Jump to content

Did service men bring home their guns?


Flex
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well, in the time that I have spent collecting military firearms, they have been plenty of stories told about how certain guns came home with our vets.

 

One of the most common stories is the scores of 1911's that GI's brought back from WW2. A pistol certainly fits into a sea bag/duffel bag, so it would not be difficult to stash a pistol and other pieces of gear inside. And the general consensus, at least among the people I have talked to, is that when the war ended, the military threatened GI's with all sorts of punishments for taking weapons, but their bags, trunks etc were not searched or touched, since everybody was eager to be discharged and just wanted to go home. I guess it made the process more quick and bearable.

 

We also have to remember that the DCM used to sell vast amounts of military weapons, in all conditions. I have personally seen the 1911 stash of my collecting mentor, and he still has several examples of the different manufacturers, brand new, in the box, bought from the DCM in the 60's for a very low price. There is the possibility that some vets out there acquired weapons in that way and added stories to impress their grandchildren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys, I'm confused on something. From my understanding all us firearms we're government property right? I've seen a few ads on older weapons, such as the krag rifle, eddystone 1917, and listing such as my grandpa used this weapon in ww1. Could there be any truth to these claims? I've seen it more then once. Thanks

 

At least during the 20th Century the US military did not let servicemen keep their firearms once they separated from service. Unless they were a general officer, anybody who tells you "this 'US Property' marked gun was my personal gun during the war" is most likely either a liar, a thief, or suffers from some form of confusion or dementia. Those guns were US Government property and were not considered limited-use/disposable property like rations, socks, ammunition, etc...

 

That's not to say plenty of servicemen didn't keep them (i.e., steal them), however. I have a friend who has an Amnesty-registered OSS HI-Standard he claims was issued to him at one point. When I asked about he came to have it his response was something along the lines of, "well, you know there was a war going on and the Army didn't really keep as close tabs on their guns as they do these days. If you lost your rifle on patrol you reported it and got another one and they didn't question you too closely. Nowadays if you lose your rifle....ooooh boy you're in trouble!" I'm paraphrasing him, of course, but to my ears it sounds like he's more or less admitted he stole it back in 194X. Enemy weapons were another story, but I'm guessing that's a little outside the scope of your question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then Bill in VA a whole lot of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen from WWII are thieves. My Father-In- Law one of them.

Ronnie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

everforward

The best .45 I ever had was brought home by a Marine that was stationed on Guam.....it was in its original box (Ithaca) and was flat-new. I bought it from the vet's son, and later independently corroborated his story when the original Ithaca shipping records became available showing the pistol going through Navy channels and being shipped to Guam. Man I wish I had that one back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then Bill in VA a whole lot of soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen from WWII are thieves. My Father-In- Law one of them.

Ronnie

 

I guess so, Ronny, but it's no reason for anyone to get their panties in knot. Regardless, the US Army most certainly didn't allow the soldiers to just keep their guns when they demobilized and returned to civilian life. Servicemen were required to turn them in along with the rest of their issued gear. Certainly some didn't. As I noted above, there was not only a very large war in-progress, but there was a very different attitude back then, and accountability wasn't the issue that it is today. Ask any soldier who's ever been involved a missing weapon incident, either in training or in combat. WWII, Korea, Vietnam - the current action in southwest Asia: the closer we are to today, the more rigorous the military is about recovering/accounting for missing weapons.

 

Remember too, the government surplussed a lot of arms (and other equipment) in the 1950s and and 1960s. We went from about 12 million men in service in 1945 to about 1.5 million men by 1947. The US government gave away tons of manner of equipment - small arms and ammunition, clothing, field gear, vehicles, food - to wartime allies, to western and southern Europe, dumped tons more into the water, and still more onto the domestic surplus market for hunters, campers, and collectors. I dare say the vast majority of the US Property-marks guns were purchased legitimately on the secondary market through outfits like the DCM, Roses/Woolworth/Woolco/similar five-and-dime stores/Ye Olde Hunter's Lodge/etc....

 

I think most anyone who's been collecting long enough also has stories plenty of stories of families claiming their revered 1885 Trapdoor was carried by grandpappy at Shiloh, their CAI-marked M1 Carbine was carried by Uncle Joe during his CIA-sponsored incursions into Laos, or their cherished Luger was captured by dad from an SS officer during the Bulge. (My personal guess is that is that every SS officer must've been issued at least a half-dozen P.08s in order to account for the fact that they apparently outnumber the entire membership of the SS, but I digress...) Does those stories make the family members or the veterans outright liars? Some very could be. Others may be confused, misunderstanding, or just misremembering. It's likely Uncle Joe did carry a CIA-issued M1 Carbine into Laos just like the one he currently owns, or dad really did capture a P.08 from an SS Hauptman but just not this one, since he traded his for a steak dinner back in 1945. I own a registered Thompson sub machinegun and I had a WWII veteran adamantly swear that Thompsons were so uncontrollable the only way to shoot one was to unhook and stand on the sling while your buddy stood behind you and braced your shoulders. My personal experience is just the opposite: they're very controllable.Still, that doesn't mean the veteran was a liar; I took him to just be remembering things a little differently.

 

WWII ended almost three-quarters of a century ago. Vietnam ended almost half a century ago. Memories blur with time, certain legal transgressions don't seem as grave after 40/50/60/70 years, and like the $50-Jeep-in-a-box, stories and rumors take on a life of their own. If Grandpa stole a 1911, or traded an Oldsmobile for one like he carried and wished he'd kept, doesn't matter. The US military did not let soldiers keep their guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"anybody who tells you "this 'US Property' marked gun was my personal gun during the war" is most likely either a liar, a thief, or suffers from some form of confusion or dementia."

 

Pretty jacked up thing to say, Bill, and I take exception with it. I think a lot of weapons were in fact bought back, but they weren't necessarily the one issued to the individual. My paternal Grandfather was a WW2 Navy veteran, and he came home with several M1911s and .38s. His ship would stand by while carrier pilots would practice landing. When one crashed they would recover the pilot. Sometimes the pilot would give his pistol to one of the crew. Furthermore, when He returned home he stated he couldn't sell them because there were so many on the market. I think the weapons issued to the servicemen were duly turned in, but a lot of guns were battlefield pickups or traded for, therefore not signed for, and they were used and then taken home afterwards. This probably reached an apex during WW2 due the the shear numbers of service members and the chaos of so many major battles. Somewhat less for Korea and more so for Vietnam. I have personally examined a footlocker with two M1911s, a Thompson and an XM-177 among other items (Tiger striped uniforms, 1918 Mk1 knife) sent home by an SF SGM from Vietnam. I daresay you wouldn't have called him any of the above. I cannot, from my own personal experience, imagine very many scenarios in which a person could manage it now with an issued weapon. I most certainly wouldn't want to try. That being said in defence of our veterans, some people will tell you anything to enhance the value of an item, so as its been said, we buy the item not the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"anybody who tells you "this 'US Property' marked gun was my personal gun during the war" is most likely either a liar, a thief, or suffers from some form of confusion or dementia."

 

Pretty jacked up thing to say, Bill, and I take exception with it. I think a lot of weapons were in fact bought back, but they weren't necessarily the one issued to the individual. My paternal Grandfather was a WW2 Navy veteran, and he came home with several M1911s and .38s. His ship would stand by while carrier pilots would practice landing. When one crashed they would recover the pilot. Sometimes the pilot would give his pistol to one of the crew. Furthermore, when He returned home he stated he couldn't sell them because there were so many on the market. I think the weapons issued to the servicemen were duly turned in, but a lot of guns were battlefield pickups or traded for, therefore not signed for, and they were used and then taken home afterwards. This probably reached an apex during WW2 due the the shear numbers of service members and the chaos of so many major battles. Somewhat less for Korea and more so for Vietnam. I have personally examined a footlocker with two M1911s, a Thompson and an XM-177 among other items (Tiger striped uniforms, 1918 Mk1 knife) sent home by an SF SGM from Vietnam. I daresay you wouldn't have called him any of the above. I cannot, from my own personal experience, imagine very many scenarios in which a person could manage it now with an issued weapon. I most certainly wouldn't want to try. That being said in defence of our veterans, some people will tell you anything to enhance the value of an item, so as its been said, we buy the item not the story.

 

"Jacked up thing to say" or not, Sarge, the simple truth is that the US Government did not authorize nor allow soldiers, sailors, and airmen to keep US Property-marked small arms, issued to them or however else otherwise acquired; not in WW2, not in Korea, not in Vietnam.

 

"I think the weapons issued to the servicemen were duly turned in, but a lot of guns were battlefield pickups or traded for, therefore not signed for, and they were used and then taken home afterwards." This is probably true in many instances, and I whole-heartedly agree with your statement. However, your own statement meets the definition of theft. Picked up off the battlefield, airplane crash, "here hold this while I XYZ", plenty of guys acquired guns that way, but that doe not mean it was done legally and with the authority of the US military/US government. Issued to you or not, it was issued to someone and not turning it in so you could keep it is theft. Pure and simple.

 

Why is it so hard to think a veteran could steal ("appropriate"? "pilfer"?) something from the military? And you buddy who showed you the TSMG and two 1911s, yes, I would call him that if he simply carried them home without proper authorization. Veteran status doesn't necessarily equate to sainthood; if it did then US military prisons would be empty and there'd be a greatly reduced need for MPs. Yes, many came home with them, however. So again, if the USG didn't allow service to keep their weapons, how did they get them? A; They stole them (theft is properly defined as taking something that's not yours); B. they purchased/traded/acquired them after the war from someone (USG direct surplus sales or secondary surplus such as a friend, Roses, Ye Olde Hunter's Lodge, etc...)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While many were "liberated" from Uncle Sam, this thread on the CMP forum details some of the ways that US soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen may have legitimately brought USGI firearms home in the WWI/WWII/KW era: http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=169928

 

There is a bit of arguing in that thread but there are some references to regulatory documents too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For several years after the end of WWII, The American Rifleman ran multiple warnings about the possession of US Government firearms. For the most part, it was OK for service men to bring home foreign weapons as war souvenirs but NOT U.S. guns. Here are a few references:

 

· “Regulations Governing Souvenirs,” The American Rifleman, June 1945.

· “Shipping ‘Liberated’ Weapons Home,” The American Rifleman, October 1945.

· “Warning to Shooters:” The American Rifleman, July 1948.

· “Legal Ownership of Government Firearms,” The American Rifleman, October 1954.

 

Here is the most relevant of these:

 

Regards,

Kevin Williams

 

post-403-0-60202500-1438368325.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Bill, you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. I disagree with yours and I'll leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am glad all these veteran "thieves" acquired their M1911s and brought them home. The more the merrier!! The government just feeds them to Captain Crunch anyways!!!

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I am glad all these veteran "thieves" acquired their M1911s and brought them home. The more the merrier!! The government just feeds them to Captain Crunch anyways!!!

 

Chris

Agreed

 

I guess every US helmet or M3 trench knife falls into the same catagory as ill gotten property that was taken home....lol We are all accomplices as we are holding stolen material.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dirt Detective

Agreed

 

I guess every US helmet or M3 trench knife falls into the same catagory as ill gotten property that was taken home....lol We are all accomplices as we are holding stolen material.

 

 

Funny you say that, While buying a Japanese sword taken off of Iwo from a Col. Barber ( USMC ) Silver Star Iwo and CMH from the chosin reservoir , I remember asking if he had his issued helmet and he looked at me as serious as a heart attack and said hell no..that was government property I turned it in. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum

Well Bill, you're entitled to your opinion just like everyone else. I disagree with yours and I'll leave it at that.

 

I'll be less politic and more blunt about the above discussion. Bill isn't expressing an opinion,

but is stating a fact. US small arms were never distributed to soldiers to take home after their

service. Such Government Property marked weapons were either surplussed and purchased

legally after the war, or were stolen. If Omar Bradley retired and kept his sidearm, then that

is very much a different situation from what is being discussed.

 

I have owned, and currently own several of these weapons which have been clearly stolen,

as the government has never surplussed operational M60 machine guns, M2 60mm & M1 81mm

mortars, 1919A4 machine guns, M9A1 rocket launchers.

 

I have clear title to these stolen weapons provided by the entity from which they were stolen,

namely the US government. I can now legally own them regardless of their past stolen history.

 

Soldiers have been stealing crap since the dawn of time. Why is it so hard to believe that a lot

of vets were thieves who wanted to keep their "toys". Not every vet is deserving of cannonization

for sainthood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Bibliotecario

I would suggest that 'bringback' is at best a bowdlerization and and worst a misnomer for stolen government property. Not that I have a problem with GIs stealing weapons which were later scrapped by the thousands. I've always suspected that many of the stories told by GIs about 'buying' their weapon or better yet, that the government gave it to them, were fabrications for the tender ears of civilians not versed in the ways of the military, where there are different degrees of socially acceptible (if not legally acceptable) theft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My "Uncle" has a M1 Carbine that his father brought home. (We have called him my Uncle since I was born...) It is the only early war, completely 100% untouched Carbine I have seen. I don't remember if it was a Standard Products or Quality Hardware, but I remember it was a I-cut stock, Rockola barrel, flip site & still has the original sling which has NEVER been removed! It is a bit sticky, as it has never been cleaned, but the bore is beautiful. It hasn't been fired since the mid 1940s. I don't know any of the details of how he brought it home, other than the fact that it was a big no-no. It looks like it should be in my gun locker soon!

 

I have a M1 Garand that I personally received from the original "owner". Although, he wasn't a regular GI, so to speak. He was on APG, and they received a small group of Garands to test. He stated that a few guys were instructed to shoot the daylights out of them, tear them down & swap all the parts around, then continue shooting them. Then, keep doing this for days on end. He was never told why. Maybe to test the durability of parts & ensure they could continue to function in different rifles after being worn down so much? All the parts are from mid 42 to mid 43, and they show a good bit of even wear. He lived a few hours from APG, and this one followed him home on a weekend pass! He shipped out to the west coast shortly after. I have never fired it. All I have done is break it down, clean, inspect & lube everything & put it back together.

 

So, I would think that if I can find 2 "take homes" this close to home, I am sure there are countless firearms that were taken home one way or another. I would like to find out if anyone ever came looking for any of them. I'm sure they knew it was happening, but I wonder if they ever bothered to track them down, or if they just let it slide...After all, we had just won the war, and I'm sure a lot of folks had other things to worry about...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I almost picked up a beautiful Remington Rand 1911A1 from an auction. It had the original paperwork with it from 1945, stating that the Vet was permitted to return home with it, as a price of $25 had been deducted from his pay for it. It was original paperwork, and looked a lot like the small "spoils of war" forms that Vets were issued to bring home their spoils. It also had paperwork from the 1970s, where the same Vet had it registered in his home state for one reason or another. The line for the previous owner simply stated "Issued Military Weapon, Self".

 

So, the stories, or at least a few of them, of Vets purchasing their sidearms, are true, at least in this case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be less politic and more blunt about the above discussion. Bill isn't expressing an opinion,

but is stating a fact. US small arms were never distributed to soldiers to take home after their

service. Such Government Property marked weapons were either surplussed and purchased

legally after the war, or were stolen. If Omar Bradley retired and kept his sidearm, then that

is very much a different situation from what is being discussed.

I have owned, and currently own several of these weapons which have been clearly stolen,

as the government has never surplussed operational M60 machine guns, M2 60mm & M1 81mm

mortars, 1919A4 machine guns, M9A1 rocket launchers.

I have clear title to these stolen weapons provided by the entity from which they were stolen,

namely the US government. I can now legally own them regardless of their past stolen history.

Soldiers have been stealing crap since the dawn of time. Why is it so hard to believe that a lot

of vets were thieves who wanted to keep their "toys". Not every vet is deserving of cannonization

for sainthood.

Then I'll be less "politic" If a veteran, (whom you may not consider a saint but I would consider damn close and would call a brother), after going through the hell a lot of them did, decided to bring home a piece of his equipment, his "toys" to commemorate his service to THIS country, then more power to him. They earned it. It apparently wasn't that big of a deal because I have yet to hear of any of them being prosecuted. I'll take my place along side any of these guys who are considered a "liar, a thief, or suffers from some form of confusion or dementia" and count myself in good company.

 

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Old Sarge 100%.

 

I think a pistol or rifle is a small price to pay for what these men did & continue to do. To speak of WW2 Veterans: I think they earned the right to bring home whatever they wanted, as long as it wasn't a full auto MG or unstable explosives of some type. The things they endured, the things they saw, I could never begin to understand or comprehend. More weapons were destroyed or lost on the battlefield, and then countless more were destroyed by Uncle Sam after the war. If they chose to take a rifle or pistol home, I say let them! They deserve much more than that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Old Sarge 100%.

 

I think a pistol or rifle is a small price to pay for what these men did & continue to do. To speak of WW2 Veterans: I think they earned the right to bring home whatever they wanted, as long as it wasn't a full auto MG or unstable explosives of some type. The things they endured, the things they saw, I could never begin to understand or comprehend. More weapons were destroyed or lost on the battlefield, and then countless more were destroyed by Uncle Sam after the war. If they chose to take a rifle or pistol home, I say let them! They deserve much more than that...

I agree also

 

A rifle, pistol or what ever they brought home was little compensation for what was given in return.

You sign up or get drafted for the duration and give 2,3,5 years of your life and if you make it home safe and in one piece are promised benefits for life only to see a lot of the benifits get difficult or impossible to recieve.

 

Have spoken with vets and a common term most use is "borrowed" when speaking of a weapon they took home...lol

 

The vets will also talk about how officer would "order" them to hand over something but keep it for their own use.Thats real theft to me.

 

A neighbor when I was young told me he was getting ready to leave his ship and a new ensign was doing roll call.Seeing the two Japanese rifles and sword he had in his sea bag the officer told him he had to "leave" the bag on the deck as he wasnt to have them.The vet had gotten them in Japan and it was cleared to do so.He even showed papers signed by his captain.The ensign insisted so the vet walked to the side of the ship and tossed

them over.He told the ensign "you want them ...you go get them".He said the officer only tried this withvfairly low ranking crew.A Chief got wind of it and it ended.

 

I also have to won der about all the lend lease items especially the Thompson's and accessories Russia got.Im thinking it all wasnt paid for in the end then it gets sold off and imported back here a few years ago as kits and resold.Funny this wasnt seized as govt property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill in VA first of all if you're referring to me having my panties in a knot well I prefer the bikini panties and they are hard to get in a knot. So there's that. You're being a bit too technical. Of course they were'nt supposed to bring their weapons home. They were'nt supposed to bring their A-2 jackets home either....bunches of them did. I doubt very seriously that any of the A-2's that I purchased over the years from Vets had been purchased at a second hand store in the seventies and then claimed that it was the jacket he wore in the war. And he just happened to have photos of him wearing it. The fact is that thousands upon thousands of U.S. Property marked weapons were brought home during WWII. Soldiers had a habit of acquiring the tools of the trade. So if a soldier had a .45 that he picked up on the battlefield or stole from a tent, it was very easy to get it home. He didn't have to account for it. My father-in-laws .45 was the weapon that was assigned to him. He brought it home.

As for shooting the Thompson, it is difficult to stay on target. I've fired several. Fired many rounds but not enough to become proficient. Some soldiers tried it and decided they couldn't hit with it so they kept their 03 or M1, etc. a fellow that fired it a lot may have been good with it and kept using it.

As for your comment about the government selling surplus weapons......yes they did. But that has nothing to do with this conversation. We're talking about the weapons our fathers brought home.

Trust me, my panties are not in a wad.

Thanks.

Ronnie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think everybody here understands and agrees that it was not permissible to bring their WWII service weapon home. It's just a fact that many of them did.

Give em hell Old Sarge!

Ronnie.....also from Mississippi!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then I'll be less "politic" If a veteran, (whom you may not consider a saint but I would consider damn close and would call a brother), after going through the hell a lot of them did, decided to bring home a piece of his equipment, his "toys" to commemorate his service to THIS country, then more power to him. They earned it. It apparently wasn't that big of a deal because I have yet to hear of any of them being prosecuted. I'll take my place along side any of these Sh-tbags who are considered a "liar, a thief, or suffers from some form of confusion or dementia" and count myself in good company.

 

"

 

 

Justify it however you like, Sarge; you're using the same justification the looters used in Baltimore: it was owed to them. Whatever justification you want use, it's still theft.

EOM

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm about 25 minutes from Baltimore...I think those people are idiots. Theres a big difference there. Those people were taking advantage of a situation that had nothing to do with them, in order to rob stores & destroy everything in sight, and then use the excuse that they were demonstrating to try to justify it.

 

I don't think anyone joined the Military & served in WW2, just so they could score a free rifle. They took the weapons after they were done their service. The Baltimorons entered the riots with the intention of robbing from the very beginning.

 

Nobody is saying it was legal to take weapons home, just that it wasn't that big of a deal 70 years ago, given what those men had gone through.

 

I'm not trying to debate, argue, or start any controversy here. It's just that if you bring up issues like the Baltimore riots, or other recent "touchy" subjects, the conversation will more than likely venture WAY off course, and we will completely lose sight of the original intent of this topic. There is some good info to share here, which is not commonly discussed. It would be a shame to turn that into a political tug-of-war that would probably end up with the topic being locked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too think Baltimore is a stretch, but it is no different than the current folks taking their helmets, protective gear, and other items of basic issue that they have pilfered from the service today. I think it was harder for Army officers in WWII to abscond with their weapons but most Army Air Corps officers must have been able to sign off on their own paperwork because I've seen several 1911a1's that were bring backs from pilots, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...