True Butt Stock Ammo Pouch?

Hi Folks,

I just recently read on a internet wiki that due to the common practice of the GIs using the belt mount style M1 carbine ammo pouches as butt stock slip on pouches, the Army actually made a true Butt Stock pouch that was made to fit the M1 Carbin stock and issued it during the war.

I have never seen anything but the common belt mount style (has the brass snap in the back, and is a tight fit over the butt)

Is this other pouch a reality or just an urban legend? does someone have a picture of one? Where would you get one?

It never happened. The pouch on the butt was USGI ingenuity and never one accepted as standard by the military so no special pouches were made.

Someone is probably making current version and trying to push it as real.

That's exactly it. They're made today and they don't even look remotely correct. The ones you spoke of originally are the only ones the men used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jismail

Hi Folks,

I just recently read on a internet wiki that due to the common practice of the GIs using the belt mount style M1 carbine ammo pouches as butt stock slip on pouches, the Army actually made a true Butt Stock pouch that was made to fit the M1 Carbin stock and issued it during the war.

I have never seen anything but the common belt mount style (has the brass snap in the back, and is a tight fit over the butt)

Is this other pouch a reality or just an urban legend? does someone have a picture of one? Where would you get one?

---

I read that Wikipedia info about M1 Carbines the other day, too. I saw that same info about the pouches, and wondered - I'm glad that question has been answered. I did bookmark the address of the article, and found lots of good information as well as links to other carbine articles and sites. Some of you might want to take a look. They show a lot of legitimate references, but not sure if there was a direct reference for that stock pouch information. My opinion on the information presented there was more positive than negative. Here's the link if anyone wants to take a closer look. - Bob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_carbine

This was in that write up also. Hummm......

"After the introduction of the 30-round magazine, it was common for the troops to tape two 30-round magazines together. This led the military to introduce the "Jungle Clip", which was a metal clamp that would hold two magazines together without the need of tape."

Wikipedia, while a reasonable "quick reference" , is full of errors. A History teacher I worked with created a fictional battle, entered it into Wikipedia, then had the students research it without telling them it never really happened. The point he made to the students was "don't trust wikipedia without backup resources"

Jim as you know the US military never used or made the so called jungle clips but so many think they did.

Bruce,

That was my Hummm.... point.

I didn't see anything like that when I was in Viet Nam either. The last "War" the US used the Carbine.

Quote:

---

This led the military to introduce the "Jungle Clip", which was a metal clamp that would hold two magazines together without the need of tape." ]

---

Another funny thing about the non existing Jungle Clip is the early ones were not marked. Later on somebody, with no knowledge, put on markings that included a part number. The part number was in the Military Vehicle Range, not small arms.

I am glad many of them are dumb when it comes to contracts and part numbers.

Years ago, when I carried my carbine as a LEO trunk weapon, I tried a "jungle clip" to keep two 30s together, in the weapon, in the trunk. JUNK! I reverted back to black duct tape. (two 30s and two 15s in a pouch on the stock was 90 rounds handy when I grabbed the weapon out of the trunk).

That's a lot of weight on those tabs. Especially when it gets rockin and rollin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimF4M1s

That's a lot of weight on those tabs. Especially when it gets rockin and rollin.

---

True, but I was in a rural mountain area where I was sometimes my only backup for as much as 20-60 minutes! It made the weapon overly heavy, so I later switched to a single 30 and a 1956 Universal pouch or GI 30 round pouch on a shoulder strap with mags in it for back up ammo.

Better choice.
One in the carbine four in the pouch, two on the butt. Now you had 180 rounds with better handling of your carbine.

Yep, gave me a warm fuzzy feeling! I could lay down a lot of suppression fire waiting for back up! More than once, a suspect ceased and desisted when they looked down the barrel of my carbine on a felony stop, etc. It just looks so MEAN with the 30 and a "stock pouch"!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

Wikipedia, while a reasonable "quick reference" , is full of errors. A History teacher I worked with created a fictional battle, entered it into Wikipedia, then had the students research it without telling them it never really happened. The point he made to the students was "don't trust wikipedia without backup resources"

---

A "History" teacher (?) posts false information formation on the internet (Which is there forever) in effort to teach "don't trust wikipedia" without "backup resources". IMO a very poor choice in an efforts to teach proper research methods..not to mention "Educational Ethics" when it becomes a semi permanent "LIE" on the interenet.

"Stupid is..as stupid does.." :nono::nono:

My first carbine a rebuilt 4.59 Rock-Ola bought in 1972 for $ 90.00 OTD. It came with one 15 and two 30 mags full. The 30 round mags were tack welded together. I will post pictures when I can.
It must have been a DCM because there was grease all in the gas piston. I believe it was never fired since it was bought.
First thing I did was sand the stock and remove all signs of the Inland ordnance stamp. Then five coats of Tru-Oil. It is still like that.
Dumb is as dumb does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mike Haas

A "History" teacher (?) posts false information formation on the internet (Which is there forever) in effort to teach "don't trust wikipedia" without "backup resources". IMO a very poor choice in an efforts to teach proper research methods..not to mention "Educational Ethics" when it becomes a semi permanent "LIE" on the interenet.

"Stupid is..as stupid does.." :nono::nono:

---

He edited it out right after the lesson. since he entered it, he had access to remove it. He wasn't that stupid...even if he was a liberal!

Roger, I'll send you a box of chocolates.