Non-political question about proposed sale of Korean M1s

[Bob Seijas]

We gave the Koreans some and they bought some outright. When CMP tried to get them back, the Koreans insisted that these were the ones they bought, so they could legally sell them. They want the money. Since we never kept the record of serial numbers, we can't prove they are foreign aid guns. CMP negotiated with them and they agreed to give them back for a "handling fee" per gun. CMP was agreeable, but these deals must all go through the Army. Even though CMP was willing to reimburse the Army for the "handling fee," the Army said they don't pay anybody to return guns, period. The deal therefore fell apart. The Koreans have always wanted to sell them to private dealers, it's all about the money.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[enbloc8]

Even though CMP was willing to reimburse the Army for the "handling fee," the Army said they don't pay anybody to return guns, period. The deal therefore fell apart.

As much as I'd love to see more M1s come back to the US, I can see the Army's point...were I in their shoes, I wouldn't want to set that kind of precedent for loaned equipment, even if obsolete.

[Charlie59]

Has the current administration done ANYTHING to inhibit your access to firearms? Didn't think so. End of story.

Regarding the Korean rifles: interesting (i.e. less stupidly political) discussion on this subject on the CMP web site last week. Part of the snag may be that many of the arms that S. Korea received over time were DEFINITELY loaned, and some MAY have been purchased. This being the case, the thread at the CMP forum goes on to say that the S. Koreans may be running into difficulty proving that they actually paid for the arms they're trying to sell back into the US. If true I see nothing wrong with the state department saying "show us your receipt!" At least the Greeks and Danes (forget the useless French) made no bones about the fact that the rifles were loaned, and they were returned to the US Army for subsequent processing by the CMP. Somehow it doesn't surprise me that the Koreans--who wouldn't even have a country if it wasn't for the USA--could take the the position that the borrowed rifles were long since used up and scrapped out, but the purchased ones are still in pretty good shape, in case you'd like to buy one.

I'm wondering, if the Koreans keep up on these rifles as far as collectability is concerned, they must therefore know how valuable many of the parts are-sight assemblies, oprods, gas cylinders, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't swapping them with knock off junk, from neighboring China, or their own mfg. parts. Think about it--their going to do to the importers/dealers, what the importers/dealers might try to do to us collectors?

Charlie

[Akulahawk]

The way I read the paragraph, only Firearms Importers are allowed to import military weapons. They're aren't allowed to import weapons that were exported under Lend-Lease, as stated, those weapons are prohibited from import. I suspect that a different method of "importing" those weapons is used... namely arrangements are made to return the weapons to the US inventory.

It's a headache and I'm glad that I don't have to administer any of that stuff...

[Joe W]

I think Akulahawk has hit the nail on the head. If "loaned" under a military assistance program the weapons could not be sold and imported into the U.S. They would have to be returned to the U.S. Govt. and then could be turned over to CMP. In the case of these M1's from Korea, I believe they were sold or given to Korea.
What I don't understand is that it is said that when CMP inquired of France, regarding M1 rifles loaned by the U.S. to France, they were told that the rifles had been either destroyed or sold. It seems like if the rifles are sold or destroyed the U.S. can't or won't do anything about it. So what was the point of calling it a loan ?? I thought you were expected to return loans.

[Badger]

Hi everyone ..

Why " NO POLITICS"?

Thanks ....

Regards,
Badger (Doug)

[John R.]

One SMALL but nonetheless SIGNIFICANT point here !

I see all and sundry bandying the words "LEND LEASE" about with wild abandon !

Let's bring a little CLARITY into play here !

THE ONLY "LEND LEASE" Garands etc were those supplied to the United Kingdom aka The Brits on FDR's say so ! ALL OTHER Garands,Carbines,M1911A1's etc etc & etc were supplied under various Military Assistance Programmes(MAP's).

NEXT.."RE-IMPORT" NOT TO BE PEDANTIC HERE... BUT.....PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME JUST HOW ONE"RE-IMPORTS" anything ? Small Arms were EXPORTED to various countries under Military Assistance Programmes and IF they are "returned to sender" as it were, they would be IMPORTED.
To be "RE-IMPORTED" they would need to be EXPORTED AGAIN so as to be "RE-IMPORTED".

In actual FACT hundreds of thousands of M1 Garands and Carbines were SOLD to various US Client States and are in NO WAY subject to being returned GRATIS to the US of A.YET, you have this forever vociferous group here and on the CSP and CMP Forums who keep harping that EVERYTHING MUST be returned so the Glorious CMP can flog them at inflated prices.

One good case in point is the Philippines.They received no end of US Small Arms IN LIEU OF RENT for the former US Military Bases at Clark and Subic Bay.They have literally HUNDREDS of Thousands of Garands and Carbines and no bloody end of other neat toys that go bump in the night.YET,you see the US Army trying to convince them that it would be just ducky if they were to graciously just GIVE as in GRATIS/NO PAYMENT to be given, all of it back so the US Army in turn can SELL the rifles to the CMP.The Filipinos just LAUGH at this nonsense I might add.They KNOW that the small arms in question were offered IN LIEU OF RENT so they OWN them and aren't about to "GIVE" anything back.It would be tantamount to their returning all the rent money AFTER the US had full use of the bases in question from 1945 until the 90's.NOT going to happen !!

So PUHLEEZE let's be a little more accurate vis a vis the "Lend Lease" bit and"RE-importation" and who OWNS what and won't be "RETURNING" anything so the CMP can gouge anyone wanting a Garand.YES.I have heard ad infinitum this bit about how the CMP use the money to further the cause of shooting etc too.Every time I see them"AUCTIONING" anything that is in ANY way out of the ordinary I just shake my head in wonder.

WHY a LICENCED importer can't get a Form 6(ATF/State Dept) Import Permit and then bring COMPETITION into play i.e., LOWER PRICES is contrary to the principals of FREE ENTERPRISE.Playing this"we don't import the rifles"routine to death the way they do is a bad joke !Let TAX PAYING LICENCED IMPORTERS have a chance too.

Now we'll see no end of CMP sycophants come running out of the weeds throwing rocks etc .

JR

[Calif-Steve]

John R. has it, folks. Lots of this sort of equipment went out as rent payments. It is theirs, free and clear. Also note: this is a "Quid Pro Quo" deal. The South Koreans are very intent about obtainig an Anti-Missle Defense System, which the US Army is very intent about selling. We have had a very long and close friendship with S. Korea and they merely want to purchase something that we want to sell. A good deal all around, in my humble opinion.

[campperrykid]

IIRC , the ownership issue was the first excuse for the BATF/Customs seizure of the initial 40,000 Blue Sky Garands & M1 Carbines . Reportedly , the importers were able to prove legit ownership .

[DaveN]

If we could import all these M1's that would flood the market(just thinking and I must add not all ways my strong point so my wife says) that would bring prices down which is good for those who collect to keep not resell. I would just like to see more come home and feel it's my duty to save em when I can.