WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle Model of 1917 (1903 Springfield rifle) information

[1903Collector]

A FEW QUESTIONS:

WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle Model of 1917 - I have acquired what I believe to be a WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle Model of 1917 (1903 Springfield rifle) within the correct serial number range according to Harrison. The rifle with well hidden plugged scope mount block holes in the receiver where the SN is and on the barrel with a matching SA 1917 barrel of the approximate correct month of the manufacture date of the receiver.
Winchester A5 scope - I have a Winchester A5 scope with the grasshopper spring and have purchased a newly manufactured set of color case Mann-Nieder Scope Mount blocks.

Question - can I directly solder the color case scope blocks to the parkerized barrel and receiver or do I need to remove the Manganese Phosphate from the matching surface location?

Question - Do I need to do anything to the undersides of the color case scope blocks as well?

Question - Were there variants of the Win A5 scope? The drawn images of the bottom of the scope rings (as seen on page 161 in THE COLLECTABLE '03 by J.C. Harrison look different than the WWII model of 1943 rifle with the Lyman Scope in page 166.

As the images are drawn and not photos is this just due to the artist?

Question - Same concern about the differences between the top of the handguards where the front scope ring is attached to the barrel. The image of the handguard shown of the WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle Model of 1917 does not look like the contour has been modified where as the image of the handguard shown of the WWII model of 1943 rifle with the Lyman Scope shows a custom contour.

Is the drawn handguard shown of the WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle Model of 1917 correct as it looks like it is not modified at all (with, of course, the exception of the pass thru hole for the scope block)?

[John Beard]

The information you have provided raises far more questions than providing a basis for reasonable answers. Your use of Harrison's book as a reference is very highly questionable. If you can oblige us with a serial number and some photos of what you have, perhaps we can answer your questions and oblige you with some good advice.

Thanks for sharing. And Happy Holidays!

J.B.

[1903Collector]

Please elaborate on your opinion that my "use of Harrison's book as a reference is very highly questionable."

I agree, pics of those images would have been helpful, but I assumed that knowledgeable '03 collectors owned at least Harrison and Poyer's works. Yes, I acknowledge there are some discrepancies between them, and yes they both use there own "type" designations.

I have found very few photo images of the USMC Telescopic Sight rifle Model of 1917. Harrison uses only drawings and Poyer does nor reference the USMC Telescopic Sight rifle Model of 1917 at all (Just the gawd awful Warner Swasey models of 1908 and 1913 . (as bad as that scope was, Id kill to own one of those rifles and almost acquired one two separate times, but I could not justify the price asked.

I dont see how pics are necessary for my solder question!?!?!?

[John Beard]

Please elaborate on your opinion that my "use of Harrison's book as a reference is very highly questionable."

I agree, pics of those images would have been helpful, but I assumed that knowledgeable '03 collectors owned at least Harrison and Poyer's works. Yes, I acknowledge there are some discrepancies between them, and yes they both use there own "type" designations.

I have found very few photo images of the USMC Telescopic Sight rifle Model of 1917. Harrison uses only drawings and Poyer does nor reference the USMC Telescopic Sight rifle Model of 1917 at all (Just the gawd awful Warner Swasey models of 1908 and 1913 . (as bad as that scope was, Id kill to own one of those rifles and almost acquired one two separate times, but I could not justify the price asked.

I don't see how pics are necessary for my solder question!?!?!?

I am not aware of any WWI USMC Telescopic Rifle formally designated as "Model of 1917." The USMC did indeed have telescopic rifles in WWI, but they came in at least two different variants. I am further not aware of any USMC Winchester A5 telescopes with grasshopper springs. Some Winchester A5 telescopes did indeed come with grasshopper springs, but the USMC didn't use any that I am aware of. And most USMC telescopic rifles came in distinct serial ranges, but without advising a serial number, we don't know which variant you have or if it's authentic, since many fakes and reproductions exist.

Good Luck with soldering on the bases.

J.B.

p.s.,

I don't have Harrison's and Poyer's books because I personally consider them virtually worthless.

[Chuckindenver]

you need to remove,,any finish, were you solder, it has to be cleaned with a stainless steel brush as well, as does the bases

[1903Collector]

please ignore, posted on wrong discussion string somehow.

[1903Collector]

Got it, THANKS!

[Promo]

I had to re-read your posts a few times to fully understand you .. so you have a M1903 from 1917 which has scope holes both on the receiver and on the barrel? You now bought bases and a scope.


Are you aware that the "Grasshopper Mount" is in need of different bases than the "Mann-Neidner Mount"? The "Grasshopper Mount" is the original mount as Winchester has designed them, the mount is dovetailed either from front or rear to these bases and then affixed in place with a screw. The "Mann Neidner Mount" is an improvement (well, at least a modification) by eliminating the "Grasshopper" and using a different rear scope ring, additionally the bases are tapered dovetails and the mount locks on the bases simply by recoil. The bases on those two are NOT interchangeable. Additionally the handguard therefore also needs a different inletting to be able to put the scope on the rifle as well as to remove it.



To be able to determine what you have pictures would be helpful. Already the location and spacing between the screw holes would be telltale as to what you are in need of.

[cplstevennorton]

It sounds like you bought the wrong bases for the scope. You cannot use a set of Mann Niedner bases with the stock Winchester A5 scope with the grasshopper spring.

As promo already detailed. The Marines used two different versions of the A5 sniper in WWI. The Mann Niedner used tapered blocks that have an internal plunger system and that scope does not require the grasshopper spring. The Springfield Marine blocks made by Winchester use a dovetail and thumbscrew design, with a grasshopper spring.

What has confused people over the decades is you have two very distinct rifles being run during WWI.

If you have a grasshopper spring on your A5 scope you will need a different set of bases than the Mann Niedners. The standard A5 scope used by the Marines in WWI used bases that were called the Springfield Marine by WRA. Those are basically hens teeth and impossible to find. The Unertl O & E are very, very close and would work, as long as they have the hole drilled in the side of the block for the WRA thumbscrew.

The spacing of the drilling and tapping of the rifle between Mann Niedner and Winchester Springfield Marine are totally different as well. The blocks are not interchangeable. So if you rifle is already drilled for one or another you need to figure out what spacing you have first. If you post pics I can tell you. The handguards between the two are totally different as well.

You mention something about a change in markings on the scope from WWI and WWII? I'm not sure if you know but WRA sold the rights to their A5 scope to Lyman and Lyman made a copy after about 1928. Maybe that is what you mean?

But here are the two rifles used by the Marines as sniper rifles in the WWI era, both pics were taken in France in WWI.

This is the WWI Mann Niedner. It used a tappered block design with internal spring plunger to tighten up the scope.



This is the standard A5 scope with the Grasshopper spring on WRA Springfield Marine bases taken in France around December 1917. Winchester built these rifles for the Marines after the Marines fired Adolf Niedner in early 1917.

[1903Collector]

WOW! Great reply and info. I am still a bit concerned though, so I need to study and perhaps ask more questions (demonstrating either my ignorance, misconceptions, or blind trust in the reference books I use).

First, thanks for wading thru my, perhaps less than clear, original post. It may have been too much. Your reply had me re-read the chapters in each of my reference books and many questions were answered, or at least seem clearer. Harrison, it seems, may have invented the reference of the WWI A5 scoped rifle as "model of 1917). There are also some inconsistencies between Canfield and Brophy, and scant information in Poyer's and Harrison's work. Some of the info (specifically as found in Brophy) seemed to differ a bit with your reply, but you steered me towards a much better path...even if I the better info was different from my initial "understandings".

After re-reading Brophy and Canfield I now understand what you meant by "The Mann-Niedner used tapered blocks that have an internal plunger system..." Ive got the Mann-Neidner blocks, BUT, I have not determined of the scope bases are tapered. I dont think so because both front and back mount have thumb screws. BUT, they are not too dissimilar from the O&E blocks otherwise.

Ive got the grasshopper scope version and the rifle I hope to end up with should look like the 2nd to last pic you provided (the very clear color pic). Im still confused what scope bases were used for that scope? I begin to conclude that my scope is not a USMC modified version and that I will have to use O&E blocks.

Ive re-read my initial post and as I thought I recalled, I didnt make any mention of difference in scope markings. And yes, I am aware of the Lyman acquisition of the Win Optics division and change of the scope name to 5-A (not very imaginative, LOL!)

In any case, again, many thanks for your thoughtful reply.

One last observation, Ive read all the responses and am troubled to see conflicting opinions. However, I have read some replies on different topics here and there even I knew some were incorrect. Your replies, in my observations, have always seemed clear and factual. Could you tell me what your source(s) of information are. I have only the wonderful, and as we all know always accurate internet, and 1903 Collector's books by Harrison, Poyer, Brophy and Canfield. If there are other sources Id like to know and see what I can acquire.

Cheers, David