Early Marine Scoped Rifle

[nf1e]

This is being watched for content.


Dept of adjdacation.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

There is some confusion as to what constitutes a "Springfield Marine" base. The 1926 WRA drawing of same is lacking one dimension - length. Without knowing that dimension, no one can ever positively identify ANY particular set of bases as "Springfield Marine". I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the purpose of the "Springfield Marine" bases was to mount a WRA scope on 7.2" spacing. Steve has taken the position that WRA didn't mount scopes on 7.2" spacings until 1917. I dispute that. I also maintain that any set of bases that mounts a WRA OEM #2 mount on 7.2" spacing are essentially "Springfield Marine" bases. The following explains why.

We know for a fact that Niedner was mounting scopes on 7.2" spacing on Marine team rifles as early as Aug of 1916, and probably much earlier. WRA, a huge company in the business of selling scopes, would not have sat by while Niedner scooped up all the 7.2" spacing scope jobs.

Niedner was also converting '03's to 22's for his friends as early as 1914, and the picture below is of one of the later rifles. Niedner mounted the scopes on 7.2" spacing, using what looks to me to be a rear WRA "Springfield Marine" base, but it appears to be slightly longer than the rear base on Steve's 300K series rifle. Please note the Niedner rifle is a 1916 era rifle. So which base is the correct "Springfield Marine" base? The one on Steve's 300K series rifle or the one on Niedner's 600K series rifle? I don't know, and neither does Steve; because no one knows the correct length of a "Springfield Marine" base. As an added note, who developed the "Springfield Marine" base first, Niedner or WRA?

If I find an earlier example, I will post it.

M. Petrov on Niedner 22 conversion on 7.2 Spacing SN 610459.jpg

As for the rebuilt rifle I posted at the beginning of this thread, no one has definitively proven it to be a fake. Everyone has an opinion, but they are just opinions. As for being a fake - fake what? I made no claim as to it being a sniper rifle, nor do I believe it to be a sniper rifle. It is just a scoped '03. As for the USMC stamps, I have no idea where they came from or why. Was there a big market for USMC rifles 36 years ago? Beats me. One collector (Douglas) thought it authenticate, other collectors don't.

Now for my third, and final, example of an early rifle with "Springfield Marine" mounts (meaning it is scoped on 7.2" spacing). Steve's 300K series rifle. It is a 1909 '03 with a A5 scope mounted on 7.2" spacing. For Steve to be correct, this old rifle would have had to be scoped in or after 1917. Steve further claims it to be a Marine rifle, but I see no indicators of it being a Marine rifle. Why would the Marines want to scope an 8-year old worn out rifle when they were ordering new scoped rifles? That position defies a logical explanation.

That's all folks!

[cplnorton]

I don't even know why Im responding to this. He's literally trying to make a case on why that fake USMC stamp rifle is real. That says a lot.

If Jim ever researched in the Archives you would see many of the rifles built at this time were not issued right away. They were trying to build up a wartime surplus, so they were built and just put into storage. Just because a rifle was built, does not mean it was issued right away. Most of these rifles were shipped to some location to be put into storage. If Jim ever saw the serials of brand new rifles they were pulling out during WWI, he would drop that argument. Heck I see brand new rifles this early, being pulled out in the early 20's. They never even got issued in WWI. But that is mostly because Ordnance put their focus on using the M1917 in the AEF. .

As far as the length of the blocks, you can look in the WWI pics and tell the block is not the whole length of the receiver. I have posted pics of my rifle next to the original WRA pics a dozen times at least and they are identical.

The picture of the Marine Mount M1903 taken in France in 1917 is also a pre 1910 rifle. If you know M1903 traits at all, you would not argue this.

This is BEYOND beating a dead horse. It's arguing the same stuff over and over.

This pic taken in France in very late 1917, is a Marine Mount M1903 built by WRA. This rifle is a PRE-1910 rifle. The stock, handguard, and rear sight on this rifle all pre date 1910 by the traits. That isn't a coincidence.



My rifle next to it.

[cplnorton]

Jim also posted the fake rifle out of Senich's book, and takes books as gospel. But he ignores that Brophy came to the same conclusion I did.

This is from Brophy's book. The pic in his book, is from the WWI Winchester files.




I had a researcher copy the pic from Brophy's book at Cody. Here is the same rifle that Brophy identifies as Marine bases next to mine.



- - - Updated - - -

Here is the top view of the WWI WRA Marine Mount pic next to mine. They are identical.



At the end of the day the Marine mount rifles that Winchester built for the Marines and Army in 1917/18 are IDENTICAL in everyway. There are no differences. There is no accurate way to tell if my rifle was a Marine or Army. But the fact that the Marine photo in France is also a pre 1910 rifle like mine ( mine is a 1909) is certainly interesting. Also a rifle about a 1000 digits off my serial is in the WRA WWI docs that looks like a test pattern rifle. Out of the 6 rifles I can identify with Marine mounts by WRA in WWI, 3 are pre 1910. There is some correlation to those pre 1910 rifles and the WRA Marine Mount Snipers.

But the thing about this all. There are only Four of these rifles known to exist. I have one, a very famous Sniper collector owns 2, and one in the Cody Museum. It's by far one of the rarest variations out there.

All four of the rifles can be put side by side and they are identical in everyway, and even have the same build traits. I noticed when I examined all the rifles torn apart and in detail. But I have never detailed any of those traits in public and never will. My hope is to find more, and the only way you will be able to identify them is by those traits.

No one knows yet how to fake one of these rifles and I thank God for that.

[cplnorton]

I'm seriously about to just ignore Jim. But I know there are some who read this stuff and actually want to learn, and that is the only reason I am even still posting research.

But it's just getting really old. It's the same tired argument over and over.

[nf1e]

Thanks for posting cplnorton. No doubt you are ahead of the game when it comes to facts and reality. I have been feeling sorry for the other dude's blathering of what he read in poorly researched books. I run into a couple of guys like that once in awhile when I have threads going on the M14.

[Allen]

I run into a couple of guys like that once in awhile when I have threads going on the M14.

But I'll bet Forrest Gump isn't one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyZSrcuuOf0

[nf1e]

Nope, with a good producer even he can be made to look good.

[lyman]

Norton, please continue to post, and if you need to , put anyone on ignore,

your input is valuable, and we appreciate it,


I'm gonna lock this one for a bit,