WW2 USMC Holster?

[usmc3439]

Hello guys. Do anyone knows if during ww2, the department of the navy actually purchased m1916 holsters (used with the m1911a1 pistol) marked USMC instead of the standard US on the flap? I have found several of the USMC holsters, but I have no clue if they were from ww2 or later conflicts like Korea and Vietnam. Thanks for the help!

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.

[RT Ellis]

The subject of military revolver and pistol holsters is a hot topic at U.S. Militaria Forum and you might want to check out the many discussions on the Holster M1916 by using the search engine there.

The U.S. Army adopted the Holster M1912 for general issue with the Pistol M1911. The U.S. Navy shortly adopted the Pistol M1911 and a holster similar to the Holster M1912 except the swivel feature was eliminated. When the Marine Corps adopted the pistol M1911 a holster identical to Holster M1912 was adopted except it was embossed “USMC”. Examples of Navy pattern holsters embossed “USMC” also exist. The Army then adopted the Holster M1916, which has remained standard in the Army and later standard in all branches, so that by WWII Holster M1916 was manufactured on the Army specification.

The concept of a written specification for individual equipment appears to have started during the War with Spain in 1898. The use of a sample or pattern for a standardized item was the accepted practice for many items of uniforms and equipment until WWI. During the Great War the complications of materials allocation and the requirement for substitute materials caused the procuring agencies to write specifications for materials that were acceptable to the War Production Board, and provided guidance to the manufacturers for material and construction. This was necessary to assure that manufacturers that had never manufactured equipment previously met the standards. As a consequence the standardized equipment for which specifications had been written was often, at least temporarily, the equipment specified in contracts. During WWII the Army and the Navy began the process of consolidating the supply system and as a consequence agreed to specifications for equipment that carried the “AN” (Army-Navy) designation. In the Pacific Theater by mid-war the logistic system for arms, uniforms and equipment was consolidated. The Army and the Navy then agreed that depending on the nature of the equipment one would be the lead agency in developing and contracting the equipment, but that the Army and Navy would agree on the specifications so that only one type was manufactured that could be universally issued. This system did not then apply to all uniforms and equipment but was the beginning of what is now the Defense Logistics Agency.

Comment: Although the general belief by Marine Corps aficionados that the Corps did all the fighting in the Pacific, there was in fact more Army troops, and in some of the later island fighting Marine Corps and Army units were involved in joint operations. Despite Marine Corps historians penchant for ignoring the other branches the U.S. Navy was involved as well.

The Navy and Marine Corps in 1881 were given a more global responsibility for protection of American interests. As a consequence the modernized and expanded Navy and Marine Corps required field equipment and arms for field service that were already being manufactured at the Army Ordnance Department arsenals. As a consequence most of the arms and field equipment was purchased from the Army. The Marine Corps in 1911 acquired the machinery and was manufacturing, most of the required individual field equipment, that continued through the Korean War. The Navy acquired most of the required field equipment from the Army, but also from the Marine Corps Philadelphia Depot when the plant was expanded.

The Department of the Navy rarely contracted for anything that was intended for use by the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps was separately funded by congressional appropriations and the Marine Corps manufactured the equipment, acquired it from the Army, or negotiated contracts. There was occasionally some interesting ways in which the Navy acquired material. For example the first Pistol M1911 acquired by the Navy was by joining on an Army Ordnance Department contract, except that the pistols were serial numbers were in a block and the slides marked “PROPERTY U.S.NAVY”. The funds for the pistols were then transferred to the Army.

According to the well researched author, Alec Tulkoff, on the matter of Marine Corps specific items the only holsters that were marked “USMC” were the Holster M1912, and Navy pattern. Although the Marine Corps contracted with many leather goods manufacturers during WWII for Holster M1916 there is no documented evidence that any of the contracts, which were probably made on the Army specification, were marked “USMC”, although some were marked on the back with the manufacturer’s identification, year and “USMC”. Many of these same manufacturers were also making holsters on Army Ordnance Department contracts, so it is not likely there was significant difference in the holsters made on Army and Marine Corps contracts.

Occasionally a Holster M1916 shows up that someone placed a metal uniform Marine Corps emblem (EGA) over the “US”. It is unknown when or where this was done and there seems to be no provenance for these holsters. It was most likely an individual field modification, but may also have been done to enhance the holsters for sale to uninformed collectors.