Printable View
OK I have been thinking which is a dangerous thing. Why are the Garands not marked US property like the pistols and .22 rifles. I also noticed that the 1917enfields and 1903 springfields are not marked US property either. Anyone know why this is the case. After 24 years of collecting these things I just noticed this.:madsmile:
TIA
Barry In MO.
Because the "pistols" and .22's were purchased from outside contractors and were government purchases of commercial firearms. The Army made their own rifles!
Then explain the following.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
All 1917 Enfileds not US property stamped all made by outside contractors? Not a US design.
The M1 carbine made by outside contractors designed by Winchester not US property stamped?
I thought the same thing at first but then I thought of the above stuff still kinda curious about it?
Barry In MO.
Another thing I am curious about is why was the NO.4MK1 enfield made by Savage marked US property. I would guess it had something to do with the lend lease act still stumped on that one.
Barry In MO.
At the time the model 1917 and the m-1 carbine were made there was no civilian version of the same therefore no need to mark them US property. You will note that the 1911 and 1911A1 were so marked because there was a civilian equivalent manufactured by Colt therefore not all of these pistols were government property. The Savage Enfileds are marked US property because they were manufactured under ther terms of the lend lease act. The very first Savage Enfelds were No. 4 MkI not MkI* models and were direct purchase and not marked US property.
The simple answer is that it was not part of the required markings, but in fact, the term "U.S. Rifle", or just the letters "U.S", will mean the same thing, an item belonging to the legal entity called "The United States."
Jim
Begs the question. A few things are marked "US Navy", "USAF", "USMC, Marines", USMC, Medical Corps". I always thought just "US" was enough" Think there is a "Dept. of the Navy" also a hundred years ago or so.
and yet Colt made WW2 Official Police Revolvers sold to the U.S. Government are rarely ever found with a 'U.S.' designation ...Quote:
Originally Posted by twh
all you'll ever find are these tiny Ord Bomb's ...
My Dad has 2 Colts and an S&W, delivered to the company I now am part-owner of, and issued to Guards at the dock we operated during WW II....clearly marked as "US Property", and "surplused" to the firm at the end of the war. Ditto a Winchester M94 that my buddies Dad bought off of the Piper Aircraft Co. after WW II that their Plant Guards were issued.
Re: Savage Enfields: They were marked "US Property"...as were B-24's, Sherman tanks, and even ships under the terms of the Lend-Lease Act (the shipyard where my Grandpa was the BuSHips Acceptance Inspector built about half of it's LST's under Lend-Lease for the British.....the builders placard was clearly marked "US Property"!)
So when these items were surplused, why wasn't the "Property of U.S. Government" defaced or obliterated? Like all jap rifles that had their Chrysanthemums removed, German rifles with their Nazi Eagles removed (i.e russian refurbs), etc.
Seems kinda silly to have that stamp on something that has been surplused, especially when that item is still in government inventory.
Mike Doerner
It's my understanding that the jap mum was ordered defaced as per the ceasefire agreement between Japan and Allied forces (something the japs insisted upon.) Many U.S. commanding officers failed to enforce the mandate, thus many battlefield pickups returned stateside with the mum intact. Surplused Jap weapons sold commercially after the war usually had the mums defaced.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoerner
As far as I know there was no such terms written into the German surrender agreement. Nations such as Isreal and the USSR defaced the Nazi markings for their own reasons.
The Mum was the symbol of the emperor, denoting the weapon was his property. Japanese soldiers at the end of the war therefore defaced these if they had the opportunity prior to turning them over. A weapon with a Mum intact would indicate the soldier using it didn't have time to deface it before it fell into enemy hands....most probably because said soldier was dead.
"...why was the NO.4MK1 enfield made by Savage marked US property..." The stamp was a 'get around' for the U.S. government. Savage started making No.4's under contract before The Lend/Lease Act was enacted. Savage didn't make any weapons for the U.S. military during W.W. II.
"...defaced or obliterated..." Cost.
"...Chrysanthemums removed..." That had to do with the Japanese not wanting the symbol of their Emperor in the hands of "barbarians". Not all of 'em were removed either, except when they were disarmed under occupation. An Arisaka with the Chrysanthemum intact brings a premium to a collector.
The vast majority of the Japanese weapons brought back by American troops were taken from depots in Japan, not captured in combat. At the beginning of the occupation, the U.S. was very worried that there could be a general uprising in Japan and wanted to calm the populace. For that reason, it was decided to allow the Emperor to remain in office (not "in power" as he really had very little power to begin with) and "save face" as much as possible. The decision to allow the Japanese depot workers to deface the royal symbol before surrendering the weapons was part of that overall plan.
No, Japanese troops did not carry grinding wheels around with them and deface the "mum" after they were killed. Nor did anyone in the U.S. or in the U.S. forces. I have heard many tales of the "mum" being ground off aboard ship, on orders of some officer, on the orders of the FBI or ATF, etc. All false, and all simply a way to explain to one's son and heir how the rifle one "took off a Jap personal like" could have the crest ground. The FBI story is the silliest - supposedly years after the war, the FBI came to millions of veterans' homes and seized Japanese rifles which were returned with the crest ground off.
True battle capture rifles are rare. The soldier who killed or captured an enemy soldier had no way to carry an enemy rifle as well as his own. Some captured in the Pacific islands were sold immediately to sailors and airmen who could stow them on ships or aircraft leaving the combat area. Pistols were another story. Easy to carry, a pistol was often retained by the soldier who took it from a dead or captured enemy.
With due respect to those who fought, 99.99% of those "I tooken it offen old Adolf hisself when I captured him in Berlin" are pure fiction.
Jim
Because property that was captured from the Japs and the Nazis became the property of the USA. In order for an individual soldier to retain possession of the item (be it firearm, bayonet, or whatever) the soldier HAD to have a Captured Property Certificate in his possession with the item. This document, signed by the soldier's CO, legally transferred such property to him. Without that Certificate, the soldier was liable for Courtmartial.
Armament marked with "US PROPERTY" was legally owned by the USA. Title to the armament was not to be transferred to the soldier and was therefore not to be considered as the soldier's personal property.
Well someone better tell the 00.01% of the Old Guys I know that they didn't really pick up those rifles on the islands and send them home. And had better file the "mum"s off to make them real war prizes .
Cary
As Jim K has explained, The mum being present would be more of an indicator that the rifle was obtained before the end of the war. If the mum has been ground off it was done after the war ended by "Japanese depot workers". So don't tell any of those "old guys" to file off any "mums".:nono::)Quote:
Originally Posted by cary m2a
But some "mum"s where defaced by Japs that gave up or surrendered, seen some that had cut marks from axes or bayonet.
Cary
O.K. how do we put the "mum"s back on and sharpen the rifling?:help:
:rofl:
Cary
That may come back to bite us on the a$$. There has been a bill entered in the last several sessions of congress, that would permit the Secretary of Defense to require ALL former property of the Defense Department now in private hands to be "demilitarized", that is, rendered inoperable. If that ever happens, the government could require all M1s, 1911s, etc. to be essentially destroyed. The "demilitarization" would have to be done to DOD specifications at the expense of the owner, or the item surrendered to DOD for destruction. If I recall correctly, the bill is sponsored by Congressman Pete Stark of California (where else?). The bill hasn't gotten a lot of attention (or support), but it's one of those things that we really have to watch out for. It could easily be slipped into an appropriations bill, and if it ever got through, we'd all be up the creek without a paddle.Quote:
Originally Posted by mdoerner
We sould keep our eyes and ears open, things are changing.
Cary
The bad thing about the proposal to "demil" all property obtained from the military at any time (including flintlock muskets) is that is never introduced as a separate bill. Instead, a few anti-gun creeps in DoD sneak it into the voluminous defense appropriations bill and hope it will get through. That bill, like the stimulus package, is so huge that it is deliberately intended to be unreadable and many "pet projects" can be put in hoping that no Congressman or Senator will notice. (This is the adminstration equivalent of Congressional "earmarks".)
Note that this is the reason we hire the NRA; none of will ever see or be able to read those bills to find any anti-gun elements, but the NRA does and alerts friends in Congress as well as the public to the dirty tricks tactics of the nutcase anti-gun gangsters.
Jim
Is the NRA all we have? Or are there other friends working on reading the bills?
Cary
Negative on that! Savage made Thompson sub machineguns!Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
Didnt they make shotguns also?
Cary