Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
    I'm sorry to say that info is not correct.
    You are entitled to your opinion. Have a nice day.

  2. Default

    Well, hold the presses. The manner of which the Army handled sniper rifles from Day 1 is a trail of broken information and truth be told, USMC not too much better in that regard.
    Absolutes ain't absolutes. Today they are for sniper systems but in the years up thru Viet Nam War, it was an adhoc area of priority and records NIL.

    So argue all you want, but attacking Norton because you got a different set of facts or opinions doesn't resonate nor does it impress any one. The military is horrible for record keeping and at unit level, we could not keep anything over 18 months old. Of course classified information had no such restriction.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Beach Va, not Va Beach
    Posts
    10,848
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Welcome back Skip,


    stay a while

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    9,256

    Default

    [QUOTE=BlitzKrieg;651539]Well, hold the presses. The manner of which the Army handled sniper rifles from Day 1 is a trail of broken information and truth be told, USMC not too much better in that regard.
    Absolutes ain't absolutes. [QUOTE]

    That part is absolute: The official word on USMC WW II M1903 sniper rifles was they all had the "C" stock, then a pic showed up of a Marine sniper in action in WW II with an M1903 sniper rifle with an "S" stock.

Posting Permissions

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