the A5's in France in WWI. They weren't water proofed.

Which those scopes were never meant to be water proofed. So WRA was focused on trying to find a simple solution on the water proofing. But the war ended. And like I said WRA put minimal effort into the A5 during WWI. They were always sold as the backup, temporary rifle to be used till the Model of 1918 was fielded.

WRA was totally focused on the 1918 sniper. But they had huge orders of them. About 60k complete rifles and scopes. And 35k spare scopes. So nearly a 100k scopes was a huge order for WRA.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I'm not sure what you are arguing Jim?...

Arguing? You said you like to see alternative thoughts on subjects, so here is mine. First of all, you and I both know the pictures are not filed in chronological order, so forget the bracketing idea for a valid date taken. After looking at many photos in the archives, I realized there was a whole series of photos with that "Marines in France" heading, yet most of them are taken by different photographers. Kind of odd they would all duplicate each other's heading. Taken as a whole, it appeared someone was putting together a publication, probably entitled "Marines in France", early in 1918, and they were handpicking photos from the files. Note we have absolutely no idea when the file numbers were added to the photos. The picture in question was most likely taken in the US in 1917, but it served the purpose for which whomever was cherry picking photos for a purpose - most likely a USMC propaganda publication. This was a common practice as we all know.

There is no way you, nor me, can accurately date that photo; and nothing about it indicates it was taken in France regardless of what you were supposedly told. Why three file numbers for a single picture? I think it was because it was used for propaganda purposes and was cropped.

That's my alternative thought.

[cplnorton]

Well this is what I know.

1) The actual number in the lower left hand corner of the photo is an Army Signal Corps number and was only put on photos taken in France.

2) The photo was first published in May 1918 in a book that was ALL photos taken in France.

3) The picture is filed at the National Archives in pictures taken in France in WWI.

4) The pic is one of a series of thousands taken in France, that actually are in pretty good chronological order date wise and also location wise. You can tell a
lot about the date and location when you actual see the order of photos.

4) The picture is Titled, "Marines In France."

5) The Marines Corps History Dept which details all the pics from France, says this picture was taken in France.

6) Steven Girard who is the best WWI Marine historian for WWI also details this picture as taken in France, and will detail where it was taken if you want to
ask him.

7) There are Marine photos in France with tents and wearing Marine uniforms with campaign covers at this same time. This isn't the only picture like
this.


Honestly there is absolutely no proof that this picture was taken anywhere but France. And if you have any proof, I would love to see it.

[cplnorton]

The pics are in really good chronological order. You just have to find the chronological order that was recorded in 1918. You can't piece this together the way it's filed today. You have to find how it was filed back then. It's hundreds of pages long and you can follow where they move, in order. Not just the Marines, but the Army as well. It's all in groups.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Anyone who spends time filing through the catalog will notice they are not in chronological order (they are or they are not - its like being pregnant). You might want to check out catalog entry 1537. It has no SC number on the picture, so according to your statements, it wasn't taken in France. The picture I posted is 1537. And if, as you say, they are in chronological order, pic 1537 was one of the earliest photos taken by the Corps.

[cplnorton]

Anyone who spends time filing through the catalog will notice they are not in chronological order (they are or they are not - its like being pregnant). You might want to check out catalog entry 1537. It has no SC number on the picture, so according to your statements, it wasn't taken in France. The picture I posted is 1537. And if, as you say, they are in chronological order, pic 1537 was one of the earliest photos taken by the Corps.

Actually no they are in chronological order. And anyone is more than welcome to investigate it themselves.

Your not reading the catalog right. 1537 doesn't exist on it's own. Because it looks like just the small size version of 4337. It's the same pic, different sized. That is why your pic is so small you posted.

Just like 1538 is probably the small version of 4338.

If you pull 4337 or 4338 they are the large size versions of the pics. When I pulled them they were basically 8x10's. Which anyone can pull these by the way. You just email them, and they will send you a copy in your email. Sometimes they charge, sometimes they don't.


But see the 1537. Same pic as 4337. Again it's taken in France.

[cplnorton]

Again here is your 1537. It's cataloged as taken in France, published in May 1918. Even the picture you posted (1537) is labeled as taken in France. I'm not sure why there would be any question of this not being taken in France?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

It took me just a minute or so to find pictures not taken in France. Go to page 494 and look at 45322 and tell me that is not New York's skyline. I am aware that the catalogue says the pictures are taken in France, but it would appear that is not true. Note the catalogue's caveat that it is most likely riddled with errors on page 9.

If 1537 is a small size version of 4337, please tell me what happened to the catalogue number on the picture. Since the number is missing, 1537 must precede the other two versions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The pics are in really good chronological order. You just have to find the chronological order that was recorded in 1918. You can't piece this together the way it's filed today. You have to find how it was filed back then. It's hundreds of pages long and you can follow where they move, in order. Not just the Marines, but the Army as well. It's all in groups.

There is no "good chronological order", they are either in chronological order, or they are not. The pictures were catalogued as they were received. Are you saying that hundreds of photographers, operating independently in different places, sent their pictures in, and all were catalogued in chronological order? I seriously doubt that premise. I doubt that was even possible.

Please note that according to the catalogue, 1537 is an AEF number and is listed on page 15

How do you know how the pictures were catalogued in 1918? Are we not referencing the "official" catalogue? Please advise.