Early Marine Scoped Rifle

[Ls6man]

Jim

A few things

I?ve read your statements about Senich and can?t agree that he was an expert in USMC sniping or for that matter German sniping. His book on WW1, WW2 and Korean USMC sniping is good.. and really to this date the only work dedicated to the topic. As such he benefits from being ?first,? and the information being generally accepted .. and a lot of it is good stuff.. BUT

He obviously didn?t have as much information as you?ve assumed.. as he didn?t realize the significance of the documents in the National Archives pertaining to USMC procurement of both rifles and barrels for the Unertl scoped rifles.. Also his description (whether his or the people he chose to quote) are either misleading or not fully ?flushed out.? For instance there is more to the rifles than just adding blocks, milling out a hand guard and adding the scope.

Also Senich didn?t understand the Special Target rifles and how they fit into the equation. While his work is certainly better than a lot of stuff it is not indicative of someone who has completely studied all the information which was available.. or someone who would be considered an ?expert.?

As someone who also collects German WW2 I can also tell you the same things are true for his work on German Snipers.. decent but no where near complete, the ?go to work,? or indicating someone who is an expert in the field.

Second anyone simply looking at the photo you posted in this thread.. would realize there are serious issues with that rifle.. and as such it?s value to any serious discussion about researching USMC sniping is really minimal.

I realize you don?t particularly care for Steve.. but I would really caution you to leave ANY personal opinions out of your thoughts.. Steve and others have a plethora of knowledge of pre-Vietnam USMC sniping knowledge.. Also way more information has come from the National Archives as a result of Steve and others.. information which previously was certainly not included in discussion and presumably not studied.

Greg

[lyman]

No need for insults. Especially baseless ones.

I saw no insult in that comment,

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

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

actually, if Nick Stobel was a member here, I would ask him,
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))

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

no insult, assumption maybe,

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

see my comments above, re Strobel's

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.

[cplnorton]

Have you physically seen this rifle? If not, on what are you basing your judgements?

You still haven't answered the questions concerning how you know Mallory gave Senich a "packet of 100 documents".

Yes I saw this rifle when it came up for sale in 2018. The rifle is a horrible fake.


I have seen almost every rifle in Senichs book in great detail, but I know many of the guys who own them.

Some of these owners were heavily involved in the research with Senich and they were kind enough to provide me a copy of Senich's docs that he used to write the Scout Sniper book. The docs had Franks name on them.


.

[cplnorton]

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.

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.

The front base is obviously uncommon, but the rear base is defintely a "Springfield Marine" base.

I see no "U" shaped structure, but even if one were present, it has no bearing on what the rifle is, or was.

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.

I thought if I pointed out all that was obviously wrong with this rifle in the black and white photos, Jim would just realize his mistake, and just let this one go. But he won't. So I'm going to post the actual pics of Senich's rifle. To Jim, this rifle was 100% proof ( it was not only Marine) but it had WWI Marine bases made by Winchester and proved the Marines had (7' 2'') spacing pre-1917.

This first pic below is of actual WWI Marine bases made by Winchester. These blocks were created in 1917 (by Winchester) to give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. These bases are the blocks Jim claims are "definitely " on the rifle in Senich's book.



Here are actual real pics of Senich's rifle from his book. First a side shot of the bases. Notice the U shaped groove that I pointed out earlier, that Jim said wasn't there. The same U groove is on the rear sight too.

These scope bases are from the Korean to Vietnam timeframe, just as I stated earlier. I also don't think they are even for a 1903, I think they are for a Model 70. These bases are not the WWI Marine bases Jim states he knows for sure are on Senich's rifle, nor is the spacing the same so they can be swapped.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Yes I saw this rifle when it came up for sale in 2018. The rifle is a horrible fake.

You keep saying it is a fake. A fake what? It is just a scoped Marine rifle. No one has claimed it to be anything else.

I record serial numbers of A5 scoped '03's from auction sites, and I didn't see this rifle come up for sale in 2018. On what auction site did it go up for sale?

...provide me a copy of Senich's docs that he used to write the Scout Sniper book. The docs had Franks name on them.

Why would a man who spent twenty years in the Marine archives need anything from Frank Mallory?

You are claiming Senich's book is not based on his research, but that of Frank Mallory. Senich publically acknowledged two pages of people's names that provided him some degree of assistance in his research, but never once mentions the guy you say did the research on which his entire book is based. That is an incredible assertion.

Someone correct me if I am mistaken, but I understood when I purchased a copy of the SRS listing, that it included every '03 serial number Frank Mallory found in the archives. The serial number of this rifle was not on my SRS list. I was told that SRS had all Frank Mallory's materials. Are you now saying that SRS is misrepresenting what they are selling, and that you have Frank Mallory documents they do not have?

[cplnorton]

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.

Maybe you can explain to everyone how you "fact checked" Senich's work. The reason for my questions is to "fact check" your work.

I will accept Peter Senich's judgement over your unsupported statements.

Unsupported statements, especially those so critical of the work of others, do not further the knowledge base of the subject.

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

[lyman]

1903's used what is called O&E blocks, correct?

that one pictured has an odd screw pattern, not at all like the (admittedly very few) originals I have seen

[lyman]

Jim likes to lecture me on how I should fact check my statements and all my claims are un-supported.

Well here is the provenance of the rifle. It has a FAKE "USMC" stamp on the 1913 barrel. It also has a fake "USMC" serial number stamp on the stock. The only "other" provenance is a written letter by the guy who owned it and put it in Senich's book.

This is the rifle Jim presented as "proof" of it being a Marine Telescopic rifle built prior to 1917.

lordy,

that reminded me of a M1 rifle that I saw as a show for a few years that had every single part stamped NM, all apparently by hand, and the seller thought it was a real deal National Match M1,,


looked like someone bought a few stamp sets and wore out the N and M one each part,


amazine

[cplnorton]

Here's the auction description when it was sold. It describes all the fake stamps in the auction listing, just in case Jim tries to argue those pics aren't to the rifle in Senich's book.

This is why I keep on cautioning everyone on all these sniper posts that you need to fact check every statement made. Because this rifle was presented as undeniable proof.

The stock is an 03A3 stock. The handguard is a WWII replacement. The blocks are a target type post WWII and likely made for the Model 70. The provenannce is fake.

This rifle was AT BEST one built in between the wars, and someone added the fake USMC stamps and B-5 scope to try to pass it as a WWI era sniper. At worst the whole rifle was faked, and the scope was mounted at that time.

I actually think how bad this rifle is, it was one they found built in between the wars and they stamped USMC to "enhance" the value of it.

It's a real shame Senich put this rifle in his book. As I said I have a lot of respect for Senich and his research. But anyone should know this rifle is fake.

I don't know who owns this rifle now. I just know who brought it to me and thankfully he listened to me and did not buy it.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

...To Jim, this rifle was 100% proof ( it was not only Marine) but it had WWI Marine bases made by Winchester and proved the Marines had (7' 2'') spacing pre-1917.

I never made any statement as to who made the bases. The disagreement concerned the 7.2" spacing you claim WRA created in 1917.

This first pic below is of actual WWI Marine bases made by Winchester. These blocks were created in 1917 (by Winchester) to give the A5 scope 7' 2'' spacing. These bases are the blocks Jim claims are "definitely " on the rifle in Senich's book.

You are yet again mistaken. I never said they were WRA bases. I said the bases were on 7.2" spacing, which they are. Misrepresenting what I say will not change the fact that you were wrong.

Here are actual real pics of Senich's rifle from his book. First a side shot of the bases. Notice the U shaped groove that I pointed out earlier, that Jim said wasn't there. The same U groove is on the rear sight too.

I actually said I didn't see the groove, but it really doesn't matter, as there was never any issue with the type of bases, other than they are on 7.2" spacing.

These scope bases are from the Korean to Vietnam timeframe, just as I stated earlier. I also don't think they are even for a 1903, I think they are for a Model 70. These bases are not the WWI Marine bases Jim states he knows for sure are on Senich's rifle, nor is the spacing the same so they can be swapped.

"...know''s for sure" does not appear in my post. Nice rifle though. It's on 7.2" spacing!! Wow!!

To be clear, I don't care what bases are on this rifle. That was never the issue. The bases shown allow the attachment of a scope on 7.2" spacing, which Steve claims was "created" by WRA in 1917. This particular 1910 era rifle has a scope mounted on 7.2" spacing. In those days, there were many fine gunsmiths who made whatever they needed due to the general lack of availability of commercial goods in those days. It was a different time. One could argue the rifle was scoped much later, but if that were true, why would a modern gunsmith use mounts, such as those on this rifle, that hadn't been available in his lifetime? You can make the same argument for any scoped '03. No one can actually tell when a rifle was scoped, especially if it was scoped with a 100-year-old scope and mounts.

Judge for yourself what is most likely.

Goodnight all. Enjoy life while you can.