Printable View
Just a question that popped into my head after reading another thread on here. When the Australian authorities confiscated civilian owned .303 rifles to press them into military service; were the rifles returned to their original owners after the war?
That question has many answers, depending on the time of Impressment and the Military District holding the Firearms .
The initial rifles surrendered were recorded and receipts issued, in 1941 when Impressment was extended to include other rifles and accessories deemed useful, a payment was made for the items, this was dispensed with after 6 months as too costly and time consuming.
Subsequent hand ins were once again issued a receipt to be retained for return of items post conflict.
As all the Impressed firearms were considered 2nd line, they were issued to Garrison Guards and VDC, no Impressed firearm was supposed to be issued to 1st line troops, though history shows that numerous Rifle Club firearms were upgraded and issued as Marksman and Sniper Rifles.
Now for the interesting part......in 1943 landowners lobbied for the return or issue of service rifles for control of feral animals, the firearms issued were from 2nd line holdings, not necessarily from military stores, but from Impressment holdings.
Post conflict, in 1946 the Rifle Club movement requested the return of Impressed rifles and sights, the initial reply from Defence was negative, but lobbying forced the issue and where records and firearms were available, some were returned if the holder had the receipt and that firearm was located within that Military District.
However, those firearms and accessories that were paid for by the Government, were deemed to be the said property of the Government and no further discussion would be entered into...…..but after more lobbying, if the receipt holder was willing to repurchase and the firearm could be located, an agreement was reached(in the governments favour of course)
By 1947, with the Rifle Clubs active again, the State Associations made another attempt to reunite owners with rifles, an agreement was made with those that applied and where the original firearm could not be located, an issue rifle was upgraded to Rifle Club standard...… this proved more beneficial as early SHT. L.E's dating back to the turn of the century, were replaced with 1942/43 heavy barrels totally rebuilt or unissued.
There was also the call to return the Target Sights impressed, this did not occur, creating a massive shortage that took many years to correct.(many years later boxes of rusty sights were located, far too late, at Ordnance Storage Depots in Queensland)
So the answer is......sorta. If you had the receipt and the rifle was in your Military District and available, then maybe.
From 1950, all remaining 2nd line holdings, including Impressments, were either FTR'd, or upgraded to Military use as Marksman H or HT, or modified as experimental, .22 training or sporting rifles...…..and that's the short answer.
Yes, a long and sordid answer, as you stated.
Just to add a few clarifications, there were no confiscations, as a protection in our Constitution, no property can be taken without fair and adequate compensation, hence the requirement to pay when these items were Impressed.
Having said that, you will note the initial returns were not paid for......these were deemed to be surrendered/gifted to aid the war effort.
The second round of Impressment were paid for, but subsequently just receipted to be reclaimed post conflict.
This reimbursement system is still part of our Constitution, as was recently seen with the compulsory buyback in the late 1990's.
Not all rifles recalled were privately owned, the Rifle Club Movement ran a program where Service Rifles could be placed on permanent issue to a member(maintained at Military expense) as opposed to rifles purchased by individuals. The Rifle Club Movement at the start of WW2 was about 70,000, so the return expected by the Military was about 50,000, as not all members were issued or had a rifle, but drew a rifle from a holding depot for short term use as needed...….quite a complicated system, but it also had to cater to Cadet and Naval Units.
These rifles held as long term issues to club members (hopefully) were the rifles upgraded and sent as 1st line to Active Areas.
As the Impressment was for 303 Rifles, repeating Sporting Rifles and Repeating Rimfire Rifles, there was an obvious out for smart thinking Individuals, as single shot 22 rifles were exempt, a lot of top line Target SMLE's were suddenly sporting a .22 barrel and the magazine removed, a tinplate floor was fitted under the trigger guard, and the owner got to keep his rifle.....with the help of the local Police that is....most country cops were members of their towns rifle club and only had to state that the rifle was a single shot rimfire unable to accept a magazine and exempt from surrender.
My Rifle Club retained six of it's better rifles in this manner, handing in old rifles that were previously setup as .22, now sporting an old 303 barrel, missing the odd bit, but enough to satisfy the quota requested for return.
Despite the often stated comment that Australia had a shortage of rifles in 1940/41, this was incorrect, there was a shortage of Australian made 1st line rifles(late'30's/40's build) which was due to the re-equipping of the Line Battalions.(Battalions in Malaya were still being issued late Manufacture rifles only months out from Invasion)
Other Units and Training Battalions were issued with 2nd line rifles(earlier years) and the 30,000 Rifles sent to England after 1940 funnily enough, were part of the 110,000 British rifles gifted to Australia post WW1.(the collectors amongst the aussies would have noticed the predominance of 1918 Enfields)
The VDC was issued with 310 Martini's, part of the 70,000 held in stores for Cadet units, these were later replaced with 303's, but VDC training programs show the 310 being used as late as 1943.
Just a bit more totally irelevant junk, if I keep this up I will be as bad as PL.;)
Not even nearly. This is history and needs to be maintained.Quote:
Originally Posted by muffett.2008
New Zealand impressed .303 and .22 rifles for Home Guard use in WW2 and good records were kept. The rifles were offered back to the original owners after the war, although many of the .303's were well shot out. The .303's were stamped 'HG (the district number 1-12)/(sequential impressment number)' and the .22's were stamped SPS (Special Precautions Scheme) and similar numbering to the Home Guard .303's. Some years ago those markings were not very highly regarded by collectors but they now attract a small premium because of their history.
this is a interesting articale
South Africa
For those who are interested in rifles which were commandeered during WW II, I have information which I uncovered in the South African Military Archives while researching our “No.1 Converted”, the South African equivalent to the S.M.L.E. Mk.IV. It would seem that some information is outstanding, but what I found sheds quite a bit of light on the subject.
It appears that the “Jannie Smuts Government” had learned its lesson in 1914 and to forestall the possibility of a further uprising upon South Africa’s entry into the Second World War, immediately commandeered many thousands of privately owned rifles, including about 40,000 Long Lees and 22,000 S.M.L.E.s. Exactly what commitments were given to the owners I was unable to establish. However, some guarantee was obviously made. Many of these commandeered rifles remained in storage or supplemented government stocks as training rifles, others were broken up for spare parts or converted into sporting rifles (???). Some were also eventually used to produce cadet rifles or the above-mentioned No.1 Converted.
An archival document dating from May, 1941 referring to “Repairable Rifles, Magazine Lee Enfield, Magazine Lee Metford” noted that a large quantity of these rifles were unfit for service owing to defective barrels and sights. Successful tests were mentioned concerning the viability of converting them into S.M.L.E.s. This was subsequently followed up with 4,250 “No.1 Converteds” being produced over a period which appears to have extended from late 1941 until about May, 1943. British barrels, woodwork and sights were used with swivels and nose caps of local manufacture. These rifles have no charger-guide, which combined with the use of British No.1 Mk.III* forends makes them easily distinguishable from S.M.L.E.s made elsewhere. The bolts were also unaltered, some even retaining the dust covers. These converted rifles appear to have been mainly used for training purposes with some also issued to the Defence Rifle Associations.
A later document dated the 31st July 1945, records the stock levels of the various models of .303 rifles in government possession including 3782 of the No.1 Converted pattern and 28,938 Long Lees. Under a sub-heading, “Commitments” it notes that these two combined totals were far exceeded by the number of Long Lees and No.1 rifles originally commandeered and mentioned the possibility of the shortfall having to be met by the release of other models.
Finally, documents dating from September, 1947 to April, 1948 indicate that only 571 No.1 Converteds remained in stock with an insignificant drop in the Long Lee numbers. While this disparity is not explained in the archival records, I have a shrewd suspicion that the converted rifles were used to placate those who had surrendered and lost genuine No.1 rifles which obviously remained in government possession! This would also account for the fact that the South African “No. 1 Converted” rifles are still relatively common!
Attachment 97201
South African No.1 Converted
The op has certainly started something here! Lots of valuable info that was previously unknown, to me at least, is appearing in the public domain. Excellent!
This is a very fascinating read.
That's the way I saw it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bear43
I concur, fantastic info, many thanks to all contributors.
Wow, that's some set of answers!
Thanks to all those who gave information; a lot of it quite complicated.