US Property Stamp Question

[kcw]

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.
As far as I know there was no such terms written into the German surrender agreement. Nations such as Isreal and the U.S. defaced the Nazi markings for their own reasons.

[Dan Shapiro]

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.

[Sunray]

"...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.

[Jim K]

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

[M1 Rifleman]

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.

[cary m2a]

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

[Joe W]

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".

[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

[cary m2a]

O.K. how do we put the "mum"s back on and sharpen the rifling?

Cary

[conductor]

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

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.