No.4 Mk1 stamped U.S. Property ?

[RJFontenot]

I have in my possesion a SMLE No.4 Mk1/2 that has U.S. Property stamped on it. My questions are; Did the U.S. utilize these rifles? Were they for training? Is it bogus?
I purchased it and a No.1 Mk III from Century International about 12 years ago. Any help will be appreciated.

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.

[Critch]

These rifles were made by Savage in a contract to the British government. They were marked US Property to get around some law in effect at the time regarding Lend-Lease. Some of the these other folks can explain the particulars. And just right now, I'm not sure if they ever made it to Britain for the war effort or not.

Enjoy shooting it,,,they are great rifles.

[limpetmine]

No the US did not use these rifles.
No, they were for fighting war.
No it is not bogus.
A Savage No 4 Mk1/2 is a pretty rare item, as only a few dozen thousand Savage No 4 Mk1's were made. Of the 7 million plus or minus a few, Enfields that were made during WWII, only about 360,000 were converted to Mk/2, /3.
Sweet. I need one! With some help, I found a Long Branch /2 not long ago, even more rare!

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

You cannot lend what you do not own, so the fiction of it being U.S. Property was maintained until December 7 1941

[Peter Laidler]

Not QUITE correct John, unless I've misread what you said......
Up to Jan '42, Britain purchased, outright, not with money, which was worthless....a bit like now really, but with gold, all we needed. And when the gold ran out..., well that's another story. But AFTER (was it 13th Feb 42 I think), the US supplied what we wanted as a straightforward loan or lease. In short, lend or lease or just lend/lease. But just to make sure to the international community and Britain that this was just tat and never ours, it was all marked as US PROPERTY because it was.

The last lend lease stores we were still using were half tracks up until the early 70's and Diamond T tank transporters until about 1976. These were sold in the UK with permission and conditions set down by the US Government. However, there were still thousands of No4 rifles in the system until a few years ago. Alas, all gone now

[Mk VII]

They certainly didn't sling Lend-Lease at us with gay abandon. A careful account was kept, and every request was carefully scrutinised, and quite a few were turned down, even late in the war, as not meeting the legally required conditions.
Once Britain's relationship with the US arms manufacturers changed from client-vendor to supplicant at the US Army Ordnance Corps' table we had to content ourselves with whatever crumbs they consented to spare us. Ideally Britain would have liked the US military to adopt British weapons and make them in quantity, and in one or two instances like the 57-mm anti-tank gun and the 20-mm Oerlikon cannon this was done but realistically it was never likely to be widely done. The .303 rifle project was a glaring exception to this.

[Johnny Peppers]

The Lend-Lease Act gave the President broad powers to "sell, transfer title to, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article." This included everything from food to ships.
The "out" on paying for Lend-Lease was anything that "the benefit to the United States may be payment or repayment in kind or property, or any other direct or indirect benefit which the President deems satisfactory."
Most Lend-Lease weapons were transferred directly from current U.S. military production and exhibit U.S. military markings.

[gunner]

I am happy to own two of these as a Lend-Lease to Bavaria! :-)

Gunner

[Jim K]

Congressional opposition, as well as international law, stood in the way of a neutral America selling new arms to a combatant nation. So the FDR administration played a word game, and secured passage of the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed lending or leasing (not selling) U.S. materiel to other nations. (Not "allies", a term that only applies to a warring nation.)

Actually, the L-L act would have allowed the U.S. to send arms to Germany, but needless to say, that was never done. It did not allow the U.S. to pay for material to be given to other nations, so the legalistic fiction was that the U.S. was buying that materiel for its own use, but then "lending" it to other countries. Hence the "US Property" markings, which are not on those weapons bought and paid for by the British prior to L-L.

Since nothing involving the government happens immediately, some guns actually made and paid for under L-L do not have the USP marking either, but they should have. The L-L act was passed in March, 1941, before the U.S. entered the war; it really became obsolete after December 11, but it continued in force until 1945.

Jim

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Peter, from your side, shouldn't it be "lease lend" ?