Serial Numbers

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Winchester only had the 6'' spacing until 1917. In 1917 is when Winchester created the 7.2'' spacing for their M1903 rifle. Because the Marines used it first it earned the nickname "Marine."

You have provided no document to back up such a ridiculous claim. I posted mine - post yours. I posted a page from Niedner's Work Book that proved the Marines were scoping their rifles on 7.2" spacing as early as 1916, and most likely, long before. Here it is.

Old Winchester Taper Bases 1916.jpgWakefield Made Winchester Taper Bases 1916.jpg

The bases Niedner drew are for 7.2" spacing. WRA did NOT create the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

These rifles are not labeled Army or Marines as Jim claims. This is not correct. But it would not matter even if they were labeled Army. There is NOT any difference between the rifles provided that Winchester made for the Marines and Army. The rifles for both branches are identical in everyway.

Straight from the museum's website.

Army Rifle SA 359062.jpg
Army Rifle SA 367312.jpg

Army Rifle SA 659068.jpg

You are mistaken yet again.

No serial ranges are important to this study, but Jim claims you can know a Mann Niedner and WRA rifle just by the serial number. This is not correct.

It may surprise you to know I have never said any such thing, because you obviously have a issue reading documents as well as posts. No offense intended, but you read something, and in your mind, you interpret the meaning of what you read to fit your beliefs. You have repeatedly claimed I have said things I never said. Do you make this stuff up by yourself?

I found serial 639,6xx was made into a sniper in 1940. It waited 23 years to become a sniper. So yes. Rifles sat in storage at Depots all the time and were taken out years and decades later to be used. This happened all the time.

You make these bold statements as though they were fact, yet you fail to offer any documentation for what you say. That doesn't cut it in the world of research. Offer some evidence of some kind.

As for what you said, how do you know they didn't just pull 639,6XX out of storage from WWI surplus? Does your "doc" address that possibility, which, quite frankly, is way more likely than your scenario.?

The highwood stock, and handguard both predate 1910. The small windage knob on the rear sight is also a pre 1910. So the chances the stock, the handguard, and the small dished windage knob were all changed to a pre 1910, is not likely at all.

Please be more specific. Which rifle are you addressing? The Marines did occasionally use highwood stocks for replacement stocks, as I have a rifle in that serial number range with a highwood stock. That rifle was discussed on this forum years ago. By the way, since they were indeed changed, it is more than very likely - it is a fact.

All you have to do is produce a document that proves that a "Marine Mount" utilizes a "Springfield Marine" base. You can't do it, can you?

You are re-posting the same nonsense we have already addressed on multiple occasions. Do you have anything new to add?

[cplnorton]

You have provided no document to back up such a ridiculous claim. I posted mine - post yours. I posted a page from Niedner's Work Book that proved the Marines were scoping their rifles on 7.2" spacing as early as 1916, and most likely, long before. Here it is.

The bases Niedner drew are for 7.2" spacing. WRA did NOT create the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

Yes Niedner used 7' 2'' spacing in 1916. But Winchester never made ANY 7' 2'' spacing blocks for the 1903 until 1917. Jim keeps on trying to twist that I said WRA created 7' 2'' spacing. But I keep saying Winchester was only using 6'' spacing on 1903's until early 1917. In March/April 1917 WRA created new blocks for the M1903 that would give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. It just earned the nickname "Marine" because the Marines used it first. Exactly like how the #10 sights earned the nickname as "Marine" in 1919.

Straight from the museum's website.

Every M1903 in that era was called an US Army M1903, no matter if it was property of the US Army, Marines, or Navy. That is because that was the official name of the rifle. Look at the M1911's sent to the Marines. The slides are marked "Model of 1911 US Army." The M1911's did not say "Model of US Marines." This is the exact same thing on the M1903. They did not call a 1903 a "US Marine Bolt Action (Model of 1903)" just because the Marines owned a rifle.

As for what you said, how do you know they didn't just pull 639,6XX out of storage from WWI surplus? Does your "doc" address that possibility, which, quite frankly, is way more likely than your scenario.?

I never said 639,6xx was a Mann Niedner. This is why his serial ranges are in error. Jim automatically assumes just bc that serial is in the 600k range it has to be a Mann Niedner It was not. It was actually an experimental Marine Sniper rifle for testing, and not even remotely close to the Mann Niedner.

All you have to do is produce a document that proves that a "Marine Mount" utilizes a "Springfield Marine" base. You can't do it, can you?

I have posted docs for 7 years that show the Army bought Winchester "Marine Mount" A5's in 1918. I also posted the docs where the Army was in desperate need for the clamping screws (thumb Screws) for their A5's, a couple months later, which the Mann Niedner never had. Jim is the one who has NEVER posted one Winchester document that says Winchester made the tapered base design.

But that is becaue all the docs you can find say the Marines are the ones who created the tapered block Mann Niedner design.

This is a article by Harry L. Smith in 1925. He was one of the most famous Marine shooters and experts on the M1903 of the WWI era. He was heavily involved with the rifle team, before the war, during the war, and after. He was also involved in the sniper program, and also was one of the lead experts always referenced in the Marine docs for the Philadelphia Depot. I see his name everywhere back then. HE said the Philadelphia depot created the Marine tapered block (Mann Niedner) design. I shortened it so it wasn't 4 pages.




This is Harry L. Smith



Harry L. Smith who said the Philadelphia Depot created and made the Mann Niedner tapered block design, was recommended for the Navy Cross (2nd only to the Medal of Honor) in WWI because they felt he was one of the main reasons the Marines in the AEF knew how to shoot. His was one of the most famous Marines in the WWI era.



This is from the Army 1923 Sniper Rifle trials. Again it says the Marines manufactured the tapered block Mann Niedners. The Army still had their "Marine Mounts" they bought of Winchester too. The Army didn't get rid of their Marine Mount A5's till the late 20's. So if WRA built the Mann Niedner, why is the Army saying the Marines built them?





These are only two docs, I have built up thousands of docs that all state the same things I keep on saying.

Now on the flip side, no one has ever produce any WRA documents that state they built a TAPERED block for the Army or the Marines. Winchester made bases that were nicknamed "Marine" but they were not a tapered design.

[cplnorton]

Even though I had to pay to copy all the WRA docs 8 years ago, they are now available online at this link.

I have confirmed this for the Army, the Marine, and WRA docs that WRA never made a tapered block. There are no docs that state that WRA ever made a Tapered design block for the Marines and Army.

Anyone researching this, can research the WRA docs themselves here.

http://library.centerofthewest.org/d.../identi/ad/asc

[cplnorton]

Going back to the rifle Jim is claiming is a Mann Niedner.

I have a real Mann Niedner from WWII that I can use to compare with the pics. It really helps when you have this stuff as you can study it and things stick out to you.

For instance this. Look at the Micrometers and the handguards. Which one does it look like? Because this is pretty simple for me to see when you put this stuff side by side. You can also look at the size of the blocks on the Mann Niedner. They are bigger in size than the standard WRA Marine Mount. Compare the sizes of the bases to each other.


First comparing it to the Mann Niedner tapered design produced by the Marines.



Higher Def version below....





Next comparing it to the WRA "Marine Mount." Compare again the areas circled in red, but also the size of the bases. They are identical in size. Which are smaller than the Mann Niedner.



Higher def version below...




Jim's picture is not a Mann Niedner, it's a sniper variant produced by WRA in 1917 for the Marines.

He is posting pics of exactly the same style of rifle as the one below taken in 1917 in France.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Yes Niedner used 7' 2'' spacing in 1916. But Winchester never made ANY 7' 2'' spacing blocks for the 1903 until 1917. Jim keeps on trying to twist that I said WRA created 7' 2'' spacing. But I keep saying Winchester was only using 6'' spacing on 1903's until early 1917. In March/April 1917 WRA created new blocks for the M1903 that would give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. It just earned the nickname "Marine" because the Marines used it first. Exactly like how the #10 sights earned the nickname as "Marine" in 1919.

Steve DID say that WRA created the 7.2" spacing. This is the same old nonsense we have discussed more than once. Steve has no way to prove any part of what he is saying. Just how do you know WRA never made a base for 7.2" spacing until 1917? You can not convince me that such a document exists. Same for the "Marines used it first". How could you possibly know that? You are guessing because it fits what you want to be true. That is the antithesis of research.

Every M1903 in that era was called an US Army M1903, no matter if it was property of the US Army, Marines, or Navy. That is because that was the official name of the rifle. Look at the M1911's sent to the Marines. The slides are marked "Model of 1911 US Army." The M1911's did not say "Model of US Marines." This is the exact same thing on the M1903. They did not call a 1903 a "US Marine Bolt Action (Model of 1903)" just because the Marines owned a rifle.

Nonsense. They were called the M1903 Springfield rifle, just as they are now.

I never said 639,6xx was a Mann Niedner. This is why his serial ranges are in error. Jim automatically assumes just bc that serial is in the 600k range it has to be a Mann Niedner It was not. It was actually an experimental Marine Sniper rifle for testing, and not even remotely close to the Mann Niedner.

You are just as confused as ever, Norton. You need to learn to interpret that which you read. I never said any such thing. In the Niedner serial number range I noted, are over 20,000 rifles. Are you seriously trying to convince the readers that I believe there were 20,000 Niedner rifles? I don't think anyone is going to believe you, Norton. You are back to making wild accusations again. Nappy time.

I have posted docs for 7 years that show the Army bought Winchester "Marine Mount" A5's in 1918. I also posted the docs where the Army was in desperate need for the clamping screws (thumb Screws) for their A5's, a couple months later, which the Mann Niedner never had. Jim is the one who has NEVER posted one Winchester document that says Winchester made the tapered base design.

Point 1: I never said who made the taper blocks, I said WRA mounted the Marine Mount with taper bases on rifles supplied by the Marines. I don't care who made them.

But that is becaue all the docs you can find say the Marines are the ones who created the tapered block Mann Niedner design.

Point 2: Exactly which "docs" would those be, Norton? I have never referenced such "docs", and I actually think Niedner originated the short taper block design.

Point 3: A "doc" stating the Army was in desperate need of clamping screws has nothing to do with their order of sniper rifles "just like the Marines". The Army had over 1,000,000 soldiers in France, with about half of those on the front lines. Do you think those 500 sniper rifles "just like the Marine's" covered all their needs? The Army had many, many hundreds of sniper rifles with scopes on thumbscrew mounts. I have no doubt they had a serious problem with lost thumbscrews, an issue avoided by the Marines when they ordered their rifles with Niedner type taper bases. Is that too much for you to grasp?

This is a article by Harry L. Smith in 1925. He was one of the most famous Marine shooters and experts on the M1903 of the WWI era. He was heavily involved with the rifle team, before the war, during the war, and after. He was also involved in the sniper program, and also was one of the lead experts always referenced in the Marine docs for the Philadelphia Depot. I see his name everywhere back then. HE said the Philadelphia depot created the Marine tapered block (Mann Niedner) design. I shortened it so it wasn't 4 pages.

Major H. L. Smith was indeed a remarkable man. As for the sniper program, I think you are confusing him with Major Daulty Smith, who ran the OSD SOS School (sniper school). That doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is that you think "Telescope sight bases, known as the taper block Marine Corps type, were developed and are made at the depot" can be interpreted as saying the Marine Corps taper block was created at the depot - it does not. You are seriously confused.

All along you have been saying the Marines were making the taper bases during the war, when Major H. L. Smith specifically states that section was created after the war under the direction of our old friend Douglas McDougal, the man who placed the 2nd WRA Order. You just posted what I have been trying to tell you for years!

{quote]

[/quote]

This is from the Army 1923 Sniper Rifle trials. Again it says the Marines manufactured the tapered block Mann Niedners. The Army still had their "Marine Mounts" they bought of Winchester too. The Army didn't get rid of their Marine Mount A5's till the late 20's. So if WRA built the Mann Niedner, why is the Army saying the Marines built them?

Any decent machinist could make the taper bases. I have no doubt the Marines made them, as well as Niedner and WRA. What is your point?

These are only two docs, I have built up thousands of docs that all state the same things I keep on saying.

A
No they don't. That is the problem. I am now convinced, more than ever, you manufactured this whole "Springfield Marine" sniper rifle scenario based on flawed interpretation of unconnected documents.

Now on the flip side, no one has ever produce any WRA documents that state they built a TAPERED block for the Army or the Marines. Winchester made bases that were nicknamed "Marine" but they were not a tapered design.

So what? You can't produce a document that specifically states WRA made the "Springfield Marine" bases. All you have is a 1926 WRA drawing that depicts a "Springfield Marine" set of bases. I realize you go to great lengths to divert the discussion from the true subject - who mounted the Marine Mounts with taper bases for the two WRA orders placed by the Marines? Without doubt, and despite your strangely odd attempts to connect various documents that do not say what you claim they say, you have produced nothing that disputes that claim.

As for your continued attempts to convince people that Sgt LaValley's rifle and scope used "Springfield Marine" bases, LaValley's scope and case are owned by retired Major Jim Land, of Vietnam sniper school fame, and former Secretary of the NRA. Try convincing him his scope doesn't have Niedner type taper bases. Good luck with that one.

This is a good time to end this discussion, and my thread.

[lyman]

time to stop closing, and in fact, that should not be a problem going forward

[Ls6man]

So perhaps against better judgment I will wade into this thread..

I?m definitely a neophyte on the WW1 snipers.. Marine or otherwise.. however I have spent a lot of time researching the Unertl rifles. I also am a car guy (primarily GM muscle.. (think LS6 Chevelles, COPO Camaros, L78?s, and Z?s)

Years ago I spearheaded an internet discussion about a claimed potential historical 1968 Camaro funny car, which the owner of a prominent website was making claims about. He was also trying to sell the car for over $300k. The car was claimed to be the 1968 Dick Harrell car.

Unfortunately anyone spending a reasonable amount of time looking at period photos and comparing to the claimed car.. and researching the DH timeline.. would have been questioning the claim.. By understanding how light and shadows impact an object, along with establishing a timeline.. myself and another collector proved he didn?t have the car he claimed.


With this discussion..

It sounds like Jim is attributing period photos (and also perhaps known serial numbers in those period photos) along with observed rifies and then claiming each mounting tyoe has some serial range which can be attributed to it. Perhaps also based on his experience, intuition, or observations.. Therefore only those ranges will have that specific mounting type.

Am I correct in my understanding of your claim?

What archival document (USMC documents or otherwise from the National Archives, Quantico, etc) do you have to support your claim?

If these rifles were essentially ?batch built,? I?d expect correspondence to this affect.

Who else besides yourself has vetted your assumptions? Research that isn?t collaborative by peer review is often flawed for what it is worth.


Take this as constructive feedback.. and feedback is always a gift.

Jim I?ve read these post and others on Milsurps.. candidly it is somewhat difficult to take your research credibly when so many of your statements about USMC sniping have been erroneous. Case in point.. your attributing of the MOS numbers, the fact you stated their primary roll was shooting vs. scouting and intelligence gathering, etc.

I?m not a trained 8541/8542 (MOS numbers for a HOG when I was in) but have been around then enough to know their primary function has always been for SALUTE and intelligence gathering.. shooting second. Both in WW2 and up till today. Hence ?Scout-Sniper?

Ever heard of the STA platoons?? . and btw.. the ?S? isn?t for shooting

Their MOS designators change and their roles have been modified.. but they are fundamentally the eyes and ears of an infantry company.

This being said.. I?ve tried to follow your logic.. but also looking at the photos both you and Steve have presented ... and I believe you are attributing the wrong mounting system to some photos.. as Steve points out.

I will agree I?m friends with Steve and know his passion for USMC snipers of all periods.. however his research is based on a humble desire to get the information correct.. regardless of if he initially makes a deduction and then finds out he was incorrect.. .. He is very quick to point out we all are students and caretakers of these rifles and information therefore getting it right takes precedence to personal accolades

For what it is worth your comments about the perceived number of years Steve has been researching also has no merit.. I?ve been researching Unertl rifles for almist 30 years and learn stuff daily.. from Steve and others with less time. Only a fool somehow equates ?time,? with ?understanding ?

I would suggest you try to collaborate with Steve as he has immense contacts (our FB group for the Unertl?s is small in number.. but some guys are members I?m sure you know or know their reputation).

Also the back handed comments do not serve you well and IMO make you look trivial. They aren?t necessary and are the ?tools,? of people who know they are being shown up..

Again maybe at the end of the day this topic is a big deal.. but if so treat it as such and not as a personal feather in your cap to be perceived as ?right?.

Maybe instead of trying to ?be the guy? on these rifles.. focus on keeping an open mind.
.. learn new information from each other, collaborate and if you can?t? write your own book, article, etc.. and move on..

I will end by saying based on what I know, see, have read here and elsewhere.. Steve?s information is very credible and I tend to believe his reasoning and research.

Btw.. the rifle he mentioned being converted later.., incredibly cool rifle which is documented to a very cool Marine and a name which would be recognized by most gun enthusiasts..

[cplnorton]

As for your continued attempts to convince people that Sgt LaValley's rifle and scope used "Springfield Marine" bases, LaValley's scope and case are owned by retired Major Jim Land, of Vietnam sniper school fame, and former Secretary of the NRA. Try convincing him his scope doesn't have Niedner type taper bases. Good luck with that one.

Jim the story on this picture has changed a couple times. First you said the rifle exists, and now it's just the case with the serial number on it? Well if it's only the case with the serial, how do you know the scope that is in it, is the exact same scope that was in it back in WWI? It might have had four scopes in it since then. The Marines used these scope cases and the Mann Niedner Sniper Rifles until the end of WWII.

I have never personally reached out to Jim Land. I never really had a reason too. But I told you the collectors of Sniper Rifles are a VERY small group and we all know each other. If I don't know someone, I know for a fact I know someone who knows that person to ask. I have a friend who is best friends with Jim Land, and we will see what Jim Land has to say on this topic. I know you once before had dropped Jim Land's name in an argument we had in 2016, claiming he told you some information we were arguing. So I had my friend ask Jim Land if he knew you. He said he did not.

So lets see what Jim Land says this time on this case.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Jim the story on this picture has changed a couple times. First you said the rifle exists, and now it's just the case with the serial number on it? Well if it's only the case with the serial, how do you know the scope that is in it, is the exact same scope that was in it back in WWI? It might have had four scopes in it since then. The Marines used these scope cases and the Mann Niedner Sniper Rifles until the end of WWII.

Show us where I said only the scope and case exists. Nothing has changed, you just need to learn to comprehend what you read.

I have never personally reached out to Jim Land. I never really had a reason too. But I told you the collectors of Sniper Rifles are a VERY small group and we all know each other. If I don't know someone, I know for a fact I know someone who knows that person to ask. I have a friend who is best friends with Jim Land, and we will see what Jim Land has to say on this topic. I know you once before had dropped Jim Land's name in an argument we had in 2016, claiming he told you some information we were arguing. So I had my friend ask Jim Land if he knew you. He said he did not.

I was with Jim when he bought that scope and case. Your friend is lying, or you are.

So lets see what Jim Land says this time on this case.

I doubt you would post it.

[cplnorton]

I do not go by hearsay, I fact check everything.

So when you dropped Jim Lands name back in 2016 as a source of your info, I had a friend reach out to him to ask him if your statements were correct. He told me Jim Land did not recognize your name.

Regardless, tomorrow I am having someone reach out to Jim Land again to fact check your statements. We will find out.