-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Baddest military action - based target/sniper rifle
- Thread starter Forgetful Coyote
- Start date
I had never heard of them either until coyote brought them up. Not a very comparable rifle really due to it's limited distribution.
However, it is a beautiful rifle and therefore worth the read. I will say, though, the 51 is a descendant of the 1917. The model 70 not so much. Much more of an improved version, directly descended from the Mauser. As was the 54.
I remember reading how Winchester was concerned/puzzled with how the M52 was widely used as a target rifle in many different matches across the competition circuit, yet its centerfire cousin M54 was not... which they overhauled into the M70 in various medium/heavy barrel and stock target versions and marketed them heavily as such, leading to M70s becoming highly favored for competitions for several decades even up to today. That said, Id still jump on a M54 over a M70 if both are equal condition just for the cool-as-hell factor. Unfortunately I think all the 54s were lightweight sporters and many not even d/t'd for optics. Regardless I would still love to have one.
sandwarrior buffalowinter - have ya ever heard a definitive reason for Mr. Mauser using the "stepped" barrel contour? I cant imagine it has much in the way of anything to do with favorable harmonics with that specific contour, we're talking about a service rifle, albeit a very high quality one in most cases but still a straight up fighting rifle. Ive read that it was actually due to the barrels expanding longitudinally as they heated up, and using the stepped contour made for better accuracy/easier inletting and fitting within the stock to allow for said stretching. Using a taper contour would lead to a walking POI as the barrel expanded/stretched due to the ramping effect since it aint free floating from the stock/forend... hope Im explaining this easily enough. Anyhow, that reasoning makes sense to me, but I wanted to see if ya ever'd come across anything close to a official explanation..?
sandwarrior buffalowinter - have ya ever heard a definitive reason for Mr. Mauser using the "stepped" barrel contour? I cant imagine it has much in the way of anything to do with favorable harmonics with that specific contour, we're talking about a service rifle, albeit a very high quality one in most cases but still a straight up fighting rifle. Ive read that it was actually due to the barrels expanding longitudinally as they heated up, and using the stepped contour made for better accuracy/easier inletting and fitting within the stock to allow for said stretching. Using a taper contour would lead to a walking POI as the barrel expanded/stretched due to the ramping effect since it aint free floating from the stock/forend... hope Im explaining this easily enough. Anyhow, that reasoning makes sense to me, but I wanted to see if ya ever'd come across anything close to a official explanation..?
Coyote,
There were target versions of the 54
Just not as common. Configuration was a lot less exaggerated than what you would see in model 70's. Think of how early 70 target rifles had standard weight barrels. When "heavy barrels" first came along, they were about the same as a light varmint barrel. As we saw more European influence, the stocks got more radical. As to taking a 54 over a 70, you would have to say which one? Pre or post? Also, what barrel?
As for stepping barrels on military rifles it was for stiffening the barrel where vibration and heat did the most. It's having a heavy barrel where it matters (for accuracy), and not, when you don't (weight savings). And, where heat can change the hardness, thus poi is affected. Harmonics and poi. FWIW, these were tested heavily in number of countries that adopted the Mauser system.
There were target versions of the 54
Just not as common. Configuration was a lot less exaggerated than what you would see in model 70's. Think of how early 70 target rifles had standard weight barrels. When "heavy barrels" first came along, they were about the same as a light varmint barrel. As we saw more European influence, the stocks got more radical. As to taking a 54 over a 70, you would have to say which one? Pre or post? Also, what barrel?
As for stepping barrels on military rifles it was for stiffening the barrel where vibration and heat did the most. It's having a heavy barrel where it matters (for accuracy), and not, when you don't (weight savings). And, where heat can change the hardness, thus poi is affected. Harmonics and poi. FWIW, these were tested heavily in number of countries that adopted the Mauser system.
The price on that reflects that it's a Griffen and Howe. Not that it's a model 54 target. If it's even that. Everything there is aftermarket. Griffen and Howe did a good job, and the price of the rifle reflects that.
No doubt the G&H's and their ilk are beautiful rifles, basically the American Holland & Holland. Wasnt trying to say anything about the price, I just thought it was a very cool old custom, really want to do one like this except maybe a 7mm AI or some such instead. Have to wonder what the build year wouldve been, cant imagine many competitors wouldve gone with a 54 if a M70 was available? Though I could be wrong..
The 54 had the same tenon length as a M70 correct? So maybe as a base action to build on the M70 doesnt have much advantage over a 54 and hence it dont really matter? I cant imagine a pre war M70 would have any higher built in quality than a M54?
National championship for what?
Added: I see, it's USA Shooting. I was thinking CMP/NRA at Camp Perry
Last edited:
sandwarrior - just wanted to ask, aint laminate stocks better at repelling water than classic style woods? Why did we use walnut all thru the years and not wood laminates?
My understanding is that laminates are more stable to moisture because you have grain patterns that overlap and support one another.
Straight grain solid wood will warp/move toward its weakness.
Laminates should "homogenize" the wood as each layer of laminate should strengthen the layer underneath/above it.
As far as repelling water its still wood and the water repellency will only be as good as what is applied to repel water. The glue if vacuum/pressure introduced to the cells of the wood should be a better waterproofing agent than wiped on linseed oil but your screwed if the moisture is able to defeat the glue and cause delamination.
I think they have that pretty well figured out though as I havenet heard of many laminate stocks shedding into slivers.
Straight grain solid wood will warp/move toward its weakness.
Laminates should "homogenize" the wood as each layer of laminate should strengthen the layer underneath/above it.
As far as repelling water its still wood and the water repellency will only be as good as what is applied to repel water. The glue if vacuum/pressure introduced to the cells of the wood should be a better waterproofing agent than wiped on linseed oil but your screwed if the moisture is able to defeat the glue and cause delamination.
I think they have that pretty well figured out though as I havenet heard of many laminate stocks shedding into slivers.
Last edited:
Yes, they are better
TheThe reason we didn't was about WWI is when it was recognized that wood was not replenishing itself in enough quantity and quality for making stocks. That would be mostly walnut and birch. So that was about the time glues we're experimented with that could withstand water and oils. The initial idea was to replace solid wood stocks. It wasn't until we started using them awhile that we found them to be better. They didn't really take off in this country until the nineties.
There is also the fact that solid wood can be made to look a lot better. We like how our weapons look.
TheThe reason we didn't was about WWI is when it was recognized that wood was not replenishing itself in enough quantity and quality for making stocks. That would be mostly walnut and birch. So that was about the time glues we're experimented with that could withstand water and oils. The initial idea was to replace solid wood stocks. It wasn't until we started using them awhile that we found them to be better. They didn't really take off in this country until the nineties.
There is also the fact that solid wood can be made to look a lot better. We like how our weapons look.
Thank you sir. So reckon I was a bit off the mark, regardless I was under the impression laminates stood up to conditions and wet/tropical/humid environments better which appears to be the case from how Im understanding your explanation? So why aint we use laminate stocks on our Garands, M14s, etc when we were churning em out? They wouldve handled the island hopping and places like Bastogne, and later 'Nam, better, no?
On the topic of the US service rifle, was there a valid reason we didnt bring back the 173gr FMJBT .30-06 load for WW2? Was the powder used in the 173gr load too slow for the Garand or some such? Cause that was a pretty good performing bullet for the times and Im sure made for a helluva machine gun load..?? Or was it that after the move back to the 150s for range limitations or whatever, the war started and we just figured the 150gr bullets were good enough?
Did the 173gr ammo see any use in the war? I know Carlos Hathcock used the 173gr bullets but cant remember if it was a match load or service rifle load..? Any idea what ammo Brophy was using in Korea?
Thanks for replying Mr Mclaine always a pleasure!
Blake
We in America have an abundance of wood.
Europe, especially war economy Germany, not so much.
For all it mattered in a 4 MOA spec rifle our abundance of walnut made it uneconomical to have a laminating operation for rifle stocks.
The wood stability issue seems to have only really came to be a concern when we started to take the art of sniping seriously. By than we had plastic service rifles.
Currently the situation has changed.
Solid, old growth, wood suitable for rifle stocks is no longer abundant. Laminating is an economical alternative and will provide a stable stock.
Europe, especially war economy Germany, not so much.
For all it mattered in a 4 MOA spec rifle our abundance of walnut made it uneconomical to have a laminating operation for rifle stocks.
The wood stability issue seems to have only really came to be a concern when we started to take the art of sniping seriously. By than we had plastic service rifles.
Currently the situation has changed.
Solid, old growth, wood suitable for rifle stocks is no longer abundant. Laminating is an economical alternative and will provide a stable stock.
Last edited:
Coyote,
pmc gave a very good explanation of what can happen with glues and other chemicals used to adhere the layers together. It was pretty much the Germans who developed laminate stocks. The rest of Europe and Russia followed as they were the ones short on wood. The wars were fought in their backyards not ours. Thus why we stayed with solids. Something else to consider is the wood needs to dry/cure. You can dry it a lot faster in thin slices than full thickness stocks. You also don't need all full length pieces to make a stock.
An even better example of laminates being used was German props. Unlike the U.S. and G.B. who used aluminum and steel, their blades, right up to the end of WWII were made of laminated wood. They could be repaired on-site in as little as one night. And, complete blades built on site.
To your question of why not use the 173 gr. It started with McArthur denying use of the .276 Pederson. He wanted to use old stocks of M1906. In the meantime we developed the 173 gr. (M1) for use in the Garand. He put an end to it's use as we were supposed to use up old stock. The M1906 fouled a lot and didn't work so well in the Garand. It didn't affect the 1903's as they weren't gas operated.
Another "issue" was the 173's shot too far. So, we developed a 150 gr. bullet with some of the attributes of the M1 round. We dubbed that M2 Ball. When that came on line, McArthur had already moved on to the Philippines. FWIW, we ended up pulling down billions of M1906 rounds post WWII. Later we pulled down billions of M1 and M2. My uncle worked in Hawthorne where they did that.
Added:
I need to add here that because of glue holding the strips, it is stronger than a solid stock. A glue bond will beat a natural bond any day. It's been tested time and again.
pmc gave a very good explanation of what can happen with glues and other chemicals used to adhere the layers together. It was pretty much the Germans who developed laminate stocks. The rest of Europe and Russia followed as they were the ones short on wood. The wars were fought in their backyards not ours. Thus why we stayed with solids. Something else to consider is the wood needs to dry/cure. You can dry it a lot faster in thin slices than full thickness stocks. You also don't need all full length pieces to make a stock.
An even better example of laminates being used was German props. Unlike the U.S. and G.B. who used aluminum and steel, their blades, right up to the end of WWII were made of laminated wood. They could be repaired on-site in as little as one night. And, complete blades built on site.
To your question of why not use the 173 gr. It started with McArthur denying use of the .276 Pederson. He wanted to use old stocks of M1906. In the meantime we developed the 173 gr. (M1) for use in the Garand. He put an end to it's use as we were supposed to use up old stock. The M1906 fouled a lot and didn't work so well in the Garand. It didn't affect the 1903's as they weren't gas operated.
Another "issue" was the 173's shot too far. So, we developed a 150 gr. bullet with some of the attributes of the M1 round. We dubbed that M2 Ball. When that came on line, McArthur had already moved on to the Philippines. FWIW, we ended up pulling down billions of M1906 rounds post WWII. Later we pulled down billions of M1 and M2. My uncle worked in Hawthorne where they did that.
Added:
I need to add here that because of glue holding the strips, it is stronger than a solid stock. A glue bond will beat a natural bond any day. It's been tested time and again.
Last edited:
I know you said no model 700's allowed, hope you can forgive me for having a few cool ones in the photo 
We've already established that YOUR Rem 700's can join the party!I know you said no model 700's allowed, hope you can forgive me for having a few cool ones in the photo
What is the barrel on the bottom rifle?
I'm partial to the 1903(A1) USMC Unertl snipers. They were all built on NM or rebarreled NM rifles the Marines called Special Target rifles.
This one was sent to the Marines either in the 1935 or 1936 NM shipment, and was rebarreled by the Marines probably in 1939 or 1940. I have never shot it past a 100 yards, or with hand loads or NM ammo. But with 1950's M2 Lake City and at a 100 yards, it groups about 1.25''.
I have another Unertl Sniper that still has it's original SA Star Guaged barrel, and it was in the 1937 NM shipment. It groups the same as this Special Target.
I have been curious what it would shoot if I used some hand loads or match ammo. And I would love to take it out to 500 yards or so and stretch it's legs.
This one was sent to the Marines either in the 1935 or 1936 NM shipment, and was rebarreled by the Marines probably in 1939 or 1940. I have never shot it past a 100 yards, or with hand loads or NM ammo. But with 1950's M2 Lake City and at a 100 yards, it groups about 1.25''.
I have another Unertl Sniper that still has it's original SA Star Guaged barrel, and it was in the 1937 NM shipment. It groups the same as this Special Target.
I have been curious what it would shoot if I used some hand loads or match ammo. And I would love to take it out to 500 yards or so and stretch it's legs.
A very close second would be the Marine Free High Pressure rifles. Even though these look like International Matches. They are not. The Marines custom built everyone of these. They usually used Free High Pressure Heavy barrels either by WRA or I have seen mention of some Remington Barrels in the Marine docs. Usually they were 28'' barrels.
I don't think any of these exist anymore. In the 1930's, they ordered all to have the barrels removed and scrapped, and the rest broken down for parts.
The Marines replaced these first with the WRA model 54's, but then shortly after purchased their first Model 70's.
These were used a lot in the 1000 yards any sight, any rifles matches.
I would love to own one and be able to take it out and shoot it. But like I said, it sounds like none exist anymore. At least any that were Marine.
I don't think any of these exist anymore. In the 1930's, they ordered all to have the barrels removed and scrapped, and the rest broken down for parts.
The Marines replaced these first with the WRA model 54's, but then shortly after purchased their first Model 70's.
These were used a lot in the 1000 yards any sight, any rifles matches.
I would love to own one and be able to take it out and shoot it. But like I said, it sounds like none exist anymore. At least any that were Marine.
A close third is a variation used by the Marines and Army that really isn't even discussed in books. I found documents on them when I did research at the Cody archives, and then we found a huge amount of docs on them at the National Archives.
It's by far not the best sniper, but it's still sort of really a neat piece for being WWI technology.
In 1917, Adolf Niedner mounted scopes on a 150 M1903 rifles for the Marines. He was supposed to mount more, but was accused of being a potential German Saboteur and was basically fired.
The Marines four days later turned to Winchester to finish out the Contract and in 1917 WRA mounted 500 A5's on M1903's ,provided by the Marines.
The Army also had WRA mount 900 A5 scopes on rifles provided by Springfield Armory in 1918, when delays in the Warner Swasey's and the WRA Model of 1918 Sniper caused them to order these rifles for emergency training.
I don't know if these rifles just don't exist anymore, or it's just because they have never been covered in a book and no one knows anything about them and they are still out there undiscovered. But we know of 4 rifles that still exist. 3 in private hands, and one in the Cody Museum. Reading the Marines docs, and then the Army files as well. It sounds like most of these were broken down for parts, or the holes were plugged and converted back to standard service rifles. And because they were low numbers, at least the Army ones would have mostly likely been scrapped.
Here is the rifle in France in late 1917, and also compared to an original. The blocks are very similar to Unertl's O&E that were used on the USMC Unertl Snipers in WWII. In fact expect for minor differences, it looks like John Unertl basically copied the WWI WRA design.
Winchester nicknamed these blocks the "Springfield Marine."
If anyone on here has one of these rifles, or thinks they might. Please contact me. I've been researching these for years and I would love to find more.
It's by far not the best sniper, but it's still sort of really a neat piece for being WWI technology.
In 1917, Adolf Niedner mounted scopes on a 150 M1903 rifles for the Marines. He was supposed to mount more, but was accused of being a potential German Saboteur and was basically fired.
The Marines four days later turned to Winchester to finish out the Contract and in 1917 WRA mounted 500 A5's on M1903's ,provided by the Marines.
The Army also had WRA mount 900 A5 scopes on rifles provided by Springfield Armory in 1918, when delays in the Warner Swasey's and the WRA Model of 1918 Sniper caused them to order these rifles for emergency training.
I don't know if these rifles just don't exist anymore, or it's just because they have never been covered in a book and no one knows anything about them and they are still out there undiscovered. But we know of 4 rifles that still exist. 3 in private hands, and one in the Cody Museum. Reading the Marines docs, and then the Army files as well. It sounds like most of these were broken down for parts, or the holes were plugged and converted back to standard service rifles. And because they were low numbers, at least the Army ones would have mostly likely been scrapped.
Here is the rifle in France in late 1917, and also compared to an original. The blocks are very similar to Unertl's O&E that were used on the USMC Unertl Snipers in WWII. In fact expect for minor differences, it looks like John Unertl basically copied the WWI WRA design.
Winchester nicknamed these blocks the "Springfield Marine."
If anyone on here has one of these rifles, or thinks they might. Please contact me. I've been researching these for years and I would love to find more.
cplorton,
A guy I sold my 1942 Savage made No. 4 Mk. 1* to in North Carolina(?) knew a bunch about these as I had asked him about WWI sniper rifles. He was on here but I can't recall his screen name. And, of course, all the correspondence is in storage out in Idaho. Anyways, he's on here and lurking in the firearms for sale section a lot as well as posing here in vintage. That was in the past, though. I can't say I've seen his name lately, or through any of the changes.
IIRC, it was 303Savage(?) or something like that.
A guy I sold my 1942 Savage made No. 4 Mk. 1* to in North Carolina(?) knew a bunch about these as I had asked him about WWI sniper rifles. He was on here but I can't recall his screen name. And, of course, all the correspondence is in storage out in Idaho. Anyways, he's on here and lurking in the firearms for sale section a lot as well as posing here in vintage. That was in the past, though. I can't say I've seen his name lately, or through any of the changes.
IIRC, it was 303Savage(?) or something like that.
That would be great, I'm always love to talk to others and see what their research has made them conclude.
It's actually a rather neat topic. We found probably over a thousand pages of docs on them between the archives, and it's just a cool story honestly.
Like a really cool fact, the Marines got these rifles first in 1917. The Army wrote WRA in Jan 1918, and basically said they wanted the exact rifles the Marines got in 1917.
And even though these rifles really aren't mentioned in the books, the Army made these rifles the official sniper (Temporarily) in late 1918. Right before the war ended. I want to say it was July 1918. But I would have to pull the document. But the Army made them the offical sniper as they were waiting on the new one to be delivered from WRA. So it was official, but mentioned to be basically a placeholder till the new rifle arrived.
The Army had ordered almost a 100k Model of 1918 snipers off WRA. That 100k includes complete rifles with scopes and a large order of spare scopes as well. But WRA was having trouble getting the Model of 1918 scope to handle the recoil. And none ever made it past testing before the war ended and the contract was cancelled.
The Model of 1918 WRA sniper was a 1917 rifle that was sporterized, with the Model of 1918 scope, which was a copy of the German Goerz design that SA had trialed before the start of WWI.
This is the Model of 1918 Sniper pictured in the WRA files from 1918.
How does the Warner Swazey fit into the WWI mix.
It all seems to be kind of a mess.
I think the allied powers found themselves in a scrum and the only ones that provided suitable for war optical instruments was on the axis side.
It all seems to be kind of a mess.
I think the allied powers found themselves in a scrum and the only ones that provided suitable for war optical instruments was on the axis side.
Re: Warner Swasey
There were about 1500 of these assembled and used in WWI. By far the more prevalent U.S. system.
I did find it surprising about what happened to A.O. Niedner during all this.
There were about 1500 of these assembled and used in WWI. By far the more prevalent U.S. system.
I did find it surprising about what happened to A.O. Niedner during all this.
Perhaps but by all accounts a disaster.
Unsure if true, perhaps CplNorton could corroborate, but Marines would piss on the side mount to rust it in place in order to help maintain zero.
Perhaps the origin of "This is my rifle, this is my gun,,,,,,"
Yeah you are exactly right. See the US Army adopted the Warner Swasey, and even the Marines purchased a few off the Army.
But SA was never happy with the Warner Swasey and was constantly looking for an upgrade. They actually became fixated on the German Glass, Goerz and Carl Zeiss scopes. They fitted both to the M1903 and seemed to be heading in the direction of adopting one of them as the replacement for the Warner Swasey. Then WWI started in 1914, and SA couldn't get them because they were German.
So they were almost stuck with the Warner Swasey, as they weren't happy with any of the US scopes they trialed after the German ones. When the war started in 1917, WRA reached out to the US Army and told them they were developing a new scope, the Model of 1918 scope. And it would be superior to anything available. WRA said it was based on the Goerz design.
The Army was sold on it, before WRA ever had a working model. And as I stated above, WRA never could pass the trials with the scope.
Delays in receiving the Model of 1918 WRA sniper, caused the US Army to have 900 A5's mounted on Army M1903's in 1918 at Winchester. These were supposed to be temproary placeholders till the Model of 1918 would be finished. And they were the exact rifles that the Marines had received in 1917 in every detail.
In the end of 1918, the contract was basically cancelled at wars end, even though there is a little more to this story on the Model of 1918, and actually Frankford Arsenal picked up the design in the 1920's and tried to make a working copy of the scope as well, but didn't succeed either.
And in the end the whole thing was scrapped.
Last edited:
I did find it surprising about what happened to A.O. Niedner during all this.
Yeah I don't think anyone knows about it. I have posted about it on other forums, but it's never been in books or anything. But basically Niedner was supposed to mount 1650 scopes on Marine M1903's. He mounted the first 150, and was taking a vacation to WI and coming back to do the other 1500.
Before he left he went to a bar and said Un-American statements, and since he was a German Immigrant, someone contacted the FBI. And they launched a full investigation on him starting in June 1917. The investigation continuned until 1919, when they finally seemed to clear him of the charges. Or at least not bring charges against him.
But it basically cancelled his Marine contract, and the FBI was concerned he had sabotaged his rifles he built for the Marines.
Four days after the FBI went to the Philly Arsenal to look for Niedner, the Marines contacted WRA, and gave them the Contract Niedner had.
Here is one small snippet from the FBI investigation of Niedner.
I haven't seen a mention of that, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. I've seen the Gasoline and water mention, and I've seen meniton of them staking the screws in the trigger guard.
But this might be interesting to you.
In a way, it almost sounds like industrial sabotage of Niedner. That someone else wanted the contract. Hard to believe that one of America's greatest riflemen would have said this. Even though he was born to German parents in America (1863). I doubt the rest of the people he worked with would have continued working with him if it were really true. Back in that day "sedition" could carry a pretty heavy penalty. All it took was casting a doubt.
As for sabotaging the screws, the guard screws on the action, it would have been easy to see if something had been done to them. Pretty much the same with any screw on the rifle or scope for that matter. I have a hard believing he said or did what he was accused of. Also, how convenient another company was all set up ready to go to get this done.
On another point, I forgot to respond to coyote (last year) about the Swiss 6.5x47 (Lapua). The Swiss were testing a 6.5x48 which got dumped in favor of good 'ol U.S. politicking to get them to adopt the 5.56. Which we know by the name GP90. The starting iteration of the cartridge had a bit too much taper to feed well in anything made for 7.62 or even 7.5x55. Anyhow, the Swiss dropped the idea, kept the 7.5x55 as their sniper round in the
Last edited:
I think in a nutshell the report concludes that he made a comment that was taken as wrong, and that Niedner was a type who would get all worked up, run his mouth, especially when drinking, but didn't mean anything by it. The comments were made at a Bar and it sounds like he was drunk, and might have been rambling.
But they went on a full scale investigation of him, and they interviewed people who knew him for about 2 years.
But see I have a hunch. WRA in the docs was not prepared for the Marine contract, or at least didn't plan on it. They seem to be sort of caught by surprise. As well as the Marines, they didn't seem to plan on this, and as well seem very caught off guard.
But I have a hunch. See how they mention the work was done at the Philadelphia Arsenal? The Marine Philly Depot at this time was not doing repairs on weapons. It really wasn't till the end of 1918, and into 1919, that they set up the capabilities to do small arms repair at the Marine Depot. Before that, the Army had been doing all the small arms work for the Marines.
The Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia, which was only like 10 minutes away, was the only optical repair shop in the whole US Army. They not only repaired optics, but they also mounted them, and they made precision instruments for optics. Everyone thinks of Frankford just as making ammunition. But this isn't true.
But Frankford was involved in more sniper related testing and manufacturing than any Army Depot, including SA. That is the one thing that has surprised me digging in the documents. Frankford was huge into snipers.
I have a hunch that Niedner might have mounted those first 150 at Frankford. It was very close to the Marine depot, and it was already set up to do this kind of work. Niedner could have came in and done his work easily where as the Philly Depot on the other hand, the docs said wasn't capable at this time.
We have Niedner's shop records, and know he did mount the 150 for the Marine Corps, and what he was paid, and when it was done. But there is never a specific mention in the Marine docs, or Niedner's docs on where he did it.
But this is why I think that Frankford connection is interesting. Frankford had a huge population of German Immigrant workers working for them. And the FBI was in there about every week doing checks for sabotage. In fact, I found newspaper articles about how many investigations of German Immigrants were being done at Frankford, and that all German Immigrants should watch anything they say. As any little mis-quote would start a FBI investigation.
I just have a hunch, that Niedner did this work at Frankford, and got caught up in all the paranoia there. And it cost him his contact, and the Marines turned to a backup, WRA to finish it.
But they went on a full scale investigation of him, and they interviewed people who knew him for about 2 years.
But see I have a hunch. WRA in the docs was not prepared for the Marine contract, or at least didn't plan on it. They seem to be sort of caught by surprise. As well as the Marines, they didn't seem to plan on this, and as well seem very caught off guard.
But I have a hunch. See how they mention the work was done at the Philadelphia Arsenal? The Marine Philly Depot at this time was not doing repairs on weapons. It really wasn't till the end of 1918, and into 1919, that they set up the capabilities to do small arms repair at the Marine Depot. Before that, the Army had been doing all the small arms work for the Marines.
The Frankford Arsenal in Philadelphia, which was only like 10 minutes away, was the only optical repair shop in the whole US Army. They not only repaired optics, but they also mounted them, and they made precision instruments for optics. Everyone thinks of Frankford just as making ammunition. But this isn't true.
But Frankford was involved in more sniper related testing and manufacturing than any Army Depot, including SA. That is the one thing that has surprised me digging in the documents. Frankford was huge into snipers.
I have a hunch that Niedner might have mounted those first 150 at Frankford. It was very close to the Marine depot, and it was already set up to do this kind of work. Niedner could have came in and done his work easily where as the Philly Depot on the other hand, the docs said wasn't capable at this time.
We have Niedner's shop records, and know he did mount the 150 for the Marine Corps, and what he was paid, and when it was done. But there is never a specific mention in the Marine docs, or Niedner's docs on where he did it.
But this is why I think that Frankford connection is interesting. Frankford had a huge population of German Immigrant workers working for them. And the FBI was in there about every week doing checks for sabotage. In fact, I found newspaper articles about how many investigations of German Immigrants were being done at Frankford, and that all German Immigrants should watch anything they say. As any little mis-quote would start a FBI investigation.
I just have a hunch, that Niedner did this work at Frankford, and got caught up in all the paranoia there. And it cost him his contact, and the Marines turned to a backup, WRA to finish it.
Like this is the 1918 Description of Frankford Arsenal. It sure sounds like the only place set up for Niedner to do his work in May, June 1917.
The Marine depot in the docs seems like it's up and running by 1919 to repair weapons. Possibly mid to late 1918. But that isn't for sure. But by 1919, they are ready to go for sure.
By the early 20's, I have mentions of the Philly Depot doing all telescopic sight work in house, and they even mention the Mann style tappered blocks are produced in house at the Marine Depot at that time.
But here is the description of Frankford. And Frankford actually had a sniper scope they manufactured in the 20's, and did all the sniper rifle testing and repair. And interesting note, Townsend Whelen was in charge of a lot of this. I always see his name on the documents from the 20's from Frankford.
The Marine depot in the docs seems like it's up and running by 1919 to repair weapons. Possibly mid to late 1918. But that isn't for sure. But by 1919, they are ready to go for sure.
By the early 20's, I have mentions of the Philly Depot doing all telescopic sight work in house, and they even mention the Mann style tappered blocks are produced in house at the Marine Depot at that time.
But here is the description of Frankford. And Frankford actually had a sniper scope they manufactured in the 20's, and did all the sniper rifle testing and repair. And interesting note, Townsend Whelen was in charge of a lot of this. I always see his name on the documents from the 20's from Frankford.
Last thing I'll say on AO Niedner. Your hunch could well be closer to the truth than anything we've heard before. Or, he could have just been there when it was said. I've been a victim of that myself. And if someone wants to bring it on you, they can. And do.
Interesting with the Frankford Arsenal doing so much during WWII. And, of course Townsend Whelen. Another great American rifleman. Charles Newton and Ned Roberts ran in that circle, too.
Interesting with the Frankford Arsenal doing so much during WWII. And, of course Townsend Whelen. Another great American rifleman. Charles Newton and Ned Roberts ran in that circle, too.
In my pile of USMC sniper stuff I purchased from a deceased 2112's widow I found a Belding and Mull 3x truss type mount and scope marked on a faded paper tag USMC sniper trials 1927 IIRC. I have sold most of the items but think I still have that one. It is clear and excellent condition. I have not seen another except in mid 20's American Rifleman ads. Nice set up with good adjustments and very tough but fairly heavy.
That guy had some amazing items.
That guy had some amazing items.
Where the B&M mounts the ones that fit in the cutout for the leaf sight on the rear sight collar of an 03?
I would be very curious to see it. I'm not sure if I have this one. I have a lot from the 20's but I don't think I have this one. They were doing some real frankstein stuff at that time though.
I have one where they mounted a A5 scope and were using the lyman 48 receiver sights as the mount and micrometer for the A5 scope. I have knoble mounts and the A5, and I have some really weird looking Mann Niedner type tappered blocks that I have never seen anywhere before. It's a really weird looking set.
And then there were just some real bannerman type stuff, 1917 bolt handles welded onto 1903 bolts, and weird handguards, and rear sights mounted on bridges of 1903's. They were just trialing everything at that time.
But I would be curious what else was in that group, and I wouldn't mind seeing that pic, if you would be willing to share it. Or trade it for info.
One thing I would be very curious about, what scope are they using? In 1927, Feckers were the main scope the Marines seemed to be using on the team rifles. They bought the feckers in like 1923 or something like that. It was before 1925 I remember. But I'm not sure the exact year.
But usually before the Fecker's all you see are the A5's. And in the late 30's, you see the lyman supertargetspots and then the Unertls.
But I would be curious about that pic and what scope was being used. I don't know that much about that mount to know if a Fecker would fit. Or they had A5's in them? I would be really curious to see the pic.
I imagine it's sort of like the Knoble sight. It replaces the rear sight and is basically a no drill mount.
I know I've seen those Belding and mulls, but it's been years. The Marines did experiment with the Knoble sight in the 20's. I see it mentioned a lot.
But here is the Knoble. I would love to see pics of your Belding and Mull when you get a chance.
Did the 1918 snipers use standard M1917 barrels? Or were they accurized in any way??
You know I have a ton of info on them, but I honestly don't remember. I don't think they ever got past just trial rifles. But WRA was providing 65,000 of these rifles to the Army, so my best guess they wouldn't have done a lot to them. If I get time, I will go back and look. They detail the rifles in great detail. But I can't remember what they say about the barrels.
I don't think this pic has ever been made public. This was a pic of a real barrel on one I found from the WWI era.
You know with 65,000 complete rifles, and roughly 35,000 spare scopes. If this would have happened it would have changed a lot of our history I think on snipers.
That is such a huge amount of Telescopic equipped rifles, especially for the when the contract was ordered, 1917.
But it's interesting to note. The mentions I've seen, and the trials back then. They were really trying to do what the Marines do today with the Acog. They were constantly doing trials for so many different types of sights that could be put on a rifle. Whether it was telescopic or it was Iron sights. There were even some prism type glass optics that were almost like a red dot that went in the drift of a 1903 sight. And one mention in the Marines docs in 1918, talks about a illumination sight for their Crew served Machine guns. It almost sounds like a trijicon type night sight, as they said it glowed in the dark. Who would have thought they had anything like that in 1918?
There were a lot of really neat things that I had never heard or seen. And some of it seemed way more advanced than I would have ever gave them credit for.
That is such a huge amount of Telescopic equipped rifles, especially for the when the contract was ordered, 1917.
But it's interesting to note. The mentions I've seen, and the trials back then. They were really trying to do what the Marines do today with the Acog. They were constantly doing trials for so many different types of sights that could be put on a rifle. Whether it was telescopic or it was Iron sights. There were even some prism type glass optics that were almost like a red dot that went in the drift of a 1903 sight. And one mention in the Marines docs in 1918, talks about a illumination sight for their Crew served Machine guns. It almost sounds like a trijicon type night sight, as they said it glowed in the dark. Who would have thought they had anything like that in 1918?
There were a lot of really neat things that I had never heard or seen. And some of it seemed way more advanced than I would have ever gave them credit for.
"What do yall think would take the cake? Specifically referring to target/sniper rifles built from a military issued battle rifle..".
IMO, the Swedish Model of 1896 has the most impressive history of a standard military bolt action rifle that was adopted at the very end of the 19th century, then became a sniper rifle during WWII, and in the post-war period was further developed into 3 formidable target rifle variants, - specifically designed for 300m competitions. These Swedish target rifles were very competitive, and used in Olympic Biathlons too. The 100 year history includes: M1896 standard infantry rifle - then M41/M41B sniper rifles (circa 1942-1955),- then M1896 FSRs (target sights) - followed by the CG-63s (dedicated 300 meter target rifle circa 1963) - followed by the CG-80s (1980) - and finally the FSR 89s (1989).
The standard M/41 Swedish 6.5x55 military ammo with a very nice and aerodynamic 139 FMJBT bullet is considered by many to be basically 'sniper grade' ammo, which certainly helped the reputation of the M96 model rifle and all its variants. It has been said that the M41B with the standard issue M/41 ammo can be a 1-MOA rifle, and thus perhaps the most accurate sniper rifle of the WWII era. I can not validate that claim, but I have read that Sweden tested their M1896s and only the most accurate rifles were selected to be converted into sniper rifles during WWII. All of the rifles and scopes were rebuilt/updated in the 1950s and continued their service until 1990.
Here's a 10 minute video on the history of the Swedish FSR (volunteer marksman) and the rifles they used, with particular focus on the FSR 89, the last target version of the Swedish Model of 1896. The FSR 89 represents almost 100 years of accuracy refinements based on the old M1896 long rifle....
I have an M41B sniper rifle (built on a 1900 dated action), and a nice CG-63, both are quite accurate. (I briefly had a CG-80 but never shot it, as a serious collector of Swedish rifles talked me out of it - a decision I regret as I have not been able to replace it..) Here's an article on the M41/B, which the author thinks is tied with the British Mk 4 (T) as the two best sniper rifles of the WWII era. http://www.gunsandammo.com/historical/sniper-supreme-model-41b-swedish-mauser/
Attached are some pics of the CG-63, CG-80 (both early and late versions) and a rare FSR 89 owned by the collector who bought my CG-80 (the rifle with the stainless fluted barrel is a customized CG-80, where the FSR 89 is the rifle at the top in those pics). On EDIT: Added a picture of the CG 62 Biathlon rifle which was used to win a gold metal (or two) in the Olympics during the 1960s. (Book, "The Crown Jewels" by Dana Jones). These are not my rifles, but to the original posters question, the Swedish M1896 gets my vote for the "baddest military action - sniper/target rifle" of the 20th century.
The Springfield 1903 comes in 2nd place, but the development of that rifle as a sniper or target rifle effectively ended with the conclusion of the Korean War, and I guess the M1891 Mosin-Nagant gets an honorable mention as it was also used in Finland as a target rifle and sniper rifle in the post-war period - but the Swedes kept perfecting their 1896 Mauser-based rifles in the four decades after WWII had ended, and I can't think of any rifle platform that outshines the interesting history of the Swedish Mauser with regard to its sniper and target rifle variants...
IMO, the Swedish Model of 1896 has the most impressive history of a standard military bolt action rifle that was adopted at the very end of the 19th century, then became a sniper rifle during WWII, and in the post-war period was further developed into 3 formidable target rifle variants, - specifically designed for 300m competitions. These Swedish target rifles were very competitive, and used in Olympic Biathlons too. The 100 year history includes: M1896 standard infantry rifle - then M41/M41B sniper rifles (circa 1942-1955),- then M1896 FSRs (target sights) - followed by the CG-63s (dedicated 300 meter target rifle circa 1963) - followed by the CG-80s (1980) - and finally the FSR 89s (1989).
The standard M/41 Swedish 6.5x55 military ammo with a very nice and aerodynamic 139 FMJBT bullet is considered by many to be basically 'sniper grade' ammo, which certainly helped the reputation of the M96 model rifle and all its variants. It has been said that the M41B with the standard issue M/41 ammo can be a 1-MOA rifle, and thus perhaps the most accurate sniper rifle of the WWII era. I can not validate that claim, but I have read that Sweden tested their M1896s and only the most accurate rifles were selected to be converted into sniper rifles during WWII. All of the rifles and scopes were rebuilt/updated in the 1950s and continued their service until 1990.
Here's a 10 minute video on the history of the Swedish FSR (volunteer marksman) and the rifles they used, with particular focus on the FSR 89, the last target version of the Swedish Model of 1896. The FSR 89 represents almost 100 years of accuracy refinements based on the old M1896 long rifle....
I have an M41B sniper rifle (built on a 1900 dated action), and a nice CG-63, both are quite accurate. (I briefly had a CG-80 but never shot it, as a serious collector of Swedish rifles talked me out of it - a decision I regret as I have not been able to replace it..) Here's an article on the M41/B, which the author thinks is tied with the British Mk 4 (T) as the two best sniper rifles of the WWII era. http://www.gunsandammo.com/historical/sniper-supreme-model-41b-swedish-mauser/
Attached are some pics of the CG-63, CG-80 (both early and late versions) and a rare FSR 89 owned by the collector who bought my CG-80 (the rifle with the stainless fluted barrel is a customized CG-80, where the FSR 89 is the rifle at the top in those pics). On EDIT: Added a picture of the CG 62 Biathlon rifle which was used to win a gold metal (or two) in the Olympics during the 1960s. (Book, "The Crown Jewels" by Dana Jones). These are not my rifles, but to the original posters question, the Swedish M1896 gets my vote for the "baddest military action - sniper/target rifle" of the 20th century.
The Springfield 1903 comes in 2nd place, but the development of that rifle as a sniper or target rifle effectively ended with the conclusion of the Korean War, and I guess the M1891 Mosin-Nagant gets an honorable mention as it was also used in Finland as a target rifle and sniper rifle in the post-war period - but the Swedes kept perfecting their 1896 Mauser-based rifles in the four decades after WWII had ended, and I can't think of any rifle platform that outshines the interesting history of the Swedish Mauser with regard to its sniper and target rifle variants...
Attachments
Last edited:
In my extremely limited experience I agree 100%.
A friend of mine sponsored me with his rare and expensive old snipers rifles. I experimented with them (3 different ones) and a few iron sighters of my own, in the vintage sniper division down at Ben Avery shooting range in the BPCR silhouette matches.
That M41B out shot all the other VS rifles in a huge way. Like capable of hitting the leg of the turkey at 400M almost every time, accuracy wise. This was with my reloads, 140 hybrids at 2650 fps.
Well with that rifle I won overall one day, the first time a VS had won the match up to that point, due to the BPCR multi national champion always being present who almost never finished out of 1st place. I hit all 30 of the big animals and 3 of the offhand chickens. It was windy that day which helped me since those 140's have a .62 BC. One thing about the M41B is that the rifle fit me horribly, lol, and I hated how high up the scope was.
Next was the Springfield with the 8x Unertl. It wasn't as accurate as theM41B, accurate enough though at just over 1" at 100Y, but the scope made up for it. I won VS with it too, just not overall, I'll give you one guess who won the match.
Every single one of those old rifles had POI shifting as the barrel heated. Which I had to laugh at and found that aspect both amusing and frustrating. Thank God for spotting scopes and good spotters, lol, otherwise I'd been missing a bunch later in the string.
Otherwise I'll take my Swiss K31, too bad it didn't come in 6.5x55.
"One thing about the M41B is that the rifle fit me horribly, lol, and I hated how high up the scope was."
Yes, the cheek position is not ideal. As noted and seen in Dana Jones book, The Crown Jewels, Sweden did make 100 leather and canvas cheek pieces to correct the ergonomics, but they were not fielded in large numbers. I was able to buy a reproduction of the leather version from a guy in the UK, and fitted it to my M41B. (see below) He're' my 1903A1 with 8x on top, and on the bottom is my CG-63:
...I compete with my 1903A1 as the 8x helps me a lot at 600 yards - and it has windage adjustment knobs - whereas the M41B does not.
Yes, the cheek position is not ideal. As noted and seen in Dana Jones book, The Crown Jewels, Sweden did make 100 leather and canvas cheek pieces to correct the ergonomics, but they were not fielded in large numbers. I was able to buy a reproduction of the leather version from a guy in the UK, and fitted it to my M41B. (see below) He're' my 1903A1 with 8x on top, and on the bottom is my CG-63:
...I compete with my 1903A1 as the 8x helps me a lot at 600 yards - and it has windage adjustment knobs - whereas the M41B does not.
Random and Steve,
I gotta say I really enjoyed your posts.
I owned a CG-63 at one time and wishmaybe I would have hung on to it. At that time I was drifting back towards the 7mm. And, as I needed to cut the herd I sold it. I feel sometimes like I dispense a lot of good advice...then don't follow it. Anyhow, at 300m that rifle was quite capable of ten for ten every time. I didn't put much surplus through it as it got expensive. But, handloads we're exceptional.
Speaking of ammo, it ought to be mentioned, that in itself is a huge factor. You can have perfectly accurate ammo, but if it kicks too hard the shooters accuracy is probably going to suffer. The 6.5X55 is much easier to shoot in that regard than 7.92X57 and 30-06. And the ballistics of the bullet gives it as great, if not greater, range.
I gotta say I really enjoyed your posts.
I owned a CG-63 at one time and wish
Speaking of ammo, it ought to be mentioned, that in itself is a huge factor. You can have perfectly accurate ammo, but if it kicks too hard the shooters accuracy is probably going to suffer. The 6.5X55 is much easier to shoot in that regard than 7.92X57 and 30-06. And the ballistics of the bullet gives it as great, if not greater, range.
Last edited:
No doubt the CG-63 is one of the most refined/accurate service rifle - based firearms out there. I'd put the L42A1 right next to it as well. What would yall say is a stronger more robust action? Swede Mauser vs Lee Enfield? I'd think Mauser.. no?
As far as ALL the criteria needed for a accurate sniper or target rifle, the L42A1 is right up there. Not just as the accuracy platform, but again, the ammunition. It doesn't recoil like the 7.92 or the 30-06 (7.62x63) and 7.62X51, but has the high efficiency bullets to help extend range.
Added: I meant to say the L42A1 (.303 British) has a more efficient bullet than the 7.62x51, not that it recoils less.
Added: I meant to say the L42A1 (.303 British) has a more efficient bullet than the 7.62x51, not that it recoils less.
Last edited:
"Added: I meant to say the L42A1 (.303 British) has a more efficient bullet than the 7.62x51, not that it recoils less."
Actually, my understanding is that the L42A1 was/is a 7.62x51 NATO rifle built in the 1960s to replace the old No 4(T) which was 303 British...
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/1/27/the-british-l42a1-sniper-rifle/
...I'd really like to find an affordable L42A1, but they are quite pricey, much more than a nice Swedish M41B rifle in comparable condition.
Actually, my understanding is that the L42A1 was/is a 7.62x51 NATO rifle built in the 1960s to replace the old No 4(T) which was 303 British...
https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/1/27/the-british-l42a1-sniper-rifle/
...I'd really like to find an affordable L42A1, but they are quite pricey, much more than a nice Swedish M41B rifle in comparable condition.
You could be right. I was thinking (off the top of my head...which doesn't always work) the L42A1 was .303 and the L42A2 was 7.62. I'll look that up.
Cause I meant the .303 version.
Added: You are correct. Clearing up a misconception that I've had for years...ahem (**thanks**
)In any case, the .303 No. 4 T is what I was referring to. It has a more efficient bullet than the 7.62. From what I've seen, better than the U.S. M1 ball as well.
Last edited:
Similar threads
