Printable View
For anyone interested with 18K . Interesting not the barrel is standard issue .Not Star gaged reference by the site base drawing number . If correct it reinforces not all snipers have star gaged barrels as many assume .
1903A1 USMC Unertl Sniper with documentation : Bolt Action at GunBroker.com
OK so this guy was in the Navy, why would he be issued a USMC sniper rifle?
Jarrod
The rifle may be authentic but I don't think that the scope or the blocks are original to it. The finishes don't match. The rifle's finish is thin on all surfaces but the scope and the blocks look most new. There should be some marks on the tube where it slid in the rings during recoil.
That is a pristine scope and mount on a well used rifle. Something is odd here.
Jim
---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:51 PM ----------
Not all USMC A1 snipers had star gauged barrels. The assumption is incorrect. All were built to match rifle standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt1
Jim
Scope and mounts look way too new, but who knows.
Isn't that handguard a post-WWII replacement?
Everything I can see about the rifle/scope is ''correct'' except for the rear scope block not being butted up to the back of the rear sight base. What I can't see are the polished receiver rails and the staked guard screws, or this rifle's s/n on the signed statement.
On the star guage issue, all barrels were star gauged but not all barrels got the star mark.
On the rear base being against the rear sight base, reliable sources have told me that that was not done consistently and one should not go by that.
On the scope being newer than the rifle, these scopes were often refurbished and refinished but even more likely is that the scope was not always with any given rifle.
On it being associated with the Navy, I was told the navy used some of these rifles to take out mines. Not sure if that is totally reliable but the Navy and USMC work together a lot.
On the rifle in general, I am not seeing enough to convince me that it is the real deal. It could be but the odds are against it. Just too risky without more proof. I would consult several more knowing before I got involved with a purchase.
I would like to see the punch mark on the bottom of the barrel directly under the front base. I would also expect to see a match stock and the rifle number on the stock near the rear sling slot. Also, to see were the barrel was floated in the barrel channel would be useful.
Mike Here`s what I see . Just an opinion . The barrel is standard issue. Not star gaged . Should be 64112 but could be correct & original to this rifle since any barrel that shot good was used . Punch mark in the bomb indicates a Springfield assembled rifle but still could be correct if the sniper was built on this rifle using the original barrel . . The sight bases are smooth repros . Square cornors . Most likely Steve Earls The Bolt is a very late bolt used on 1939 rifles , But could be any late bolt .B2 NS/7 .No pic of the gas hole . A D1 bolt should have 2 The rear sight base is not butted per Big Larry . Even the base of a 03 sniper in Senichs book is not butted against the rear sight . It is said they could be in any location even crooked /canted to the bore . NO CNCs back then . You are correct. Needs pics of the inside of the stock floating barrel , punch mark ,Shaved trigger housing ,CV marked sears ect . polished rails & punch mark . Grinding marks around the Hatcher hole ?? Hatcher hole became standard around 1497xxx IMO .May be to suggest a MC hatcher drill .Stock markings look correct in the cutoff notch S/9 .I don`t think this stock should have a serial number . Just the D-1836 or D2817x. Notice No #5 marked late cutoff that would indicate CV steel .The rifle should have all the mods that embodied a NM rifle . All the above are humble observations that would make me want to bid the sum value of the parts . scope alone is worth thosands .
I can go along with the blocks not being butted up to the rear sight but I don't understand why the poeple who built these rifles would take the time to fit all the other parts so they fit just right and then turn around and mount the scope blocks in such a haphazard manner that they ended up canted or crooked.
If you encounter a Marine target/sniper rifle with a set of bases that are crooked or canted, you can rest assured that the Marines did not mount those bases! As for the 1941A1 snipers, please don't anyone try to convince me that the Philadelphia Depot would have turned out shoddy or crappy work. They actually made the majority of the Mann-Niedner bases used on the A5's, and probably made the Unertl bases as well. They were world class machinists/gunsmiths - period. Every base would have been mounted identical to all the others. Every handguard would have looked like the others. They did not have a bunch of Privates mounting this stuff. Show me a documented 1941A1 Marine sniper rifle with a rear base not butted up to the rear base - just one.
jt
Sir here is a thread from another forum discussing the famous photo of a Marine firing a 03 Unertl Siniper across the Han river in Korea . Take note of the reply from a member that had shot the rifle that still exists today .
I thought the forum might be interested to know that the rifle shown in the photo still exists. It was in fact sporterized in Korea (a captioned photograph verifies this) and was recently returned to its "original" condition. Further, if this rifle showed up at a gun show it would be berated as a fake. That is because the rear sight mount is canted off to the side; however, not enough that the scope cannot be properly sighted. I had a chance to shoot this rifle a while ago and it was indeed an honor.
Someone needs to explain how they know it is the same rifle. A "captioned photo" means nothing. The rifle in the photo was captured by the North Koreans and recaptured by the Marines. How did it get left in Korea? Who left it there and who sporterized it? Sounds like a real good BS story to me, but I am willing to listen to a good tale any old day. I stand by my original statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt1
jt
. Obviously your mind is made and I am NOt trying to change it . I can tell you that a 1939 NM rifle serial# 15266xx verified by J Beard also has a slight left canted rear mount base .. Appears the machinist at Philly MC depot did botch a few intentionally or unintentionally ? Concerning sight bases butted against the rear sight ?? Check your Shenichs book You may find one of the rifles in his photographs has a non butted base . Is it the proof you seek ? I never say never.. I find a myopic view offen results in one missing a treasure . Thanks for the exchange .
Here`s the thread from Culvers concerning the 03 Korean sniper
USMC Sniper in Korea
Actually, I have changed my mind on many fronts, but I simply cannot picture the Philly Depot releasing a sniper rifle with an obvious canted rear base. They didn't mount those bases with a hand drill. Those guys mounted hundreds of bases, and they knew the proper procedure to align the holes. I suspect they used a jig, and someone inspected their work after they finished. They didn't do passable work, they were experts in their fields. I just don't buy it. I once worked at Albany (Philly's successor), and they start you out safety wiring for weeks on end. You progress slowly and meticulously. Those old guys did superb work, and so did Philly.
jt
Some of the rifles in Senich's book are fake. And, while we're at it, some of the rifles in Brophy's book are fake also. I don't say this in criticism of their work. Indeed, I deeply appreciate their books. I'm just stating facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt1
J.B.
Thank you JB for the post . Actually I did agree at least 90% with JT on the 1942assembly requirements at Philly . I didn`t want to be the first to use the "F " word reguarding Senich . I could see nothing wrong with beating the dead Horse to see where the discussion would lead . However I still am not convinced ALL sniper blocks were butted to the sight base ie 30s 5A Lyman scope blocks,, What`s to preclude one of those SA Assembled rifles from falling into the mix ? Any thoughts ?
"If you are too old to learn something new Then You always were"
I would be very, very skeptical of a USMC Unertl sniper rifle in which the rear scope block was not butted against the rear sight base.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lt1
J.B.
Interesting thread and thanks to all for commenting. The more of these I look at, the more I see on auctions, the more I read on the internet, the more folks I talk to, the more I see in magazines and reference books, the more diverse information I get.