Early Marine Scoped Rifle

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There has been a claim that WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing in 1917, thus the first "Springfield Marine" bases in 1917. Shown below is a 1910 rifle with a B5 scope with #1 WRA mounts on 7.2" spacing, which means the very early #1 mount is mounted on "Springfield Marine" bases. This is a Marine rifle. As I said before, the WRA scopes on 7.2" spacing existed long before 1917.

Note how prominent the grasshopper spring is in the picture. They are not hard to spot at all. Judge for yourself.

This picture is straight out of Peter Senich's book, Scout-Sniper, which I highly recommend. Senich spent 20 years digging through the same USMC files currently being unearthed at the Archives. Peter Senich has long been considered the ultimate expert of Marine sniper rifles, and justly so.

More to come. Enjoy.

Pre-WWI USMC Scoped Rifle - SN 454040 - page 8 in Senich.jpg

[cplnorton]

This is a Marine rifle. As I said before, the WRA scopes on 7.2" spacing existed long before 1917.

The majority of the Sniper Docs I have weren't released at the Archives until 2012, years after Peter Senich passed. Peter worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him which were about a 100 pages total. I have a copy of the packet that Frank gave Senich.

For all of Senich's talents at research, this rifle is not one of them.

Years back I examined this rifle in detail and the majority of it was built with WWII era parts. The blocks were not Winchester. The evidence it was Marine was only a story.

If you are going to present a rifle as proof it was built pre 1917 you might want to look at the picture more.

Jim didn't notice the 03A3 bands from WWII, the swept back bolt which is post WWI, and the 2nd stock bolt on the stock, which was after 1917 on all stocks. My memory was the stock was a 03A3 stock.

The whole rifle is a fake as a Marine WW1 Sniper.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

No one said this scoped USMC rifle was a WWI sniper rifle. It is an early USMC scoped rifle in WRA #1 mounts on 7.2" spacing, which requires "Springfield Marine" bases. To have #1 mounts, that puppy was scoped a long time ago. No telling how many times it was rebuilt, as the Marines used them until they were worn out.

You can't tell who made a rifle's scope bases by looking at them. Niedner sometimes put his brand on his, but WRA never did.

Every USMC scoped rifle is not a sniper rifle. The Marine rifle teams were using scoped rifles as early as 1909.

Of the myriad of people Senich credits, he never once mentions Frank Mallory. I have a copy of Frank's find notes also, and I don't see a packet of information on the Marine WWI sniper rifle.

Senich Credits.jpg

This is what Senich states is the source of his information. Note the time he spent in the Marine archives. Judge for yourselves. Darn great book.

Senich Sources.jpg

More to come.

[cplnorton]

The docs in his book are from Frank. It is very common knowledge where those docs originated from.

Jim presents a rifle with WWII parts as evidence that it was built pre 1917. How could you ever PROVE that rifle was built before 1917? You cannot when the rifle was obviously built with later parts.

Jim saw a rifle with an early serial number and just didn't notice the traits that prove its not original. In fact when you examine the evidence there is nothing proving it was even Marine. When you see the rifle in detail its obviously not Marine Built.

As far as Jim's claim that it requires "Springfield Marine" blocks to mount that B-5 scope, that is not remotely correct.

Fecker, Lyman, Unertl, and every common repo made block since would mount that scope.

Even by looking at the pics you can tell they blocks are not WWI Springfield Marine blocks made by Winchester as Jim claims. The front block is set up to change the spacing of the scope like you see on target rifles from the 50s thru the 70s.. That is why it is so long. But there were never any blocks made like that during WWI. In fact the block is probably made for a different type of rifle.

Here is a Springfield Marine front block made by WRA compared to that one on that rifle. It's not even close.

[cplnorton]

This rifle is not real at all. But regardless...

Jim claims this rifle is proof that WRA made 7' 2" spacing for the Marines pre 1917.

But how could this rifle can be proof of what was built pre 1917 when the majority of the rifle doesnt even date from that era ?






.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

The docs in his book are from Frank. It is very common knowledge where those docs originated from.

There is no such "common knowledge". I know of no link between Mallory and Senich. Peter was very clear, and very thorough, as to who assisted him, and he never mentions Frank Mallory. Senich states he spent twenty years going through the Marine Corps archives, so I don't think Senich needed anything Frank Mallory had, if he even knew the man.

Frank Mallory's "Find Notes" were notes on materials he found in the National Archives. Mallory's notes consist of where documents can be found in the archives, not the documents themselves.

Jim claims this rifle is proof that WRA made 7' 2" spacing for the Marines pre 1917.

I never said any such thing, although it is patently obvious. Are you now claiming someone was making the "Springfield Marine" bases before WRA? The "Springfield Marine" bases are nothing more than the set of bases required to mount an A5 scope in WRA mounts on an '03 on 7.2" spacing. The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.

Steve erroneously claims that WRA "created" the 7.2" spacing in 1917. I was providing evidence of his mistaken belief, as it is obvious this old rifle was scoped in the early days of the WRA #1 mount. I do suspect it was an early Marine rifle team rifle that has been rebuilt, probably more than once. Please note, the pictures of the rifle were taken over thirty years ago.

The majority of the Sniper Docs I have weren't released at the Archives until 2012, years after Peter Senich passed. Peter worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him which were about a 100 pages total. I have a copy of the packet that Frank gave Senich.

Senich states he went through the Marine archives. He had access to everything you have now. Senich just spent more time examining them.

Your claim that Senich "worked off the docs Frank Mallory collected for him" is not creditable. You can not possibly know what Senich did. How can you possibly know of any "packet" Frank gave Peter?

Senich copyrighted his book in 1993, thirty years ago. Did you know either man? What is the source of your information on which you base such a claim?

Let me preface this item by stating I know nothing about how or when the Marine documents were archived. I did find this with a quick net search. It appears that Marine documents are stored in at least 16 other places other than Maryland. I also know that serious researchers were allowed access to archived documents at NARA, back in the day.

This is a USMC MARADMIN of 2011, whatever a MARADMIN is.

"POC/J. D. GLENEWINKEL/GS-14/UNIT:ARDB/-/TELSN 224-1081 /TEL703)614-1081/FAX703)693-7270//
GENTEXT/REMARKS/1. THIS MARADMIN ANNOUNCES PROCEDURAL CHANGES FOR THE TRANSFER OF CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED RECORDS TO THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION (NARA) FOR STORAGE PER REFERENCES (A) THROUGH (D). UNCLASSIFIED RECORDS ARE STORED AT 1 OF 16 FEDERAL RECORDS CENTER (FRC) LOCATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES; CLASSIFIED RECORDS ARE ONLY STORED AT THE WASHINGTON NATIONAL RECORDS CENTER IN MARYLAND."

That clip from the original order is only to relate how many locations in which Marine documents are stored, nothing more

Enjoy..

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

As far as Jim's claim that it requires "Springfield Marine" blocks to mount that B-5 scope, that is not remotely correct.

Not exactly what I said. I will clarify my position for you.

"Springfield Marine" bases are a set of bases required to mount a WRA scope on 7.2" centers. A 1926 WRA drawing depicts two sets of WRA bases, one for 6" spacing and one for 7.2" spacing. Both sets of bases must be machined to fit the WRA thumbscrew receptacles. The height can change, as shown in the WRA sales brochures of the day. I have also seen variations in the width of the bottom of the bases, both front and rear; just as I have seen variations in Niedner's taper bases as to width and length. The reason for these variations isn't always clear, but the variations do not mean the taper base is not a taper base, and that the "Springfield Marine" bases are not "Springfield Marine" bases designed for 7.2" spacing.

FYI, Steve, Unertl and Fecker weren't in business in 1910. I don't know who made those bases, but they definitely show that WRA didn't "create" the 7.2" spacing in 1917.

[cplnorton]

I'll be honest, I tried to read the statements made by Jim, but I just glaze over reading them. It's the same arguments over and over. The facts are all twisted and not factual.

This rifle is not real.

[cplnorton]

The front block on this rifle was popular from the 50's thru 70's on target rifles.

The U shaped sight grove on these blocks was so a receiver sight could be used on the receiver and the sight picture not be obscured by the block.

None of these ever existed in WWI, or before. They started to show up post WW2.

Jim saw a early serial number and automicatally assumed it was drilled and tapped pre WWI. The truth is this rifle had the scope blocks mounted in the heyday of making sporterized M1903's probably between Korea and Vietnam.

This rifle is just a sporterized M1903. This rifle is not a Marine built rifle.

Here's a 50's era target scope block for a Lyman or Unertl scope. Which is the exact same style block in the pic.

That is why It's extremely important to fact check your work, or other's research. Because Senich messed up on this one. It certainly isn't a rifle that was built pre WW1.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Only Jim would see a rifle with a block that is extremely popular from the 50's thru 70's and think it's evidence of what the Marines did pre WWI.

No need for insults. Especially baseless ones.

The U shaped sight grove on these blocks was so a target sight could be used on the receiver and the sight picture not obscured by the block.

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?

None of these ever existed in WWI, or before.

You have no way of knowing this as a fact.You are making a baseless assumption.

Jim saw a early serial number and automicatally assumed it was drilled and tapped pre WWI. The truth is this rifle had the scope blocks mounted in the heyday of making sporterized M1903's.

Again, this forum is no place for insults. Keep it civil.

You do not know when this scope was mounted. You are making statements you cannot verify. Please stick to facts.

It's a sporterized M1903. This rifle is not a Marine built rifle.

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.

Here's a 50's era target scope block for a Lyman or Unertl scope. Which is the exact same style block in the pic.
That is why It's extremely important to fact check your work, or other's research. Because Senich messed up on this one.

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.