Quote Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
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.