The Army rejects the Mann Niedner Design in April 1918

[cplnorton]

I have posted before that the "Marine Mount" made by WRA had clamping screws (thumbscrews). I have showed the docs for about 7 years.

The hardest part of this is trying to condense thousands of pages of sniper docs and post one or two docs that prove a point. I can detail it all out, but 99% of the readers will not be interested in this topic that much to follow it.

This is the least amount of docs that I can show that can prove the Winchester "Marine mount" was not a Mann Niedner tapered block design.

In Jan 1918, the Army ordered their first order of A5 scopes. The Army DID NOT have A5 scopes prior to this order. They hated the A5 scope and only went with these because an order of 4000 Warner Swaseys was running late. The Army ordered 500 A5 scopes with what Winchester called their "Marine Mount". That was only the first order, there was another one as well.

Here is the 1st order of "Marine Mount" A5's off WRA. (credit goes to Andrew as he found this first before I found it at the Archives, thank you Andrew)



In April 1918, the Army conducted yet another investigation into if there was a better sniper platform than what they currently had. So they started to trial all the different types of sniper rifles and mounts.

The Army even though they had hundreds of "Marine Mount" A5's they purchased directly from WRA for months at that point, they had to pull the actual patent on the Mann Taper telescopic sight mount, to study it. Because they DID NOT have any tapered block A5's to study.

Here is the Army in April 1918 rejecting the Mann Tapered block design, saying they did not want to go with that. They wanted to go with the new sight that Winchester was developing based on the German Goerz design which was called the Model of 1918 scope. They are detailing they are returning the patent drawings they had borrowed to study



Here is Patent 830,729 referenced in the doc above. This is the Patent that Franklin Mann patented for the Taper block telescopic scope mount and this is the basis of the Mann Niender USMC sniper. You can look this patent up under the 830,729 number to confirm everything I am saying.




I think it's very hard for someone to argue that the Army, who ALREADY had hundreds of "Marine Mount" A5's they purchased off WRA, would have needed to pull a Patent on the tapered block design, if Winchester's "Marine Mount" had tapered blocks.

Now add this info into the succession of docs I have posted for years that show the Army had to order Clamping Screws (thumbscrews) for their Marine Mount A5's they got off WRA because they were loosing them.



.

[cplnorton]

Now add an article written by Harry L. Smith, who was one of the most famous Marines in the WWI era. He states the tapered block design, which we collectors call the "Mann Niedner" was CREATED and manufactured at the Philadelphia Depot.


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.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

I have posted before that the "Marine Mount" made by WRA had clamping screws (thumbscrews). I have showed the docs for about 7 years.

No document you ever posted, then or now, proves the Marine Mount had thumbscrews. Not one. Norton just throws up a fusillade of unrelated documents and claims they say something they do not.

In Jan 1918, the Army ordered their first order of A5 scopes. The Army DID NOT have A5 scopes prior to this order.

Nothing you have ever posted states the Army did not have A5 scoped rifles. Post the document that so states. You just make this stuff up.

They hated the A5 scope and only went with these because an order of 4000 Warner Swaseys was running late. The Army ordered 500 A5 scopes with what Winchester called their "Marine Mount". That was only the first order, there was another one as well.

The Army didn't "hate" the A5 scope - you are being silly. These threads were about the Marine rifles, not what the Army did.

Here is the 1st order of "Marine Mount" A5's off WRA. (credit goes to Andrew as he found this first before I found it at the Archives, thank you Andrew)

If you look at the timeline I posted earlier, you will see this order listed.

The Army even though they had hundreds of "Marine Mount" A5's they purchased directly from WRA for months at that point, they had to pull the actual patent on the Mann Taper telescopic sight mount, to study it. Because they DID NOT have any tapered block A5's to study.

Talk about misreading a document, this is a classic case. The idea the Army pulled a patent "to study" the taper base is absurd. People pull patents to ensure they are not infringing on a patent, or to figure out some way to get around the patent. In this case, the Army had decided to adopt the Winchester 1918 scope. This letter had nothing to do with the A5.

Here is the Army in April 1918 rejecting the Mann Tapered block design, saying they did not want to go with that. They wanted to go with the new sight that Winchester was developing based on the German Goerz design which was called the Model of 1918 scope. They are detailing they are returning the patent drawings they had borrowed to study

What has this got to do with the Marines ordering rifles with Niedner type taper bases? Or the Army for that matter. The Army rifles had already been ordered and delivered before this letter was written.

Here is Patent 830,729 referenced in the doc above. This is the Patent that Franklin Mann patented for the Taper block telescopic scope mount and this is the basis of the Mann Niender USMC sniper. You can look this patent up under the 830,729 number to confirm everything I am saying.

No one is disputing Dr. Mann had a patent, certainly not me.

I think it's very hard for someone to argue that the Army, who ALREADY had hundreds of "Marine Mount" A5's they purchased off WRA, would have needed to pull a Patent on the tapered block design, if Winchester's "Marine Mount" had tapered blocks.

Norton, did it ever occur to you the Army was checking for patent infringement because they intended to order a whole bunch more A5 rifles with Niedner taper bases, because they have 1,000,000 men in the field in France? The fact that they already had 500 rifles with taper bases, and were probably considering ordering more, was the reason they wanted to check the patent. I am surprised they didn't do it sooner. Anyone who has ever started a business that manufactures a product, knows the first thing you do is check for possible patent infringement. The Army was just doing their due diligence.

Now add this info into the succession of docs I have posted for years that show the Army had to order Clamping Screws (thumbscrews) for their Marine Mount A5's they got off WRA because they were loosing them.

And here it is, folks. Norton has read into these documents things he wants them to say. He puts a bunch of documents together, that may or may not be related, and draws conclusions unfounded by any of the documents. Nothing in these documents, Norton continues to post over and over again, states, or even infers, that the Army Order for 500 rifles "just like the Marines" was for rifles with "Springfield Marine" bases.

Norton as posted a document that says the Army wants rifles with the "Marine Corps mounting", a document that states some group is going to quit examining the Mann Patent because the Army is going to adopt the Winchester 1918 scope, and a copy of Mann's patent. There is nothing about the Army "hating" the A5 scope, or that the Army had no A5 scopes before the war, nor that the Marine Mounts had "Springfield Marine" bases. They don't even mention thumbscrews! To be honest, I can't see how Norton ever came to such an unfounded conclusion based on these unrelated documents. They simply don't say what he claims they say.

I am not the brightest person in the world, but I can read, and I can comprehend what I read. Norton can't. Norton comes up with this idea that he has discovered something no one else knows, and starts finding "docs" that he thinks support his great discovery. Norton piece mills together documents that don't actually address that which he claims, but he discovers that if he floods the reader with enough of them, that no one seems to notice the lack of continuity, nor does anyone seem to object. There is no document that states the Army "hated the A5 scope", nor does a document exist that states the Army "had no A5 scopes before the war". These are just wild statements by Norton to boost his cause.

These documents have been around for a hundred years. Men like Senich and Pegler did the same research we are doing today. They came to totally different conclusions than Norton has. There is a glaring difference; they could support their conclusions, Norton can't support his. Norton is relying on people not actually reading the documents he posts. The documents Norton has posted here are a perfect example. They just do not state what Norton purports them to state.

Steve, old boy, you are sitting on a house of cards. By the way, when are you going to give us readers the name of that 96-year old Iwo Jima Sniper/Runner you spoke to? The old guy deserves some recognition, by golly.

[cplnorton]

Nothing you have ever posted states the Army did not have A5 scoped rifles. Post the document that so states. You just make this stuff up.

The Army didn't "hate" the A5 scope - you are being silly. These threads were about the Marine rifles, not what the Army did.

Everything Jim states on this subject is not correct.

The Army trialed about a dozen A5's with 6'' spacing in 1915. All the serials are known and about half the rifles I actually know the location of today. But the Army did not buy any because the Army hated the ones they trialed. That doc will be posted after the WRA doc.

In March 1917, Winchester wrote the Army doing their best sales pitch to try to sell the A5 scopes. Because to that point the Army had not bought any. In the Winchester doc they reference 6'' spacing A5 rifles tested 1915, and they ask for the report on why the Army did not like it, to see if they could modify the A5 scope to make it work for the Army, so they could sell them some A5 scopes.

This is the Winchester letter and sales Pamphlet that that they sent the Army trying to sell them A5 scopes for the first time. They wouldn't have included a sales pamphlet if the Army already had them. Regardless, WRA says they never sold them any in the letter because they knew the Army hated them.









The Army replys back and sends them the report from December 18th, 1915 showing why they hated the A5 scope. The easiest thing for WRA to modify on the Army's hate list on the A5 scope, was to create blocks to increase the spacing to 7' 2'' and to beef them up a little over the 6'' spacing blocks.

These 7'2'' blocks were created right after this letter below is sent to WRA in the spring of 1917.


DECEMBER 18, 1915, so basically 1916. Again the letter from Winchester is March 1917, basically a little over a year from this study.

[cplnorton]

No document you ever posted, then or now, proves the Marine Mount had thumbscrews. Not one. Norton just throws up a fusillade of unrelated documents and claims they say something they do not.

Incorrect once again. I've posted the docs for years, that is why there are not any serious A5 collectors who believe the Mann Niedner was made by WRA anymore.

The Army ordered two orders of the "Marine Mount" A5's off Winchester. One in January 1918, and one in March 1918.

In February 1918, the Army asked WRA what spare parts they should be buying for their Marine Mount A5's.

Winchester replys if any of the Marine Mount A5 scopes need repair, simply just send them back to Winchester.

Here is the WRA doc stating to send the scopes back to the factory for any repairs.




This is the Army reponse to this letter, stating they will follow the WRA guildlines of any Marine Mount A5's needing repair to send them back to the factory.

This doc is courtesy of Andrew at Archival Research group. I found the doc as well, but this one I had already used all those years ago so it was easily accesible and I cannot ever thank Andrew enough for all the research he did for me before I started to go to the Archives myself. I could have never got as far as I did without his help.




June 1918, the supply section of the Army is notified there is an urgent demand for clamping screws (thumbscrews) for the Marine Mount A5's they recently had purchased. They state the only way they currently have to replace the clamping screws (thumbscrews) is to send the scopes back to WRA to replace them, which is silly. So they state they need to buy the screws by themselves.




A day later, here is the Army's acknowledgment that many of the Marine Mount A5's are missing the clamping screws (thumbscrews) and they are unserviceable.




If anyone reading this has any doubt a clamping screw is a thumbscrew, this proves it is.




So two weeks after the Army notify's WRA that they need Clamping Screws for their Marine Mount A5's, Winchester sells them 500 Clamping screws on this contract below.

[cplnorton]

I know there is nothing I could ever post that will ever convince Jim of anything, he made up his mind on a very limited amount of research long ago.

So I'm only posting this info for others reading this that want to learn. If you want to know why it's so vital that the docs mentions the Winchester made Marine Mount A5 needed clamping screws, it's because the Marine Mann Niedner tapered base conversion does not have any.

Again, there were two different A5 variants in the WWI era, one made by Winchester, and one made by the Marines at the Philly Depot. One was named "Marine Mount" by WRA, and one was named the "taper block Marine Corps design." Both nicknamed "Marine" and it has confused every researcher till Andrew and myself pulled the actual research and put it together.

Jim claims over and over that Winchester made the Mann Niender tapered design without absolutely zero proof Winchester ever did.

So why is this so relevant to the Marine Corps A5 Snipers WRA sold the Marines in 1917? Because the Army details over and over in the docs that they want the exact same rifles the Marines bought in 1917, so Winchester starts to describe the 7' 2'' spacing as the "Marine Mount" so the Army knows they are getting the same style the Marines had received.

Here is a WWII era Mann Niedner Sniper next to the WWI Marine Mount A5 built by Winchester. I put arrows to the clamping screws so the reader can see why the mention of purchasing clamping screws proves that WRA made Marine mount was not the Mann Niedner tapered block design as Jim claims.

[cplnorton]

Jim will be along shortly with personal attacks and how I don't know anything.

I just posted how much evidence that WRA Marine Mount A5's had thumbscrews, and that the Philly Depot created the Mann Niedner Sniper.

The readers should ask Jim to POST ONE WRA DOC that says that the Winchester Marine Mount had a tapered design. But I know for a fact that Jim cannot produce even one Winchester doc that states that.

- - - Updated - - -

Btw this is a Winchester made Marine Mount A5 in France in 1917. The Marines purchased 500 of these rifles.

This rifle is a pre 1910, evidenced by the single bolt, highwood M1903 stock, and the handguard without reinforcing clips. It also has the small dished windage knob on the rear sight that was changed in 1910. So the rifle by the stock, handguard, and rear sight show this is a pre 1910 rifle.

My rifle is also a 1909 rifle, and about a 1000 digits off only three serials shows in the WRA archival docs.

[cplnorton]

This is from the Brophy book, page 504, Brophy details this rifle has "Marine Corps Type."

Brophy just didn't have all the docs to realize the whole story.

[cplnorton]

There are only 3 rifles pictured in the WRA WWI files. One pictured in the WRA files is serial 367,312. My serial is 368,496. A little over a 1000 off.

When you add in the pre-1910 rifle pictures in the hands of the Marine in France, that also could be a 1909 rifle, there is some reason why they pre-1910 rifles are showing up.





My rifle vs 659,062 that Brophy states is the Marine Corps Type blocks on page 504.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Everything Jim states on this subject is not correct.

Really. I will leave that assessment up to the readers. Your track record isn't so great.

The Army trialed about a dozen A5's with 6'' spacing in 1915. All the serials are known and about half the rifles I actually know the location of today. But the Army did not buy any because the Army hated the ones they trialed. That doc will be posted after the WRA doc.

Here we go with the Army stuff again. Neither the Army nor the Marines contracted with WRA to mount scopes on 6" spacing. No document states the Army hated the A5 scopes. They found fault with the 6" spacing, just as did the Marines. You think maybe that is why they both ordered rifles on 7.2" spacing? After all, WRA created the 7.2" spacing (your exact words).

In March 1917, Winchester wrote the Army doing their best sales pitch to try to sell the A5 scopes. Because to that point the Army had not bought any. In the Winchester doc they reference 6'' spacing A5 rifles tested 1915, and they ask for the report on why the Army did not like it, to see if they could modify the A5 scope to make it work for the Army, so they could sell them some A5 scopes.

Surprise, surprise! WRA was in the business of selling scopes. Will wonders never cease to exist?

This is the Winchester letter and sales Pamphlet that that they sent the Army trying to sell them A5 scopes for the first time. They wouldn't have included a sales pamphlet if the Army already had them. Regardless, WRA says they never sold them any in the letter because they knew the Army hated them.

This is another prime example of Norton reading into a letter something it does not say. WRA's letter simply states that they are aware of the Army testing telescopes, and that the report was not favorable to their scope. They ask for a copy of the report so they can determine if they can make adjustments for a more favorable review. There is nothing about the Army "hating" the A5 or anything mention of any "first order". WRA is addressing a formal Army adoption of the A5 as their standard scope, and I agree the Army had never done that previously. My assertion is that the dozens of various Army rifle teams were using the A5 for years, thus the Army had been buying A5's long before WWI.

The Army replys back and sends them the report from December 18th, 1915 showing why they hated the A5 scope. The easiest thing for WRA to modify on the Army's hate list on the A5 scope, was to create blocks to increase the spacing to 7' 2'' and to beef them up a little over the 6'' spacing blocks.

There we go with that "the Army hated the A5" nonsense. The Army simply found a scope they believed would fulfill their needs better than the A5. They didn't "hate" the A5 scope.

If going to a 7.2" spacing was so easy, why wait 9 years to do it? The "beefy" part is due to the fact that a taller base requires a larger footprint to preserve stability.

These 7'2'' blocks were created right after this letter below is sent to WRA in the spring of 1917.

What? No documentation for such a claim?

DECEMBER 18, 1915, so basically 1916. Again the letter from Winchester is March 1917, basically a little over a year from this study.

By now the readers could probably recite this letter by heart. The letter gives multiple reasons why the scope was rejected. The fragility of the 6" spacing was one of them. Note from the WRA letter that at the time of the tests, WRA was unaware of same. They weren't asked to provide a scoped rifle to the Army for the tests. There is reason to believe that if they had been asked, they would have provided a rifle with a scope on 7.2" spacing. Nothing in any of these letters states that WRA created the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

Has anyone noticed that Norton is trying to convince us that the Army ordered scopes they hated to be mounted on '03's just because the Marines did (according to Norton)? Does that make any sense at all? Nope, it doesn't.