Anyone Interested in Vintage Sniping Articles?

Apr 28, 2012
168
97
28
38
Van Wert, Ohio
#2
The doughboy article could use some revisions. :)

But to be fair, we only just found all the WWI sniping docs a couple years ago. So they were writing a lot about this stuff with not much to go on.


Thanks for uploading these by the way. There was one in there I hadn't seen before.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Defender3

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#3
The doughboy article could use some revisions. :)

But to be fair, we only just found all the WWI sniping docs a couple years ago. So they were writing a lot about this stuff with not much to go on.


Thanks for uploading these by the way. There was one in there I hadn't seen before.
We don't know what we don't know could be an understatement. :) There has been so much additional research (and findings) since I began with Garands in the 1980s, but I do appreciate each article I stumble across.

Some bonus postings:

I was not impressed by this article and honestly expected a bit more than a filler article, but here it is anyways.

Model 1941 USMC Sniper Rifle

Some better stuff...

Marine Issue - AR March 1943

Marine Sniper Carlos Hathcock - Survival May 1996

Death From Afar - Survival May 1996

Chandler Sniper Rifle - Survival May 1996
 
Likes: cplnorton
Apr 28, 2012
168
97
28
38
Van Wert, Ohio
#4
Ooooh a M1941 sniper article. Let me check this out. Even though the M1941 name we as collector's have created. It was never used by the Marines. :)

I haven't seen this one before.

** Ok I read it. I've heard that Kogan name before but never knew he wrote an article on them. I've seen him referenced in Senich's book though. Just reading it, it's a lot the old info that after we found the Marine team documents and the Marine sniper docs, most of it was found to not be correct. A lot of this same info is repeated in Senich's book and even credited to this Kogan. So that makes sense.

One thing I have learned is a lot of these authors only just rewrite what a previous author stated, and just rephrase it. I don't see a lot of authors fact checking the info they write. :(

If you get the Garand Collector's Journal, I have a article in there about the 1903A1 Unertl Snipers coming out in the next issue. I didn't go into a lot of detail on how to tell a real one, mostly because it's a Garand magazine. But even a lot of the rifles in books are fake. It's mostly an article on the history of the rifle and addressing the common internet and book rumors on them.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Defender3

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#6
Ooooh a M1941 sniper article. Let me check this out. Even though the M1941 name is a complete fabrication. :)

I haven't seen this one before.

** Ok I read it. I've heard that Kogan name before but never knew he wrote an article on them. I've seen him referenced in Senich's book though. Just reading it, it's a lot the old info that after we found the Marine team documents and the Marine sniper docs, most of it was found to not be correct. A lot of this same info is repeated in Senich's book and even credited to this Kogan. So that makes sense.

If you get the Garand Collector's Journal, I have a article in there about the 1903A1 Unertl Snipers coming out in the next issue. I didn't go into a lot of detail on how to tell a real one, mostly because it's a Garand magazine. But even a lot of the rifles in books are fake. It's mostly an article on the history of the rifle and addressing the common internet and book rumors on them.
I do get the GCA and will keep an eye out for the article.

I bought a Garand in 2005 or so, it was a nice Lend Lease with an authentication from a very famous person in the community. I got it home and when I looked closely, it was clear the acceptance stamp was a fake. I spoke with the authenticator who simply stated they learned new facts since his appraisal and he was going by the best info available at the time. What could I say? It was just another chapter in the learning process. I attended a GCA Convention and was shocked at the number of humped rifles on display, but more so the number of advanced collectors who brushed it off due to the status of the member or a friendship. It's a flaw I have trying to believe the best in a community. ;)
 
Likes: cplnorton
Apr 28, 2012
168
97
28
38
Van Wert, Ohio
#7
Unfortunately what you encountered is what I did as well when I started. It's also why I started to do research myself. I've have been very disappointed by some big name people in this industry that I highly respected as experts. Not only have they copied someone else work in their books, but some big name guys even steal others new research and put it in books as their own.

The other thing is, I think some "authors" fake rifles and sell them as original, or they buy them that way and then use their name as justification on why they are real. Some I think even fabricate the history of the rifle in their books, to make their rifles more valuable.

Sorry to say a there is a lot of info in books that doesn't match up with the official documentation that you see in the National Archives. The only exception to this is Brophy. Brophy was a true researcher. I can track where he was and wasn't and I have nothing but respect for the man and his trade. Especially in a time before the internet and freedom of info that comes with it. I would have loved to have met Brophy and compared research. I would have been truly honored.

But I won't name names of the humpers, but to say some are shady is a understatement.
 
Likes: Defender3

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#8
I was struck 1996's One Round War had similar words and phrases as the uncredited 1966 Snipers in Da Nang article. Not making any accusations, just noted with the understanding of how articles make the rounds and end up being validated as they were quoted or mentioned so often over time; the essence of a self-licking ice cream cone.
 
Likes: cplnorton

sandwarrior

Gunny Sergeant
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#10
Interesting the "sniping in Viet Nam" was published in June of 1966.

Added: Holy Crap! FN actions were going for $49 in the advertisement in the 1953 article. Seems a little high to me for even back then. Great action, just everything else was $29 back in that day...not that I'm that old.:cautious:
 
Last edited:
Likes: Defender3

Strykervet

Resident Phoenix Eye and Dim Mak Instructor
Jun 5, 2011
3,094
1,257
113
42
Pierce County, WA
#11
Interesting the "sniping in Viet Nam" was published in June of 1966.

Added: Holy Crap! FN actions were going for $49 in the advertisement in the 1953 article. Seems a little high to me for even back then. Great action, just everything else was $29 back in that day...not that I'm that old.:cautious:
Stack-on lockers still go for about the same price!

Loved that part about the "state of the art" 32lb. modified M2 carbine using wet batteries to power an "ordinary 300w light w/IR cover" for sniping at night --it was good to 125y! They don't mention they had zero idea how to make one, that it was reverse engineered from an identical Nazi setup (using the STG44 rifle though). So in 1953 that tech was already ten years old!

Geez, I get 10,000x more light out of this PVS30 w/5-25x USO and it's probably right at 32lbs and has a range (at night) of about 1200y. And my shit isn't even state of the art!
 

sandwarrior

Gunny Sergeant
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#12
Okay...I feel dumb!:eek::eek:

When first I clicked on this link, my crappy internet only showed the post by Defender3 right above me. Not the rest of them above that! I even checked! So, my "D'oh" response to "uh... yeah, that's what this thread was about," all this stuff was said in 1966, 1954, and the 1940's.
 
Apr 28, 2012
168
97
28
38
Van Wert, Ohio
#13
I've never seen that 1954 sniper school article. That is rally neat.

Even before the M1C was created in 1944, Springfield Armory was stating the M1D was a better design, and they should pursue that. But Griffin and Howe had made a huge investment to be able to build the parts and mount the base on the M1 Garand rifle. So Army ordnance seemed dead set to give them the contract to build snipers. The reasoning behind it seemed more political than a logical one.

In many ways the M1C was a failure as a mass produced sniper, which the M1D resolved all the M1C issues and was a creation by John Garand.

I did like the comments too on the M3 carbine. I have a friend was with the 5th Marine Regiment in Korea. He said they always took one on patrol with them. Not to shoot at night with, but to signal back to the lines they were coming back in. They said someone would be scanning with a M3 from the lines and they would use their M3 to signal they were coming back. That way there wasn't any friendly fire.
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#14
I've never seen that 1954 sniper school article. That is rally neat.

Even before the M1C was created in 1944, Springfield Armory was stating the M1D was a better design, and they should pursue that. But Griffin and Howe had made a huge investment to be able to build the parts and mount the base on the M1 Garand rifle. So Army ordnance seemed dead set to give them the contract to build snipers. The reasoning behind it seemed more political than a logical one.

In many ways the M1C was a failure as a mass produced sniper, which the M1D resolved all the M1C issues and was a creation by John Garand.

I did like the comments too on the M3 carbine. I have a friend was with the 5th Marine Regiment in Korea. He said they always took one on patrol with them. Not to shoot at night with, but to signal back to the lines they were coming back in. They said someone would be scanning with a M3 from the lines and they would use their M3 to signal they were coming back. That way there wasn't any friendly fire.
I just sent off some cash for a cumulative index of AR articles from 1940 - 2017. While I believe I have every AR article on the 1903, M1, M1911, M14, M16, etc., I never paid attention to others that may be detailing the M70, M40, M40A1, etc. Once I receive the index, at least I can scan the library to see what I may have I'm not aware of. Poor man's research I know, but it's a start. :)
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#16
So many interesting facts come out of these articles. A lot of which, particularly people involved, seemed to have gotten glossed over.

Interesting point as to why they went with the Rem 700 over the Win 70. It was simply because Winchester was not making the current model 70. I think even the push feed 70 is better than the 700. Apparently, that didn't seem to account for very much.

Love these articles!
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#18
So many interesting facts come out of these articles. A lot of which, particularly people involved, seemed to have gotten glossed over.

Interesting point as to why they went with the Rem 700 over the Win 70. It was simply because Winchester was not making the current model 70. I think even the push feed 70 is better than the 700. Apparently, that didn't seem to account for very much.

Love these articles!
ETA - Cited wrong reference. Was looking at One Round War and typed DFA.

Page 135 of One Round War states the reasoning for the Rem 700 over the Win 70.
 
Last edited:
Sep 16, 2009
4,530
508
113
#20
I can send it but as I recall it was not really good logic. Something about confusing old with new 70 Parts and parts not interchanging from old to new etc. No real substance to if from what I recall. Likely there was something going on behind the scenes.
 
Likes: Defender3

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#21
Basically, multiple differing parts in the three subsequent versions of the post-64 Model 701s and it was still a 30-06 when the Corps wanted a 7.62. Remington made a 7.62 and had no part interchangeability issues.
 
Likes: ZG47A
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#22
Basically, multiple differing parts in the three subsequent versions of the post-64 Model 701s and it was still a 30-06 when the Corps wanted a 7.62. Remington made a 7.62 and had no part interchangeability issues.
Ok, The article kind of alluded to that, but didn't say specifically. I can say with authority, that there is a difference in pre-64 and post-64 action lengths. Making all things subject to action length susceptible to that issue. Bolt, bolt length, firing pin length, firing pin spring, stock inlet, barrel tenon, magazine/follower...Have I forgotten anything?

This always seems plausible as it's published to us "non-importants". However, it's quite common that the Air Force and the Navy fly as many as 3-4 variants of an aircraft at a time of a particular base model and that doesn't seem to be a problem. It is, but not one the services can't overcome expediently enough.

I can't say I've heard of guys who had an M16 failure going around the battlefield afterwards picking up M16's and mixing and matching parts to make one work. That did happen back at the armory, but not out in the field. Ordering enough new Model 70's with spare parts the first go round would have eliminated the whole fake issue of multiple parts. They simply could have built up the inventory, traded them out when they had all of the new rifles and moved forward. IMO, I think the post-63 was still a better rifle than the Rem 700.

Instead, methinks economics/politics happened, and the rest is history.
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#23
ETA - I edited my post above to reflect the citation was from One Round War, not DFA.

Well, it was mentioned Remington was more willing to work with the Corps than Winchester, for example. Winchester did not make a .308 pre-or post-64 and apparently had no desire to do so. Upsetting your potential client never seems to work out well.
 
Last edited:
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#24
ETA - I edited my post above to reflect the citation was from One Round War, not DFA.

Well, it was mentioned Remington was more willing to work with the Corps than Winchester, for example. Winchester did not make a .308 pre-or post-64 and apparently had no desire to do so. Upsetting your potential client never seems to work out well.
That is a good point. In fact, Winchester did not even make the short action until 1985.
 
#25
Yes, but now the .300 Winchester Magnum is superseding 7.62x51 bolt-action rifles wherever the .338 Lapua is too much of a good thing. I have some friends who shoot at one of our remaining 1200 yard NRA (NZ) ranges and the .30-06, .303, etc do the job whereas the 7.62x51 struggles.

Makes the 7.62x51 short-action solution seem a bit off BUT if you had to get a new system up and running with no budget complications, in the middle of a war, it helps to tell the politicians that you need a completely different action spec, i.e. short/medium instead of .375 H & H length.
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#28
So Winchester didn't support the .308 Winchester? It seems like Remington used their business model when they introduced the .260, lol.
I'd suggest it may be a different issue, Winchester didn't chamber for 308 until the mid-1980s. I assume, since the Corps had transitioned to the 7.62 M14 and M60, the die had been long-cast for the 7.62. I'll have to go back and look, but I'm fairly sure ORW had the procurement specs requiring the 7.62.

The .260 was, IMHO, simply a missed marketing opportunity, but let's consider the context of the times. Reading these old articles, and I also read about 10 years worth of the old Precision Shooter mags, clearly shows the lack of "information" the average shooter had access to, which caused endless back-and-forth speculation. Today, we have enormous amounts of data and individual tools such as ballistic apps and portable radars allowing instant validation.

Today, information is everywhere and it seems more flavor of the day. The 6.5CM is somehow better than the 260 (I'll spare everyone in a Vintage thread that discussion), and the new flavor seems to be the 6mm CM.
 
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#29
So Winchester didn't support the .308 Winchester? It seems like Remington used their business model when they introduced the .260, lol.
Winchester supported the .308 Win in THEIR rifles. The Marines wanted an action to match the length of the 7.62. To which Winchester responded, "The way it works now is just fine." Which in many eyes it was not. They wanted a short action for the shorter round.

One other thing, I don't know if there was a plan in the beginning at Remington, to put a 20 round magazine under a bolt action rifle. But, that was what ended up being. In which case, the time it took to develop bottom metal to make that happen was incredibly slow by Remington as well as Winchester. That also may have been hampered in the Military side with the "One round, one kill" philosophy. What worked well for the M21 should have transferred right over to the precision bolt guns. That didn't happen until 1988 in the M24.
 

Defender3

Online Training Member
Mar 8, 2010
206
121
43
NoVA
#30
I believe the Corps was very adverse to any indicator that could be left behind and give away the fact that they were there, e.g., magazines.

The Army took an entirely different route from the long action through to allowing the snipers to take their guns apart, field modify, etc.

It's really interesting to read about all this to learn the nuances and politics.
 
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#31
I believe the Corps was very adverse to any indicator that could be left behind and give away the fact that they were there, e.g., magazines.

The Army took an entirely different route from the long action through to allowing the snipers to take their guns apart, field modify, etc.

It's really interesting to read about all this to learn the nuances and politics.
I believe I read that as well somewhere. The dumb thing about that though, was bottom metal could be adapted for the M14 magazine. So, if magazines got left, then the intel might be they had M14's, not M40's.
 

sandwarrior

Gunny Sergeant
Apr 21, 2007
4,623
388
83
in yooperland
#33
Old habits die hard - heck, the Corps was clip-slotting for 40 years - I wonder if anyone ever used the clip-slot?
Funny you ask, as we had a seven page thread on Hathcock's presentation rifle. It was a push feed and was clip slotted. But, no need to ever use it (the clip slot) in combat, unless the scope was removed and the shooter had to use irons.