USMC Rifle (Sniper’s) Caliber .30 M1903(A1), W/Telescope, Sighting, Unertl 8X

[cplnorton]

I've never really shown this over here. But I was sort of bored today, and thought it might spark some discussion. And maybe kick up some original rifles that I'm not aware of yet. I keep a log of all known rifles, so if you have one, contact me.

This rifle was original a National Match 1903A1 made in 1935 or 1936. Even though I believe the rifle is most likely a 1935, It's really hard to tell for certain which year as the Marines replaced the barrel with a SA 4/38 barrel. At the same time they drilled the hatcher hole and enlarged the gas hole in the bolt. The Marines did receive National Match 03's in 1935 and 1936, so it really could have been in either shipment. It's just hard to know for certain since it doesn't have it's original barrel.

The Marines only received National Match 1903's in Certain years, and all were used by the Marine Active and Reserve teams at the National Matches. At the end of the season all rifles were returned to the Philly Depot and the ones with worn barrels, had their barrels replaced with standard barrels. The rifles then became known as Special Targets, which were NM rifles rebarreled by the Marines.

These Marine Special Targets were no longer used by the Marine Teams in the National Matches, but were used in Marine Divisional competitions such as the Elliot Cup. Since the Fleet Marine Corps did not want the Army C stock till they absolutely had to order some in 1942, there are orders for Special Targets to be stocked in a Straight stock like the one below. Probably just because that is what the normal Marine who was using the rifle in Divisional Competition were used to.

It is easy to tell if a stock was on a Marine Team NM or Special Target, as the stocks were modifed by the Marines in a way that is easily identified.

In January 1943, the Marines started to mount the 8X Unertl Scopes on the Marine NM team rifles and the Special Targets, and by Febuary they started to ship to the Pacific.

Here is a Marine NM, rebuilt into a Special Target, then had the Unetl scope mounted by the Marines. I suspect the way the documents read, this one probably had the scope mountned in early 1943. I only wish this rifle could talk, as the overall condition appears to be of one that was actually fielded at one time.

 

[cplnorton]

Oh by the way, I just wanted to see what it would actually group. I have only fired 5 rounds out of it, but with surplus 1957 Lake City at a 100 yards, it grouped at 1 3/8''. I have not tried Match ammo out of it. But plan to try it soon.

 

[scottpropheter]

That's absolutely beautiful, man. I've always lusted after vintage sniper rifles, and that one would be top of the list.

 

[Gary/CO]

Great images!

 

[jbell]

That is all kinds of bad ass, thank you for sharing!!

 

[Dougie308]

That is a gorgeous rifle! Not to mention an amazing piece of history!

 

[sandwarrior]

Awesome rifle cplnorton! I know you don't post over here much, but bring all you got, cause I know you got a lot!

So, what separates this from the M1941?

 

[kraigWY]

So, what separates this from the M1941?

Nothing but the name. I dont believe the M1941 was actually an offical name. Just attached by fans of the rifle.

That rifle, and its clones, dominate the CMP Vintage Sniper matches, followed by the M1903A4, difference being 6/8 power ver. the 2.5 of the A4.

Nice rifle but being Army I have to use the 'A4. I tried shooting one of those in a CMP Vintage Sniper Match. I couldnt shoot it as well as I can my A4. Plus I kept forgetting to slide the scope back into position after each shot.

Cplnorton: I've seen a heck of a lot of M1903A1 sniper versions, but Sir, that I believe is the best one I remember seeing.

 

[fdkay]

I am of the opinion that the Corps should have continued development of the 03 match rifle as a standardized sniper rifle in the Vietnam era instead of the mish mash approach until the M40.
A well made 03 match rifle with modern optics would still give modern rifles a run for their money in regards to accuracy and robustness

 

[kraigWY]

I am of the opinion that the Corps should have continued development of the 03 match rifle as a standardized sniper rifle in the Vietnam era instead of the mish mash approach until the M40.
A well made 03 match rifle with modern optics would still give modern rifles a run for their money in regards to accuracy and robustness

I wholeheartedly agree. There is a reason the '03 action was chosen for the Army's Mann Device (issued and used by ammo suppliers to test ammo for the Army's rifles.

They were used in 30-06, 308, 45acp, 22 Hornet, 30 cal Carbine, maybe more but those are the ones i know about.

Some people bought these from the CMP, and made some exotic but extremely accurate rifles of of the '03 Mann device.

They are a lot of gun to play with, even in times past.

An excellent read is Cpt. Edward Crossman's The Book of the Springfield. Its an older book but goes into detail of the accuracy of the Springfield, both in Service Rifle and Match rifle. Crossman captained our International Rifle team in the late 20s and early 30s using the Springfield in International Rifle Shooting.

 

[cplnorton]

Well and I actually have a Model 70 that came from a Marine Colonel. So it is built exaclty like the ones used in Vietnam early on. I took it out and using the same 1957 Surplus ammo, it actually shot the exact same grouping as my two 1903A1 Unetl Snipers. If you guys want I will post the targets. But they all three grouped almost identical.

The Marines dumped all their remaining 1903's in 1954. The order was to get rid of all of them, except for 500 for historical purposes.

So yeah, not excactly the smartest of moves. But I was talking to an older SgtMaj who said he knew a Marine officer who shut down the Sniper School in Hawaii in the early 60s'. He told the SgtMaj that there were still 03 Snipers in that Schools inventory.

So I'm going to try to find this officer and interview him. I'm curious what he will say. This is the latest I have ever heard of 03 Snipers still in the Corps.

 

[cplnorton]

So, what separates this from the M1941?

Kraig already said it. It's a name that was never used. I have hundreds, if not thousands of pages of the official docs from the Sniper progam dealing with the 1903A1 Unertls. There is never one mention of the M1941 name.

Some author probably put it in a book and the name stuck. Sort of like a 1897 Trench shotgun. You will never find the term "Trench" in the docs back then. We created that nickname. Back then they were Riot Gun with bayonet attachment. Or usually just called Riot shotguns. They didn't even denote it could take a bayonet, but they would list an inventory of bayonets for the riot guns. lol

The actual "official" name is basically the name I posted at the heading of this post. This is taken straight off the original docs in 1945.
[h=2]Rifle (Sniper’s) Caliber .30 M1903A1, W/Telescope, Sighting, Unertl 8X[/h]

 

[cplnorton]

Cplnorton: I've seen a heck of a lot of M1903A1 sniper versions, but Sir, that I believe is the best one I remember seeing.

Mine is sort of beat up compared to some of them. There are some really nice ones out there. Nicer condition wise than mine. I keep a log of them, by serial numbers and detailed pics of each rifle.

A lot of guys don't like to share them though. I probably know of around 20 where I have actually seen them, and know who owns them. But there are about 30-40 total listed on Larry Reynolds old research, and some of those I can't figure out who has them now. The last list before mine was updated in the early 2000's and who knows where they went. So I like to sometimes post this stuff as it kicks up the current owner and they contact me.

Honeslty on these rifles, everyone is so paranoid that if we share what makes a real one, that we will make the humpers better. So guys guard their real rifles usually pretty close. But I don't know if you could fake one anymore honestly. We know what serial ranges for the most part. We know what years they got them. We know the barrel dates. We just know so many details now that aren't public, I don't know if you could fake one and get it to pass. There are so many small details on them, someone would really have to know what they are doing. And you would have to have a NM to cut up as well. Which those aren't cheap by any means. I just don't know if you could do it anymore. Heck if you tell me a serial range and barrel date, I can tell you with high probility if it's even real, even before seeing the rifle.

But some are paranoid. I mean it is an expensive rifle, so I see their point. But maybe if we shared more it would cut down on amount of fakes. But that is my personal opinion on it. There are even fakes in books by some big name authors.

 

[sandwarrior]

Wow, I understand the paranoia. I can't say I agree with it. It's not like they hold a patent on it.

I have to ask, you fdkay and KraigWY, why you would have preferred this system be developed over the route we took, which was to go back to "off the shelf" scopes.

IMO, that while this scope system may have worked well as a target/varmint rifle system it had way too many drawbacks in the "robust" category. I don't think we would have ended up with the advancements we have today had we developed this system more. By purchasing what is out in the public, we not only got advancements, we got them at a truly competitive price.

 

[cplnorton]

Yeah the field of view in the 8X unertl is like 11 feet or something at a 100 yards. It is so easy to get tunnel vision with these scopes.

I did take some pics of my rifle outside today. Inside under the photo lights, it looks a little nicer than it does in person. It's actually sort of salty. But I like them that way. I want one that was used, not sat in storage somewhere.

By the way because I know people will look at this. That bolt is fully blued. But when it gets in light outside, the finish almost becomes transparent. It's so funky how it reacts to light. But that I think is because they were NM polished bolts that were hot tank blued. It makes the finish almost a watery finish.

In fact it's interesting when you look at WWII pics. Look at the bolt handle, they always appear in the white. But then look at the bolt bodies, they are always dark. I can recreate this type of photo with mine in black and white. Excuse the kids picnic bench it was accesible and adapted for use.

I've included a pic of the bolt too, so you can see it's fully blued. Even on the handle.

 

[fdkay]

Wow, I understand the paranoia. I can't say I agree with it. It's not like they hold a patent on it.

I have to ask, you fdkay and KraigWY, why you would have preferred this system be developed over the route we took, which was to go back to "off the shelf" scopes.

IMO, that while this scope system may have worked well as a target/varmint rifle system it had way too many drawbacks in the "robust" category. I don't think we would have ended up with the advancements we have today had we developed this system more. By purchasing what is out in the public, we not only got advancements, we got them at a truly competitive price.

I was referring to the ad-hoc system that ended up in place up until the M40.
Rifle from MWR, lightweight hunting rifles, rifles smuggled into the country etc... rifle scopes purchased at the exchange, Unertl scopes, locally manufactured mounts.

Keeping in mind the technology and rifle scopes of the era, I think the NM 03 with a good solid mount sporting a redfield M40 would likely have been equivalent or superior to much of what was used, including the M40. (I like the M40).
Besides the transition to the 7.62x51, what tangible benefits did the M40 have over a system such as that?

 

[sandwarrior]

I'd have to say one company that didn't receive a lot of attention, not that there was a lot coming from the military, was Weaver. They produced scopes for the military in WWII. But, when that ended they didn't produce scopes again until contracted to do so for Leatherwood. At no time between, I understand, that they were involved in development. Let alone any designs they had being accepted.

They were certainly more robust than the Unertl system. I would have to say their glass was not on par. Something back then that was an issue, was scopes not being sealed well, if at all.

 

[cplnorton]

The Marines actually trialed the Weaver 330 and 440 at the beginning of the war. I have the purchase orders of them. I also have a cool pic of a weaver 330/440, with the silent screws adjustment, mounted on a USMC 1941 Johnson Rifle.

Honestly the best scope I have tried, that was Military, until the 10X Unertl, was the USMC Kollmorgen 4X. I love that scope.

I'm honestly suprised they weren't used on another platform other than the Army M1C rifle. The Marines seemed to have had at least a 1000 of them for sure. And might have had more. I'm just surpised they weren't used on something else, past the M1C.

But I have a hunch they disapeared several years before Nam. Otherwise they are an awesome scope.

Actually the US Army was trialing the USMC style Kollmorgen with the Audible Click adjustments on M14's. But it must have never happened either. But the Army loved them on the M14. I can't remember what mount they used. I think it was one made by Pachmayer or something. I would have to go back and look. It was a commercial maker.

But the Army did order some of the USMC style from Kollmorgen for their trials.

 

[cplnorton]

I was referring to the ad-hoc system that ended up in place up until the M40.
Rifle from MWR, lightweight hunting rifles, rifles smuggled into the country etc... rifle scopes purchased at the exchange, Unertl scopes, locally manufactured mounts.

Keeping in mind the technology and rifle scopes of the era, I think the NM 03 with a good solid mount sporting a redfield M40 would likely have been equivalent or superior to much of what was used, including the M40. (I like the M40).
Besides the transition to the 7.62x51, what tangible benefits did the M40 have over a system such as that?

Well and the Marines actually had a 1903 that was probably a tack driver. They called them a Free High Pressure rifle. Usually they nicknamed them Free rifles. They had free high pressure heavy barrel made by WRA or Remington. Usually by WRA. Usually the barrels were 28''.

But they had sporter stocks, lyman 48 receiver sights, and blocks to mount a scope. Which I think were first supplied by Fecker, and later lyman.

The Marines used them in competition. Mainly the any sight, any rifle competitions at a 1000 yards, like the Wimbledon Cup. The Marines later replaced them in the mid to late 30's with a few WRA model 54's, and a few years later the Model 70's. Which the Model 70's they bought in the late 30's, I think I have orders for .300 magnums and .300 H&H, as well as 30:06.

But yeah a heavy barreled 1903 would have been an awesome sniper. In fact Van Orden and Lloyd trialed them in 1941 for the Marines, against the Model 70s, among a few other designs.

 

[cplnorton]

Here is the Free High Pressure rifle they trialed in 1941 as a potential sniper by Van Orden and Lloyd. I bet this was a tack driver.

 

[deltawiskey]

If you happen to have any USMC Winchester model 70 pictures / info to post it would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
DW

 

[cplnorton]

If you happen to have any USMC Winchester model 70 pictures / info to post it would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
DW

The Model 70 is enigma, trapped in a puzzle, and is an absoulte nightmare to try to document right now. lol

You don't even want to know how many hours Andrew Stolinski and I have spent trying to find the Model 70 docs. So far we have found new ones, but nothing to tie everything together..

See in the Archives past 1942, it's spotty. Past about 1954, just not a lot is there. There are some more locations to look but so far we have never found the that one doc that ties the story together.

If you read the books they always say the Marines bought 373 in 1942 and these were regular sporters. Later they rebarreled them in the 50's and they became team guns. And then the team guns were pressed into service for Nam.

But there is an issue with this. In late 1944, the Marines authorized 371 Model 70's to be sold. Which it's those 373 from 1942, but I'm guessing someone "Acquired" two in between 1942 and 1944. Now there could have been an order later to stop this later. But usually when something is approved like this, they generally didn't stop it.

Here is the order.

See WRA pretty much shut down production on the Model 70 for the war and the only real rifles sold in 1942 were for the military. The commercial 70 guys tell me that WRA picked back up with them at wars end and basically completed a lot of the receivers serialed in 1942. So you could have 1942 serials sold in say 1945. But I am relying on them for this. I don't study the commercial model 70.

Well the other factor in this, I have hundreds if not thousands of pages of Marine team docs, for the rifle teams. They basically stop for the most part in 1940. But they always bought so many new rifles for the rifle teams. I suspect the Marines might have bought some model 70 rifles in say 1945/46 and they might have even been earlier serials becuase of the stoppage for the war. But that is all my speculation. I can't prove it.

I sort of imagine they bought model 70's new for many years after WWII. I mean the NM 1903's they usually bought a 100 or 150 at a time, and usually bought all new ones for the teams every couple years or so. The Marines were not cheap when it came to their rifle teams.

This is the only other New evidence I can deliver. This is from Andrew Stolinksi. This is the complete rifle team counts for the move from the Philly Depot to Albany in 1954. When Philly closed the RTE shop was moved to Albany. This is the inventory list of all the RTE stuff being move. So this is ALL the Model 70's the rifle team had at that time. So the 373 above, even if they didn't sell them, it seems the rifle team never got a lot of them.. The .300 magnums would have been new, as you can't rebarrel a 30:06 into .300 magnum. I think it reguires new bolts and everything else. Also that NRA light, I think that is a NM model 70. Which those were only sold post WWII, like in the late 40's.

So if anyone can add or make more sense of these, pleast do so. The one intriguing thing, I do have a team model 70 picture with rifles that have heavy barrels in the white and marksman stocks taken in 1954 or 55 or something. I imagine those are the rifles below. How they morphed into what we see in Nam, no clue. And all the details that you can clearly see in the Nam photos, those rifles are like 1942 or earlier. They have early features like the bolt safety, or the reciever tang, or even the sporter stock, that were discontinued after WWII.

So yeah I would love to know, but all I have is speculation and these two new docs to offer up. That maybe someone can add to them.

 

[cplnorton]

Here are the docs, they didn't load for some reason.

 

[cplnorton]

If you happen to have any USMC Winchester model 70 pictures / info to post it would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you,
DW

I have a M70. It came from a famous Marine Colonel who supposively got it in 1971. He would have had the ability to get one I believe. The only thing I don't know. The reciever if it was a real USMC receiver, or say he got a commercial rifle and had USMC parts put on a commercial receiver for him at the RTE shop.

The rifle though is exactly what I would think a USMC M70 would be, and I really don't doubt all the parts on it are USMC. I'm just not sure on the receiver. But the serial is in the 50,xxx range. The bolt is a mismatch and like a 41,xxx. The barrel is a WRA and dated 56 on the underside. The stock is heavily sanded and looks like lots of coats of handrubbed linseed oil. All the metal has been refinished. The bolt/receiver/trigger group is all black oxide. The barrel is a reblue.

 

[sandwarrior]

cplnorton,

The safety on the rifle looks very early. At least what I can see in the pic. I had a 1950's something pre-'64 that had a safety much more like what we see today. Flat on top and much more to the right (don't know about lefty rifles). Three position. Does that safety flip L-top-Right? Or, does it turn Front-Middle-Rear? If it flips you have a customized Model 54.

 

[cplnorton]

cplnorton,

The safety on the rifle looks very early. At least what I can see in the pic. I had a 1950's something pre-'64 that had a safety much more like what we see today. Flat on top and much more to the right (don't know about lefty rifles). Three position. Does that safety flip L-top-Right? Or, does it turn Front-Middle-Rear? If it flips you have a customized Model 54.

I think it's what you are describing as Front, middle, rear. It's of the type you see in the Nam pics I believe.

The serial on the bolt, I think is 41,599. It's so hard to read.

I did add that pic from the mid 50's of the model 70 barrels in the white. I think that is why you see a lot of USMC model 70 WRA barrels and they look like re-blues and not the WRA commercial blue. I think the Marines might have got them in the white and blued them later on.

 

[cplnorton]

I had put this collage together when I was trying to study finishes. I was trying to see if I thought the NAM rifles had been refinished. But this is a good comparison shots of the Safety's. Every pic I can really distinguish in the NAM pics seems to have this type of safety I believe.

 

[cplnorton]

Here is the barrel channel on the stock. The top pic is what it would have been originally. And the bottom pic is my stock. It's not Glass Bedded, but I have a report written by Colonel William Dickman who ran the Reserve Sniper School and he said none of his rilfes were glass bedded. So I even wonder if all of the ones used in Nam were glass bedded is true.

 

[sandwarrior]

This is interesting. I'm not sure when this might have changed, but my safeties on all Win 70's was on the right rear of the bolt. Both pre and post '64's.
[IMG2=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","src":"https:\/\/www.snipershide.com\/shooting\/core\/image\/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAPABAP\/\/\/wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw=="}[/IMG2]
​

​​​​​​​

Save​

Save​

 

[cplnorton]

I have the Roger Rule book on Model 70's which is considered the bible by Commercial Model 70 collectors.

There are 3 variations of safeties. It says the type I is the safety like mine above.

The type II came out in Feb 1943, but wasn't fully instituted till 1947. I'm not seeing the changeover to a Type III. But the type III is the most common seen, and the type II was not around very long. I know like all the US Property model 70's from the 50's have the type III.

I alway look for the safety type in model 70 photos as it's easy to spot and dates the rifle to at least pre 47. The bolt I should say.

I think even Senich or maybe Senich and Poyer even cover the safety types in their sniper books. If I get time I will look and see what they say, but I remember a reference to them even in their books.

 

[sandwarrior]

I have the Roger Rule book on Model 70's which is considered the bible by Commercial Model 70 collectors.

There are 3 variations of safeties. It says the type I is the safety like mine above.

The type II came out in Feb 1943, but wasn't fully instituted till 1947. I'm not seeing the changeover to a Type III. But the type III is the most common seen, and the type II was not around very long. I know like all the US Property model 70's from the 50's have the type III.

I alway look for the safety type in model 70 photos as it's easy to spot and dates the rifle to at least pre 47. The bolt I should say.

I think even Senich or maybe Senich and Poyer even cover the safety types in their sniper books. If I get time I will look and see what they say, but I remember a reference to them even in their books.

I want to say, my pre-'64 was made in the early fifties, IIRC. Something in the fifty thousands S/N. The safety looks as you describe the type III.

 

[deltawiskey]

Awesome information/posts guys thank you for posting this!
keep it coming
DW

 

[Gary/CO]

Thank you Corporal Norton. Can you please post the entire letter from the USMC directing that the M70s be disposed of via Post Exchange?

 

[cplnorton]

Thank you Corporal Norton. Can you please post the entire letter from the USMC directing that the M70s be disposed of via Post Exchange?

There's not much more to it. I usually just crop dead space off docs.

 

[cplnorton]

If you guys have any requests, I'm usually an open book. My strength is in the Army and Marine sniper program from pre WWI till the early 50's. After that I'm spotty at best, and by the time the M40 rolls out, I'm about retarded.

 

[Gary/CO]

Thanks Corporal Nolan. I wish I had consulted with you before my second book was released.

 

[cplnorton]

Thanks Corporal Nolan. I wish I had consulted with you before my second book was released.

What is the book?

I write for the Garand Collectors Journal. But I've sort of thought of branching out. I might be writing a Article for the Man at Arms magazine. At least I'm pitching them an idea. I'm hoping it's published.

I would almost love to write a book on the Marine A5's and 1903A1 Snipers. I think if there were two rifles that I could write a book on, it would be them.

The 1903A1 Unertl stuff in books, is out of date. The Marine A5's history has been butchered. The Army had more Marine A5's produced by WRA, than the Marines did. And we haven't even identified the real Marine Mount WRA A5 rifle the Marines and Army used. Books have thought it was the Mann Niedner. Which the Marines had Mann Niedners, but WRA didn't do it.

 

[Gary/CO]

Newest one is Sharpshooters: Marksmen Through the Ages. Casemate selected the title and it's pretty close to the first one.

 

[Gary/CO]

I encourage you to write your own book. You will be filling a void. I know our first sniping training was from Canadian and British officers and that our very first manual was copied directly from Crum's manual.

 

[westpacusn]

Was out getting some zeros with my forgery today, Vintage Sniper Match tomorrow. Imagine showing up with a real one, Pavlow's dogs would be drooling.

 

[deltawiskey]

Was out getting some zeros with my forgery today, Vintage Sniper Match tomorrow. Imagine showing up with a real one, Pavlow's dogs would be drooling.

I'd love to hear some details and see some pictures of your rifle!
DW

 

[JGaynor]

About 1950 the USMC rewrote their specifications for a sniper's rifle. At that time they proposed two main objectives shift the basic type of rifle to the M1 a
nd 2. drop the target scope which had been problematic in combat.

Ultimately they came up with the MC 1952. Which was basically the USMC version of the M1C. In the early drafts of the specs the new scope was identified as the "Stith Bearcub". The final version was the Stith-Kollmorgen 4XD. This scope with a modified version of the Griffen and Howe double lever side mount was adopted as the MC-1.

In 1958 Kollmorgen optical was aquired by Redfield of Denver, CO.

The next time the USMC would consider a major change of rifles and scopes was during Vietnam when they adopted the Remington 700 with a Redfield 3x9 Variable

 

[cplnorton]

About 1950 the USMC rewrote their specifications for a sniper's rifle. At that time they proposed two main objectives shift the basic type of rifle to the M1 a
nd 2. drop the target scope which had been problematic in combat.

Ultimately they came up with the MC 1952. Which was basically the USMC version of the M1C. In the early drafts of the specs the new scope was identified as the "Stith Bearcub". The final version was the Stith-Kollmorgen 4XD. This scope with a modified version of the Griffen and Howe double lever side mount was adopted as the MC-1.

In 1958 Kollmorgen optical was aquired by Redfield of Denver, CO.

The next time the USMC would consider a major change of rifles and scopes was during Vietnam when they adopted the Remington 700 with a Redfield 3x9 Variable

The M1952 Snipers are the ones that confuse me the most. I have the trials on them, and my first real mention of a completed rifle is Oct 8th 1953. But then I have mentions that they weren't getting them till late 1954, or early 1955. So it doesn't make any sense. If you go by the serials of the 1st style Kollmorgen scope, it appears they had almost a 1000 of those Kollmorgen scopes. And that doesn't figure in the 2nd batch of Kollmorgen scopes that don't have the MC serial. But the Army was trialing the USMC Style Kollmogen as well on the M14. They bought from Kollmorgen the regular Bear Cub, and then also the USMC style with the Audible clicks. So the Army had the USMC style Kollmorgen too. So I can prove now that Audible Click USMC Kollmorgen wasn't just USMC any longer.

But it really doesn't appear they ever had that many M1C's. See in peactime they usually only averaged 60 per Division for snipers. In Wartime they say a 100 per Division. That isn't many rifles.

But it seems the M1952 snipers seem to disapear before the Vietnam War. I know the Marines did ship some M1C's to SA in the early 60's. Like 1963 or 1964. And my buddy is good friends with Jim Land and he asked if he ever saw a C in Nam, and he said no.

Then to really muddy up the mix, I have a American Rifleman article from 1965 that had a really great sniper history article. And their info is extremely accurate on the 1903's. But they say the M1952 sniper was experimental. It makes it sound like they were never used.

I don't know. A documented M1C from the Marines is at the top of my want list. The Gold standard on them is the ones from the Quantico Museum around 1970. But just knowing how Museums acquire stuff, I'm a little leary of those.

If anyone has anything to add on them, please do so. The M1952 sniper is one that other than test reports and a few pics. I don't have much info on them.

 

[cplnorton]

Oh something I forgot the Dept of the Navy did ship a little over a 100 M1C's to Vietnam Early for the Military Assistance Program. And I wondered if possibly those might have been Marine. But who knows. The Navy might have had some M1C's as well.

 

[cplnorton]

We have dug deep in the Archives looking for info on these and they are a ghost. This is that 1965 American Rifleman article below. It makes them sound like they were only experimental.

As accurate as the article is on everything else. Which it's HIGHLY accurate. It makes me wonder if it was the program we think it was. I mean they didn't really have a active sniper program between Korea and Vietnam. And you see that as Vietnam started. They didn't have hardly anything set up.

Heck I just wrote a article on the M1C for the Garand Journal that will be coming up. The M1C was sort of a failure from the start. The M1D was considered a much better design even in 1944 before the M1C went into production. The decision for the M1C seems political honeslty.

So maybe it never became the program we think it did. And to further add info, I have documents from 1951 that the Marines were having a horrible time acquiring M1C's from the Army. They couldn't get them.

So I don't know. Something doesn't add up.