I saw no insult in that comment,Originally Posted by Marine A5 Sniper Rifle
I see no "U" shaped structure, but even if one were present, it has no bearing on what the rifle is, or was. Scopes sit on top of the bases, thus a scope base can never obscure the sight picture. If you refer to the rifle's ladder sight, even a casual look at the picture shows that the base is way too low to ever interfere with the ladder sight picture. What is your point?
actually it does, as Norton mentioned those U shaped bases were used during a certain time period, as in not that old
actually, if Nick Stobel was a member here, I would ask him,
You have no way of knowing this as a fact.You are making a baseless assumption.
I would need to go dig out his sight\scope books to be sure but I do believe Norton is correct on the scope mounts,
remember, not every Unertl went on a 1903, Lyman, Fecker, Davis, Unertl, Litschert and Winchester were all basically the same base (Unertl did do some posa mounts, and I have a Lyman\Winchester A5\5A on a Win 75 that has an odd wide base, (been needing to post those pics for years now))
no insult, assumption maybe,
Again, this forum is no place for insults. Keep it civil.
see my comments above, re Strobel's
You do not know when this scope was mounted. You are making statements you cannot verify. Please stick to facts.
Do you have access to the Douglas Collection? Have you physically seen this rifle? If not, on what are you basing your judgements?
This rifle has more provenance than your 300K series rifle you claim to be a WWI Marine sniper rifle. On what do you base your statement that the rifle is not a Marine rifle? Since you like to compare your rifle to others, maybe you could compare your rifle to this one, point by point, showing why you think one is a Marine rifle while the other isn't. It would be educational.
You cannot credibly judge exactly what the base in the picture is, nor can you judge when it was mounted, nor can you possibly know why it was installed. I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.
Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.
You still haven't answered the questions concerning how you know Mallory gave Senich a "packet of 100 documents". I believe everyone with an interest in this subject would be interested in your contribution.
Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.
More to come.
