Viet Nam era Thompson 3 Cell magazine pouch?

[101CH47]

This afternoon I decided to put M3 magazines in a recently purchased Viet Nam era three cell pouch only to find out it was too short. Thompson 30 round magazines fit perfectly. I thought they had stopped making pouches unique to each firearm by this time and were only making the Grease Gun length type. Evidently I was mis-informed.

 

Markings on Thompson length pouch -

 

Pocket, Ammunition

Magazine

DSA-1-3787-64-E

8465-577-4915

 

 

Markings on M3 Magazine pouch -

 

Pocket

Ammunition

Magazines

SMG M3

DSA 100-4479

8465-577-4915

 

 

Anyone have additional information they would not mind sharing? Thanks

[Duffy]

These are for the M3 or m3a1 Grease Gun.

Not too sure if they would fit Thompson mags.....I imagine the od magazine bag with a sling was for such.

[101CH47]

These are for the M3 or m3a1 Grease Gun.

Not too sure if they would fit Thompson mags.....I imagine the od magazine bag with a sling was for such.

 

They both cannot be for Grease Gun magazines, with the top example M3 magazines are too tall to close the flap. 30 round Thompson magazines fit perfectly.

 

Thompson magazines are 8.5 inches tall and M3 magazines are 10 inches tall.

[Duffy]

Well, as far as I know these were made for the Grease gun. If your thompsom mags fit, then great.

But as my prefernce in this hobby of collecting, happens to include CIDG in Vietnam, I have seen photos of this pouch in use with the grease gun on these guys.

Duffy

[101CH47]

Well, as far as I know these were made for the Grease gun. If your thompsom mags fit, then great.

But as my prefernce in this hobby of collecting, happens to include CIDG in Vietnam, I have seen photos of this pouch in use with the grease gun on these guys.

Duffy

 

 

I doubt anyone would be able to see the 1.5 inches difference in height from a photo of these in use. The difference you do not really notice until the two pouches are laid side by side. I did not notice it until I tried to put GG magazine in them which is too long to be used with the upper pouch.

[Duffy]

One question to end your confusion......

 

Then why would there be USMC stamped versions of these in ww2, as well as this model.....but having the stamp

of M3? To sum it up, it is for a grease gun. The nomenclature states such. Maybe you have some type of mis-run

when it comes to your pouch....I don't know....

For your comment on when I said I have seen photos of these being worn by CIDG troops in Vietnam.....well, they were carrying grease guns....so I don't think this can be argued.

Like I also said earlier, if thompson mags fit...then great.

But this is for a grease gun.

[101CH47]

One question to end your confusion......

 

Then why would there be USMC stamped versions of these in ww2, as well as this model.....but having the stamp

of M3? To sum it up, it is for a grease gun. The nomenclature states such. Maybe you have some type of mis-run

when it comes to your pouch....I don't know....

For your comment on when I said I have seen photos of these being worn by CIDG troops in Vietnam.....well, they were carrying grease guns....so I don't think this can be argued.

Like I also said earlier, if thompson mags fit...then great.

But this is for a grease gun.

 

Perhaps you misread my first post, the first pouch IS NOT marked M3. If it was made for Grease Guns then why on earth would they be made so that Grease Gun magazines do not fit the pouches?

 

In those photos could you tell if the pouches were marked M3 or not? Or if they were the short version or the long version? I highly doubt you could. Please if you have nothing more to contribute do not post in this thread again, this is going no where.

[craig_pickrall]

You might try contacting jandrews on this. He was there and has commented previously about both the TSMG and the M3 GG in VN. He may be able to shed some light on it.

[J_Andrews]

Sorry, guys, but I have no knowledge of such pouches, or of CIDG use of either TSMGs or Greaseguns.

 

But it seems to me that when the PFs turned in TSMGs the only pouches I saw were G.P. ammo bags and some of the CIA/CISO "sterile" type.

 

I had/carried an M-3A1 for a while and it came to me with a rack-up AFV pouch (oil-soaked BTW), but that proves nothing.

[robinb]

They both share the same stock number 8465-577-4915. Is there any signs that the one you think is for the Thompson has shrunk or has been modified/shortened?

[Duffy]

CH47,

 

First of all, don't advise me on whether or not to post.

When you run this forum, tell me this then...

 

Second of all, I was trying to help you.

If your not open to opinions and or comments, then don't ask questions about items of militaria

 

Thirdly, I am not trying to be critical of your pouch, I am telling you information based on my knowledge.

 

 

I would like to mention that one of the other members who posted, mentioned the possibility of this pouch perhaps being shrunk or modified, this is something for you to consider.

I have stated many of times, that if your thompson mags fit in, great.....but these are manufactured for the Grease Gun Pouch.

You obviously have some type of wierd pouch there....very unusual.

 

For them not having the same nomenclature stampings, this is quite a normal sight.....there are some stamped as

M3 and some that are not.

I never mis-read your posting, I was already aware that they were the same type of pouch, but with slightly different markings.

 

Take a look on the web sometime, google it up.

The only thing that will come up for the types of Grease Gun pouches are the type you have and then the General

Purpose type bag with a sling.

Wouldn't you say that it would have been improper for certain militaria dealers to have sold these identical pouches,

if in fact they labelled them as "Grease Gun" pouches? Obviously, they are not incorrect with this matter....these are what they say....and what I have said.

 

Now, you can keep your own opinion, I'm not here to be critical in any way, but one friendly word of advice......

refrain from repeating that remark about myself posting more.....it's a free country brother, and this is a forum

incase you have forgot.

Duffy

 

 

For the help that J Andrews has left......I do see what you have stated and agree with your input towards the General Purpose bags being used with the PF's.

I am sure RF's used the same as well, just to add to that.

This was Vietnam, tons of stuff was being used! lol.....

Thanks for your input, cheers.

Duffy

[artu44]

As Robinb noticed, the two mag pouches in the pics have the same stock number and I doubt M3 and tommygun pouches could have the same number if they are dimensionally different. In my experience web can badly be shrinked, I saw an usual 1911 mag pouch sold as Colt1903 .380 pouch because it was the only mag the pouch would accept, moreover in my 1942 M1910 etool cover you cannot close the strap around the handle.

[coolman]

those green M3 3cell pouches are replicated many years ago...probably the faker maded a mistake in dimensions

[coolman]

as robinb stated they may be srunk...he's got a very good point there..that's very true...i talk from experiance...i bouht korean war era pouches ones for M2 carbine banana mags dated 1951-"the ones that they look like the M14 USMC M61 model"...when i tryied to put the mags inside & close the snap it was mission impossible!!! they were srunk over the years & they were way too short for what they were intended for...!!...that's because of the poor storage....when pouches are stored outside exposed to the elements or in a wet dark warehouse they got wet.. they srink & you cannot notice that with your eyes bc they look normal until u fill them with real mags...so i will say that its impossible to be for thompson that very late date...i dont think thompsons were still in the inventory in 1964 as they all sent to france turkey greece yugoslavia etc the early postwar years...the last tompsons you can see in american hands of the regular army are military police personel guarding north koreans prison camps at about 1953...they were M1928A1s!!! very strane also that late date that a tompson M1A1 would be more logical for 1953...

[QED4]

I don't understand why everyone is so dead set against this pouch being made for a Thompson Gun. The argument that "I never saw one" doesn't hold water because there are lots of things I have never seen but I know they are out there. As for the shrinking, I think that is highly unlikely, assuming the Thompson Mag still fits the pouch the shrinking would have to be in one direction only and stop at the point where it was the right length for the Thompson Mag. Everyone tends to jump to the conclusion that everything made in the 1960s was for Viet Nam when in fact the majority of the US Army was not in Viet Nam. Maybe it was made for Korea, maybe some South American country, we were supplying arms and advisors all over the world. I see no reason to believe it is not a Thompson Pouch, where, when and for who it was made I cannot tell you but I think we are arguing the obvious here. Now Merry Christmas and play nice.

[Duffy]

This is a posting which has mis-understanding and a lot of opinions......this happens, as it's a forum.

This pouch is for a Grease Gun, at some point...

 

A very, very experienced and knowledgeable source explained to me one time that there will be dated examples and undated examples, where only stock info. is present.

John O'Connor of Indochina Militaria to be exact......this guy has collected militaria since 1979.

 

I purchased a few of these a while back and they both fit the Grease Gun magazines.

I have also purchased a few of each of these marked types from other sources.

 

Now, I would like to show all of you the fitting of the mags in both nomenclature types, but unfortunately I sold the mags long ago, as I didn't care for them being blocked to 5 rounds due to our law.

I just believed I would rather not own any, instead of having altered ones.

 

I have no hard feelings about anything or anyone throughout this posting, in fact....it's great we are all debating!

This is what forums are for.

For the Grease Gun pouches being in the 3-Cell type in Korea, I do not know.

I have seen the General Purpose type being used in that theater.

 

Special Forces in Vietnam though, used these M3 3-cell type pouches in the RVN, to go along with their SD Sten. MK.2s........additional info.

 

Anyhow, great input guys....merry Christmas.

Duffy

[Duffy]

It's Christmas day...so I'm going to make this additional info. short.

I've got coffee to drink and a few gifts to open!

 

Upon verification and reference, this pouch that has a DSA number but no date, is of a 1966 Manufacture.

 

Take a look at a 1966 dated poncho for instance, there is not only the date....but the same DSA number

as on your "unknown" pouch.

 

Duffy

[coolman]

I don't understand why everyone is so dead set against this pouch being made for a Thompson Gun. The argument that "I never saw one" doesn't hold water because there are lots of things I have never seen but I know they are out there. As for the shrinking, I think that is highly unlikely, assuming the Thompson Mag still fits the pouch the shrinking would have to be in one direction only and stop at the point where it was the right length for the Thompson Mag. Everyone tends to jump to the conclusion that everything made in the 1960s was for Viet Nam when in fact the majority of the US Army was not in Viet Nam. Maybe it was made for Korea, maybe some South American country, we were supplying arms and advisors all over the world. I see no reason to believe it is not a Thompson Pouch, where, when and for who it was made I cannot tell you but I think we are arguing the obvious here. Now Merry Christmas and play nice.

QED4 i would'n believe the srinking story if i had'n see with my eyes...i'v got M2 30rd pouches that cannot hold M2 30rd mags!!! if they are not srunk then what?...i try to pull the flap down to snap the LTD fastener & it does'nt come down..not even close!!! the srinking is only evident to the vertical & not to the horizontal direction...no problem to slide the mags in the dividers but when you try to close the flap there is a gap about an inch or even more between male & female LTDs!!! so you better believe the srinking story bc is a fact & its not something that happens from one day to another...i dont think it happens so quickly..am not an expert on how the webbing reacts against the different conditions & temperatures but it probably takes 50 or 60 long years for a pouch to srink that way when stored in so so conditions & of course is not happen when gets exposed directly to the water bc if got really wet its getting rotten within 10 or 15 days...the 1st week you see black spots here & there ...the 2nd week you see whole black/greenish areas like vegetables & the 3rd week the pouch its like a tropical fruit it's smells like s**t & you take it in your hands & its falling apart & you better stay away of it if you dont wanna get ill bc i dont think that mystery spray witch is sprayed over all the US staff witch smells like dog & witch gets rotten along the web is any healthy!!! conclussion..the srunk ones are slightly water damaged & the rotten ones heavilly water damaged but they are not for tompsons...even the NG had M3s in 1964

[101CH47]

even the NG had M3s in 1964

 

I trained with M3A1's in 1979 when I was in Armor.

 

Photos

 

Additional photos showing the pouches together with M3 magazines inserted.

 

 

 

Folks you are welcome to draw you own conclusions.

[hotlead]

I don't know about the SMG pockets, but I have a pair of M-1956 M16A1 cases that wont fit 20rd M16 mags, four mags fit in the pocket but the lid wont close. Five 15rd M1 Carbine mags fit perfect though. Sounds like a similar situation with these SMG pockets.

[coolman]

I trained with M3A1's in 1979 when I was in Armor.

 

Photos

 

Additional photos showing the pouches together with M3 magazines inserted.

 

 

 

Folks you are welcome to draw you own conclusions.

 

the right M3 pouch is not teriblly taller than the left one...simply the row of male snaps is positioned lower on the left pouch...in any case it does'nt look as a srunk one-maybe is a tompson pouch or a M3 pouch that fell out of the specification...dont ask for more info...this is what we all know here....there are allways some militaria mysteries and you stretched us to the limits of owr knowledge...stop it now...we'v had enought with your pouch...hahaha just joking.....happy xmas

[101CH47]

the right M3 pouch is not teriblly taller than the left one...simply the row of male snaps is positioned lower on the left pouch...in any case it does'nt look as a srunk one-maybe is a tompson pouch or a M3 pouch that fell out of the specification...dont ask for more info...this is what we all know here....there are allways some militaria mysteries and you stretched us to the limits of owr knowledge...stop it now...we'v had enought with your pouch...hahaha just joking.....happy xmas

 

Oh, don't worry, I have had more than enough of this topic myself. The matter is a dead issue as far as I am concerned.

 

[robinb]

What we collect is Army Surplus gear. It all originates from a surplus sale at a military base. Sure, a lot of it was brought home by GI's, but a majority of it was declared surplus at some point in time and sold off.

What about items that were made but not made to spec by mistake? Possibly your pouch was sold surplus by the manufacturer because it was part of a run that wasn't made properly? A simple miscalculation by the person cutting out the pieces of webbing to be sewn together, and now you have a pile of gear that won't pass govt. inspectors. Just a thought.

[artu44]

For those who dont believe in web shrinking, there is my post WWII mint brazilian folster for the .45 S&W. You cannot close the flap missing about one inch. Note the spot where the hammer touch the flap.

[Duffy]

Thank you ROBIN and ARTU!

Glad to hear you both have not stated this is a dead issue and have contiributed to it with

valid points.

With this being a forum......there are no dead issues.

If we all gave up, we'd never learn......

Cheers and Happy holidays.

Duffy