Named Scope Cases

[cplnorton]

The pic you just posted of serial 367312 is not correct either. That is another one of my pics and to a different rifle. I dont believe I have ever shared the original unedited pics of 367312 outside some close friends. But it is not the same rifle Jim posted earlier. I zoomed in on that pic to show the spacing but the original full size pic of the rifle it is a hacked up Frankenstein. I have detailed pics of all these rifles you are posting from different angles. I can post the correct serial of the rifle you posted earlier with the high def pics I have not made public when I get home. Unless you have another guess?


On the rifle you identified as Victors rifle he used to win a 1000 yard match in 1909. I shouldn't even have to correct this bc you can look at it and tell it didn't win a 1000 yard match. But Jim is finding my research and not understanding it as I never posted the citation.

Even without the citation can anyone tell me why anyone studying the picture would know it wasn't one used in 1909 to win a 1000 yard rifle competition?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

You are way off base, my friend. I downloaded that picture, and others, from the Museum of the West, and the Catalog number is still attached for anyone to go to their website and download it themselves. I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

I see what appears to be a 22 round, and if so, this might be one of Niedner's trick 22 conversions. I will check it out to be certain. Thanks for the info, but it is still a rifle with a 7.2" spacing, which was the reason I posted it. But I suspect you are never going to admit you were wrong.

The 7.2" spacing has been around as long as has the A5 scope, or longer. I can't believe we are even discussing the matter. Have you ever read Jim Howe's gunsmithing book?

Are you OK? You are not making any sense. You are making wild accusations that are baseless, and not actually posting anything germane to the discussion. No one is stealing your stuff. Take a break and relax. This is just a friendly discussion about '03's.

[cplnorton]

Jim I know you didn't zoom in on serial 367312, Because there is no possible way ANYONE can confuse that rifle with the one you posted earlier.

So go ahead and post the unedited pic of 367312. Because if you post the unedited pic of that rife people will know you confuse your data more than if you just admit you found some of my pics and thought they were the same rifle.

I can post an unedited pic of 367312. I will post it when I get home. Anyone will be able to see there is no way to confuse the 2 rifles.

You are also twisting what I said. I never said WRA invented 7.2 spacing in general. I said they invented the bases that were 7.2 spacing for the A5 scope in 1917. Those bases were called Marine by WRA.

Finally you are telling me I am not making any sense. You just posted a .22 rifle stating it won a 1000 yard match. Then you say you have to research it. The rifle is indeed a Niedner built .22 rifle with a scope built by Niedner himself. I have the citation. You found my pic and somehow created a whole story that a Marine used it in 1909 to win a 1000 yard Match.

Reasons exactly like this is why I always make sure to notate your posts that someone reading them should fact check everything you say and come to their own conclusions.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

So WRA created the 7.2'' spacing as a quick fix to try to overcome the A5 objections by Ordnance. The first rifles with the 7.2'' spacing begin to be tested in June 1917.

Yes, Steve, you said it.

Someone please download that picture I posted and blow up the serial number. As for the rest of his rant, I have no idea what he is talking about, and he knows it. It is amusing in a way.

You are losing it, Steve. Accusing me of stealing your data is not cool, nor a sign of maturity. I would have to hack into your computer, and my little grandchildren know more about computers than I do. You seem to think that once you download data, that it is yours. I guess it has never occurred to you that other people can download the same public domain data from the same source you did? You are one sad sack.

At one time, I thought you had data that supported your claims in some abstract way. I now realize you have nothing that substantiates your claims. I have no doubt you have numerous documents, but you can't produce any document that definitively supports your position, can you? That is why you continually avoid answering simple, direct questions. You make these off-the-wall assertions, and produce a document or two that you say verifies your position, when in reality, if one reads them as they are written, they do not support anything you say. When called on it, you change the subject with some long-winded diatribe, usually filled with accusations towards whomever is asking for a straight answer.

This is a forum for collectors. We don't trade in gold, or indulge in nefarious acts. We collect weapons for fun, and most of us like to show off our "stuff". I enjoy seeing what others have been lucky enough to acquire. We collectors have a lot in common. We try to help each other. That is why I got involved in the WWI sniper rifle business. I saw a lot of people investing their hard-earned dollars buying suspect rifles. When someone passes out bad information as fact, the collector can lose a lot of money if they act on it. I had a lot of information I had never published. I decided it was time to let other collectors see what I have found, so that they can make sound judgements when they purchase an item. It is as simple as that.

One last note. That 300K series scoped rifle you own has no indicator it was ever a Marine rifle. Not a single one. It may have been a team rifle, but the odds are long that it was a Marine team rifle (there were 80 teams at Camp Perry in 1909). By the way, its scope is on 7.2" spacing. Your rifle is my third example.

Have a nice day, Steve. Try to tone it down a bit in future posts. Wild, unsupported accusations are not cool.

[cplnorton]

This Army rifle is serial number 359062, manufactured about 10-Jan-1909, and this picture was taken from the WRA files at the Cody Museum. Anyone can download it, and I left the Identifier on the picture to ease locating it. Note the 7.2" spacing on this Army rifle. The annotation is as downloaded from WRA files.

Attachment 51577

Mea Culpa. The serial number is 367312. I was looking at the other photo and mistyped. Changes nothing. This is an enlargement of the serial number in the photo. It's an early '03 on 7.2" spacing.

Attachment 51583.

I saw where you used those photos you downloaded and posted without the headings or catalog number and claimed they were something they were not. I just zoomed into the serial number and did a light job to make the serial number readable.

You can say you zoomed in on serial 367312. But if that was the case, it actually makes your research skills look worse as ANYONE can tell these two rifles are different.

You first claimed the picture was serial 3590962, then tried to pass it off as serial 367312. You also claim 367312 has 7.2'' spacing. But 367312 is not 7.2'' spacing, nor it is the first pic you posted.

It's very easy when you have the unedited pics side by side that these are two different rifles.

The actual serial of the rifle Jim posted is 659062. He misidentified the rifle twice.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Norton, if I stole your picture, how did I know where to download it off Museum of the West archives? You act like you are 12 years old.

There are actually three rifles, as shown below, as downloaded off Museum of the West.

Army Rifle SA 359062.jpg

Army Rifle SA 659068.jpg

Army Rifle SA 367312.jpg

Norton is doing this to avoid answering my original question. He does nonsense like this when he realizes he can't answer questions that reveal his faulty "research".

OK, Steve. Enlighten us all, post any document that verifies, specifically, that the Marines and the Army ordered scoped rifles from WRA with "Springfield Marines" bases. You can't do it, can you?

[cplnorton]

If you really did have those pics, and actually thought those two rifles were the same rifle, then that is even worse in my opinion. Because I cannot fathom any researcher not being able to tell those two rifles are different.

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own. I will always make a point on any of your posts to warn people to fact check your info.

I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now. Anyone can go research it anytime. One day we will even publish more on this topic as I have found a considerable more since we first did the website six years ago.

Here is a link to the website that anyone reading this can access and research more.

https://usmcweaponry.com/usmc-m1903-a5-sniper-rifle/

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I have done what I set out to do, to show your research when faced with peer review cannot stand on it's own.

Coming from you, I consider that a compliment. All this posted nonsense, and you still avoided providing us any document that supports your position. I provided mine for all to see and judge for themselves, and I not only encourage people to review what I have presented, I encourage it. According to you, the information I provided should not physically exist, yet it does exist for all to see.

I have posted a substantial amount of research that proves my point for years now.

You have posted nothing that "proves" your point. You couldn't provide the name of that "96-year-old Marine sniper/runner" you claim to have talked to, because he doesn't exist; and you can't provide any document that proves the Marines or Army ordered sniper rifles with scopes mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases, because no such document exist.

Until next time, get your act together.