British made carbine pouch...

[Insulinde]

I'm looking for some feedback on this questionable British made carbine pouch; it looks weird compared to the genuine original example shown on the left.

 

Measurements and general info:

5"x 4 1/4" (the well used original being 4 3/4"x 5").

There are differences in the U.S. stamp. 

The 'weird' example has a longer reinforcement strap (where the male part of the lift-the-dot closure is placed), which covers the entire pouch horizontally.

The 'weird' pouch does, in fact, fit regular carbine magazines! I don't have any of those on hand, but I've tried fitting them in the past.

 

Anyway: what do you guys think?

 

Cheers,

Cal.

[Keystone]

I believe the one on the right is for the .45 magazines. I've had a few over the years. It looks legit.

Tim

[cgutierrez]

I, like Tim, believe that the weird/odd one looks more for a couple of .45 mags than carbine mags.  However, I don't see it as totally legit for .45 mag pouch.  The pic that I have provided below shows my two British made pouches.  The one on the right is for the .45 pouch but substantially differs from yours in that it, like all British made .45 mag pouches that I have seen thus far (and I have seen quite a few) has two snaps holding the flap to the main body with no reinforcing strap.  Also every British made .45 mag pouch that I have observed thus far does not have a U.S. stamp on the front - only the carbine mag pouch does.  So in size and shape your odd pouch resembles a .45 mag pouch but in other aspects it is more of a carbine mag pouch.  You stated that you have been able to put in an M1 carbine magazine, so it could just be a very unusual carbine mag pouch.  I really can't think of what else it would be.

 

Thanks for showing it,

CG

[Insulinde]

Thanks for the reply, I appreciate it.

 

The 'odd' pouch looks somewhat similar to a .45 mag pouch, but it isn't. There are some noticable differences; the least prominent being the width of the magazine pockets, which clearly indicates that my 'odd' pouch wasn't made to hold a .45 mag. The other, more prominent, differences are pointed out by @cgutierrez in his reply above.

 

I have, in fact, seen more of these 'odd' pouches. They were all, like mine, marked B S Ltd (Bass Smeaton Ltd., a lesser known firm that produced webbing in relatively small quantities). Has anyone ever seen other British made US web. made by this company?

 

@cgutierrez I agree with your statement, this is indeed a very unusual carbine pouch...

 

The search continues!

 

Cheers,

Cal.

[numbersix]

Could it be designed to hold either Carbine magazines or Colt 1911 magazines depending on need? I think there was an USMC pouch that did this, the pleating may be to accomodate both? Not my area of knowledge, I just like a good puzzle.

[numbersix]

I have just found this link US Army Data Depot page, which gives more information of what appears to be this pattern of pouch as well as listing some other British manufacturers of this pattern. It is towards the bottom of the page and titled: Pocket, Magazine, Double Web, Carbine, Cal.30, M1 (E.T.O) and shows an AC Ltd example that looks the same type as the above.

[Insulinde]

I'm aware of the existence of the USMC pouches, however I do not think that that specific pattern was ever introduced for Army use. The pleats in the pockets are probably the result of long-term storage; this pouch wasn't issued.

 

The provided link is very helpful, I think you're right about the A.C. made pouch shown on that site, it does look like mine! The picture in the bottom right corner clearly shows the longer reinforcement strap that holds the 'male' part of the lift-the-dot closure. I'm starting to think that the British produced multiple variants of the Pocket, Magazine, Double Web, Carbine, Cal.30, M1 (E.T.O)... 🤔

[numbersix]

I wonder if it's simpler to manufacture? The longer reinforcement strap would be easier to apply without having to centre it like the the US manufactured ones. There were a number of wartime manufacturers who only produced webbing during the War, their normal trade being non-military. It may be that this design is easier to manufacture for Companies that were new to military webbing production.  

[Insulinde]

You could be right, @numbersix. The construction of these B.S. Ltd and A.C. Ltd. pouches seems to be simplified, compared to the more common M.E. Co. examples. The same rule applies to British webbing, for instance: the initial design for the standard Pattern 1937 shoulder straps involved a method called 'reduction weaving', which required specialized machinery to produce. When the War Department contracted smaller companies for the production of webbing, they simplified the design creating a so-called 'Economy' version of the shoulder straps, as these smaller companies weren't able to produce the original variant that involved the 'reduction weaving' technique. 

 

Cheers,

Cal.

[qmjones]

Overall, British Made followed suit with equipment already made by The United States. The WWI M1910 pouches used (2) Lift-The-Dot snap fasteners, while the M1 Carbine pouches only used one. Any of the British Made .45 pockets always have and utilize two snaps. Depending on the companies manufacturing the pouches whether it deemed easier to make with the "pucker" or not.

[qmjones]

The B.S. Ltd. pouch: 

[qmjones]

The "pucker" with magazines in them:

[qmjones]

Mills Equipment Co. pouch with magazines: 

[qmjones]

M.E. Co. pouch markings:

[Insulinde]

Thanks for uploading the additional pics, @qmjones. It clearly shows the differences between the M. E. Co. pouches and the variants made by the other manufacturers.

[Browninggunner688]

Hi all.

Seem like there is some confusion with these pouches don't forget there are two versions of the carbine pouch....

 

From Ben Majors excellent book on British made U.S. clothing and equipment. (No affiliation with Ben) but highly recommend this book.

 

First pouch, Pocket, cartridge, cal. .30, M-1, carbine or rifle (stock No. 74-143-60).

 

The belt snap is off centre on this pouch when looking at it from the back, short re- enforcing strip on male part of the LTD snap, short squat appearance.

Manufacturers are.......

A.C. LIMITED 1943

B.S. LIMITED 1943

M. WRIGHT & SONS (M.W.&S.)Limited 1943

M.E.Co 1943

 

The other pouch is Pocket, Magazine, Double, Web, For Carbine, Cal. .30 (stock No. 74-C-147).

 

The belt snap is centre of the pouch when looking at it from the back, long re-enforcing strip on male part of the LTD snap. Taller appearance than the other pouch.

 

Manufacturers are...

A.C. LIMITED 1943, 1944

B.S. LIMITED 1944

 

There could be other manufacturers and dates out there for these pouches that I haven't got records on, please feel free to add to the list.

 

.45 magazine pouches that are British made always have 2 snaps or 2 LTD fasteners.

 

The OP 's pouches are examples of one of each.

 

Hope this helps a bit.

 

Nick.

 

[Insulinde]

Thanks for posting the additional information, @Browninggunner688. This explaines a lot!

I don't own the aforementioned book, but I'm glad it exists! I'm sure I'll be able to find it somewhere in The Netherlands, or at least in Europe.

 

Cheers,

Cal.

[Matt_X]

Would love to see some more photos of these, including the back and dimensions.

[Insulinde]

@Matt_X I'm afraid I can't help you with that. I sold all my British Made web gear several months ago.

 

Cheers,

Insulinde