Jump to content

USMC M-1936 Pistol belt, opinions please


combat-helmets
 Share

Recommended Posts

combat-helmets

I picked this one up last month, and when I got it, I was shocked at how pristine it was. I thought, oh, well, it's a repro, I'll just look for another

(especially the price I got it for, less than $20....)

 

I confess, I know zero about pistol belts, but I tend to grab anything USMC related and needed some for my collection. However after reading previous posts, and looking at reference manuals, I am fairly certain this one is legit...

 

Need your opinions: I have heard that the spacing of the letters should be split ( such as U.S. M.C.), but have seen many examples of them together as this one is.

 

I have read about mint lend lease belts from Russia, and they that mint ones tended to be R.M.Co. marked ( as this is). I have read a guy in Russia had lend lease belts U.S. stamped, and he put the " M.C." on there.

 

So what exactly do I have here? It's got a patina on the hardware I did not notice when I first took it out of the box.

I'm perfectly happy with it in any event, but your opinions are welcome.

post-10954-1292079949.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

combat-helmets

it was the snap that spooked me when I first took it out of the box.. I'm thinking how the heck can a 70 year old piece of gear be so shiny like that...

but there is a patina to it, which is nice to see.. it amazes me how this stuff was stored and the condition they turn up in today....

post-10954-1292080238.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Robinson

sorry to say the belt is legit.....former russian lendlease.....but the "USMC" stamp is bogus. It makes me sick to see how

any of these are out there. :(

 

greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry to say the belt is legit.....former russian lendlease.....but the "USMC" stamp is bogus. It makes me sick to see how

any of these are out there. :(

 

greg

 

 

Yes, it is. No doubt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

combat-helmets

Thanks Greg. How can you tell? Is it the font of the stamp or that these RM co. Marked belts are the bogus stamped ones? I'm interested to know more about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greg Robinson
Thanks Greg. How can you tell? Is it the font of the stamp or that these RM co. Marked belts are the bogus stamped ones? I'm interested to know more about this.

 

the spacing and alignment of the letters. plus pre war USMC pistol belts made by R M CO were a mustard tan color.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only "usmc" was added to the belt after the faker bought a whole lot. I have a good numbers of "sovietic" M1936 belts and I've waste a lot of time on ebay chasing such a stuff so I've noticed that a good percentage of belts dont have the big US. Of course this is a big help for fakers, it's enough to add an "USMC" stamp to double or more the value of the item.

 

 

In the pic there are three R.M.CO. being the old ones american used 1942 samples while the one at the the top is a mint russian 1941 without the big US. I was lucky enough to have it before fakers could reach it.

post-67-1292095478.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

combat-helmets

Hey that's a great bit of advice, thanks! So the RM Co marked belts are usually the lend lease belts?

Any other of the manufacturers turning up that were unmarked and sent to Russia, or primarily RM Co?

 

Also; is that spacing a pretty solid rule ( U.S. M.C.)

I have seen plenty of legit belts with unspace lettering...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

C.H.:

The S. Froelich Belts were stamped with a uniform "U.S.M.C.", but the Russell counterparts had a gap between the "S" and "M", as Greg pointed out.

Some examples below:

 

The 2 upper Belts are Froelichs, the one below is a Russell- I have several Russells, and they are all the same...

 

post-3226-1292116393.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey that's a great bit of advice, thanks! So the RM Co marked belts are usually the lend lease belts?

Any other of the manufacturers turning up that were unmarked and sent to Russia, or primarily RM Co?

 

Also; is that spacing a pretty solid rule ( U.S. M.C.)

I have seen plenty of legit belts with unspace lettering...

 

There are few of my "russian" belts, most are Froelich and Russell Mills but you can see also a YALE 1943 easily detectable by its filled web alloy buckle.

post-67-1292140662.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

There are few of my "russian" belts, most are Froelich and Russell Mills but you can see also a YALE 1943 easily detectable by its filled web alloy buckle.

Is the us stencil on your 'Russian' belts original ww2 or post done by a faker?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timely inquiry about the M1936 USMC utility belts. I got the one pictured last week at my local swapmeet. It came w/another khaki belt in somewhat lesser condition ( U.S. marked), a 1918 USGI canteen, canteen cover which has several reinforcement straps on the side and bottom, Avery 1944 and "J.Q.M.D. 1942" first aid kit pouches (in ex & vg+ condition respectively)...all for $15.00. The USMC belt appears to be marked "R M Co 1942". There is no "U S" on the front of the belt. An additional marking in black ink, which might be the name of the Marine it was issued to, is stamped on the right front side (photo#1). Condition is used, a bit soiled, but overall a very nice khaki color. I checked my copy of "Grunt Gear" and it seems to conform to one of the USMC contracted-for orders. Any additional info or thoughts appreciated...

post-21006-0-29653500-1536961942_thumb.jpg

post-21006-0-10912600-1536961951_thumb.jpg

post-21006-0-18403500-1536961960_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your belt is original.Russell Manufacturing USMC roll stamp will vary im position.No US will be seen on Marine Corps contract belts(I have gotten US or un marked in groups before).

 

I own a Froliech marked belt where the marking is roll stamped upside down and on the outside of belt...seen others as well.Probably a Monday morning made belt... :lol:

 

The canteen cover sounds like the mounted model less the leather straps

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wanted to make a correction to my submission above and add the 4th photo of the additional marking. I looked closely at the manufacturer's ink stamp marking. In good light it does not appear to be "R.M.CO". The marking is longer and am pretty sure I can at lease see a "O" & a pair of "SS" in it (or could it be "RUSSEL")?

post-21006-0-06254000-1536963001_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your belt is original.Russell Manufacturing USMC roll stamp will vary im position.No US will be seen on Marine Corps contract belts(I have gotten US or un marked in groups before).I own a Froliech marked belt where the marking is roll stamped upside down and on the outside of belt...seen others as well.Probably a Monday morning made belt... :lol:

The canteen cover sounds like the mounted model less the leather straps

 

Thanks for the affirmation on the belt. Regarding the canteen, photo attached. I dug at the web straps but they are completely stitched with no gaps to slip a strap underneath. Also looked at the other belt. There is a very weak, two-line marking in very faded black ink on the inner, female side and just the hint of "US" on the outside. I noticed the angular latch pieces are a bit unusual and made of brass. My father (a 26 year USN veteran 1931-57) once told me servicemen used to dye their utility belts in a bucket of hot coffee grounds & water, when getting worn or faded, to help get some of the khaki color back into the webbing...

post-21006-0-21398800-1536963820_thumb.jpg

post-21006-0-87851200-1536963829_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THe canteen cover is the late WW2 mounted type.Some reffer to it as "Airborne" but it was a mounted canteen and issued to almost anyone.There is a T strap with metal clip/hook to use it or attach to saddle etc.

 

The belt could be a ealier version/model.Picture makes it look a bit narrow?

 

A full picture may help in seeing if its an early or a belt for something else

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two more photos of the (second) belt. I had to darken the first photo as the black ink markings bleached out with more exposure. The buckles are brass, but looked pretty corroded in the initial picture. Also, the belt appeared narrow because there has been some shrinkage. The brass eyelets look a bit like "bug eyes" since the webbing has shrunk down:

post-21006-0-58034100-1537041800_thumb.jpg

post-21006-0-19022300-1537041808_thumb.jpg

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...