Curious WW1 Mills Shotgun Belt

[jgawne]

I still do not believe any of the WW1 " web shotgun belts" were officially used by the Army. One quite logical reason being that very quickly the Army knew they had a problem with the paper rounds getting wet and swelling, and getting the rounds dirty jamming the weapon.

 

So Scott Kraska at Bay State finds a very typical Mills shotgun belt, but stamped SEPT 1917.

 

MILLS shotgun belt

 

Now normally anything with that date would pretty much have to be made for the military, but I still don't think is proof the Army bought them. Other than the logical reasons, there is ZERO evidence that has ever turned up with a number of people searching for just that fact (including myself who dig some digging in Ordnance files), no photos or memoirs.

 

On the plus side it has two sets of grommets that would allow a bayonet and canteen to be attached to it (unlike most of the examples I have seen).

 

So why am I still not convinced? The two colored lines running through the web mean to me it was made for the civilian market. Maybe someone can show me otherwise, but I can't recall any GI items with them, and see them in most made for the civilian market items. I had once been told they were done so as to show it was a private purchase and not something stolen from the Army, but with no source that is heresy

 

So how can one explain this belt? First off I do find it interesting that this is the only one dated like this that a lot of advanced collectors have seen. This indicates to me it was a small run.

 

1. I think the most logical answer is that the belt was partially made up at some point, and not finished until after the war thus the older stamp.

 

2. Similar is that MILLS just wanted their name on it, so reused an old stamp (or by accident) not caring if the date was right or not, which does appear to have happened with some companies.

 

3. Also, at that time the Army was buying things as fast as they could., and getting in trouble by Congress for not equipping the men fast enough. I suppose a potential answer would be that MILLS just put everything they had into production hearing shotguns might be issued- and this either not being purchased by the Army, or bought in the mad rush to build up stocks, then later sold off as surplus after it wasn't used.

 

4. I'm wrong and the Army did buy some in 1917, of which my explainationf or the lack of evidence is that the Army quickly decided not to use them for the above reasons.

 

\Comments?

 

 

 

But its an eye opening item, and I felt it should be pointed out here.

[kjones5452]

#3, then abandoned the belt idea in favor of the later used pouch maybe?

I'm also curious. Are there any pictures, either wartime or during the bonus

riots that show the shotgun being carried?

[craig_pickrall]

I do not collect WW1 era and know almost nothing about it so this is just a guess. Comparing that belt to the WW2 equivalent is it possibly a USN signal cartridge belt? They are very similar in design. It even has the dual color lines in it. The biggest difference is the adjustment method.

 

[jgawne]

I've been looking for years- ansd a lot of that involves going through endless boxes of WW1 Singal Corps corps shots. I know a few other people have been looking very hard as well, and so far- nothing at all. This si what makes me not want to just assume everythig is as it seems.

 

I had not thought of looking at Bonus Army shots, although I have been through those indexed in the signal corps collection, and oddly enough most of those are actually commerial newspaper photos the army obtaned copies of. I think I would have noticed such a belt as its been a question long on my mind.

[subsystem4]

I think the answer lies somewhere in between #1 and #2. I had a belt in my collection like the one for sale on the bay state site and an old timer told me they were civilian hunting belts. The grommets were for hooks to hang game birds. If you really look at the grommets they are very close together and are not spaced properly for hanging m1910 gear off. Also the earlier civilian belts with the dogs head buckles have the mills bullet logo and a year of manufacture so I don't think the markings alone can make this one military. The buckle on mine was a lighter weight than the standard mills pistol or cartridge belt buckles. I don't have a navy flare belt in my collection(although i should) so i can't compare the mills buckle with one of those.

[craig_pickrall]

I have two web holsters for the flare pistols that go with my belts. One is OD3 and the other is OD7. They both use the M1910 belt hook. They work with the grommets on these belts okay. They use every other grommet and I assumed the odd spacing was to allow for adjustment. There is always the chance the Navy took a standard civilian belt and adopted it for their purpose I guess.

[USARV72]

Here is a typical Mills Shotgun belt with the "Dogs Head" buckle. Notice the game hooks as Craig mentioned. To those that have Dorseys book, "American Military Belts and Equipment" 84 edition, see page115, "World War II Navy Signal Shell Belt" for what its worth. Also consider the late Carter Rila's reprint of the 1913 "Mills Catalog" in which there is NO Shotgun Belt shown. Please pm me for pics if wanted.

Dave

[dalbert]

jgawne,

 

Thank you for your post about this item. I have a keen interest in U.S. Combat Shotgun web gear, and created a reference page that is still under construction on the subject at the following link:

 

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/ind...showtopic=12542

 

My first inclination is to say the item is one of the signal cartridge belts made for the Very Signal Pistol, used by the Navy. However, it is not marked like the others I've seen. There is no doubt that Mills manufactured shotshell belts for hunters. I have one in my collection that has a 1905 marking on the brass ends, and has the military style buckle, while the earlier ones featured the dog's head buckle. Such belts have either 2 or 3 black lines through the webbing, as you describe. I think some of the belts were probably purchased individually for military use, and as you mention, there may have been a quick learning curve with the paper cartridge swelling issue.

 

Mills marked some civilian web gear with date stamps on the canvas, as they did with military gear. This is apparent if you study early Thompson Submachine Gun accessories made by Mills that were marketed by Auto-Ordnance in their literature of the period.

 

I do think that shotshell belts were used in the U.S. Military, but no supportive documentation has yet been noted, and as you mention, no evidence of the belts has been found in period photographs. However, I think the date on this belt is the most compelling evidence found to date. I think it is unlikely that Mills made a run of commercial shotshell belts in September, 1917.

 

David Albert

[email protected]

[artu44]

I had a bad experience with such a kind of belts. In the sixties here appeared on barrows of the marked place shotgun web belts with an elastic band forming the cells for the 12 ga. shells. Being ultracheap I bought one and one day I went to my favorite hunting place with it full of ammo. It was on of that days when birds prefer stay home so I had no need to take cartridges from the belt. After few hours I decide to go back home and when I arrived near my car I unloaded the shotgun and pulled off the belt. Surprise!!! I had less than an half of cartridges I did put in cells and some of the tremainings are dangerously half way up in their cells ready to fall down. I realized that when you are climbing an hill or even the natural movement of your body, being the web not so stiff, push up the round until it falls.

I suspect the same happend also during the govt tests cause there were no problem to protect shell cases being them in brass and not in paper.

[jgawne]

First I have to say I am slightly disappointed in that thsi is a really interesting and unusual thing, and it gets only a handful of replies, while had I posted some SF type patch it would have generated 10,000 of "wow that's so cool"

 

artu44 - that makes so much sense about them plying loose I am kind of surprised I never thought of that.

 

I had not known about the bird hooks, and so now I have to go play around with sizes.

 

After the common knowledge for so many years is "they didn't have them" this one really made me wonder. Someone locally told me he had read somplace that the Army tried the belts, but until I see evidence of it...

 

I will say I have read through pages (and pages and pages) of material on Army purchases in 1917 and one thng that comes through is that by Sept they were buying quite litterally anything they could get in a mad attempt to get stuff to the men. If Mills had any production capability for these belts, or any of them lying around, I would certainly think some QMC guy would buy them.

 

Places like Sears were wiped out of anything at all useful, like socks, underwear, towels, etc. This just got worse as time went on and soldiers complained to their families, who then complained to their Senators, who then went after the army.

 

There are loads of stories of guys getting issued a shirt one week, then the next week a box of canteens come in, then a few days later hats...etc. My grandfather did his first month or so in tennis shoes as they just could not get any boots.

[jgawne]

And one thing I forgot to say was that there are very clear statements in official documents that 12 gauge flares were NOT used by the AEF. They were deemed too small to be seen, and pyrotechnics were purchased from the French.

[LtRGFRANK]

I been reading this post with much interest. I have a Mills shotgun belt with closed bottoms for the shells. I like most are looking for the Holy Grail picture from AEF with someone wearing a belt. The hunt goes on. Robert

[dalbert]

I like most are looking for the Holy Grail picture from AEF with someone wearing a belt. The hunt goes on. Robert

 

Robert,

 

Ditto. Here are some pictures of my Mills shotgun belt with the closed end loops.

 

 

 

 

David Albert

[email protected]

[artu44]

IMHO it's not a military item.

[kjones5452]

My belt is exactly like David's. Same date,same everything.

[DesertRatTom]

I still do not believe any of the WW1 " web shotgun belts" were officially used by the Army. One quite logical reason being that very quickly the Army knew they had a problem with the paper rounds getting wet and swelling, and getting the rounds dirty jamming the weapon.

 

So Scott Kraska at Bay State finds a very typical Mills shotgun belt, but stamped SEPT 1917.

 

MILLS shotgun belt

 

Now normally anything with that date would pretty much have to be made for the military, but I still don't think is proof the Army bought them. Other than the logical reasons, there is ZERO evidence that has ever turned up with a number of people searching for just that fact (including myself who dig some digging in Ordnance files), no photos or memoirs.

 

On the plus side it has two sets of grommets that would allow a bayonet and canteen to be attached to it (unlike most of the examples I have seen).

 

So why am I still not convinced? The two colored lines running through the web mean to me it was made for the civilian market. Maybe someone can show me otherwise, but I can't recall any GI items with them, and see them in most made for the civilian market items. I had once been told they were done so as to show it was a private purchase and not something stolen from the Army, but with no source that is heresy

 

So how can one explain this belt? First off I do find it interesting that this is the only one dated like this that a lot of advanced collectors have seen. This indicates to me it was a small run.

 

1. I think the most logical answer is that the belt was partially made up at some point, and not finished until after the war thus the older stamp.

 

2. Similar is that MILLS just wanted their name on it, so reused an old stamp (or by accident) not caring if the date was right or not, which does appear to have happened with some companies.

 

3. Also, at that time the Army was buying things as fast as they could., and getting in trouble by Congress for not equipping the men fast enough. I suppose a potential answer would be that MILLS just put everything they had into production hearing shotguns might be issued- and this either not being purchased by the Army, or bought in the mad rush to build up stocks, then later sold off as surplus after it wasn't used.

 

4. I'm wrong and the Army did buy some in 1917, of which my explainationf or the lack of evidence is that the Army quickly decided not to use them for the above reasons.

 

\Comments?

But its an eye opening item, and I felt it should be pointed out here.

 

 

I'm not a dedicated collector of early Mills accoutrement's, but... check period Naval Landing Party Armaments like China & other areas, along with pictures from the Punitive Expedition of 1916-17, and the Bannerman's Catalogs Repros of the era. As memory serves there are pictures and illustrations of these belts, along with their use. I don't know how Naval Riverine Forces kept them dry considering jungle & wet weather use, but the Navy did use paper cartridges in the Civil War for small arms, so there is some precedent regarding this. Perhaps research would be better directed to pre-WWI use; the rest may fall into place.

 

Just some ideas.

 

Tom

[LtRGFRANK]

now to find someone who has those books

[subsystem4]

I'm not sure if this helps at all but there are photos from the WWI period in "equipping the corps" of marines in the states and in china with shotguns. The photo of china marines shows them wearing 1907 cartridge belts, the photo of marines in the states was taken at a naval prison farm and it looks like the marines have leather looped belts for their shells.

 

I have a 1920 naval landing force manual I will look through it and see if there is anything about shotguns.

[craig_pickrall]

I just checked my 1918 LFM and there is no mention of shotguns.

[robinb]

Here's my Sept 1917 dated belt. The red shell is a WW1 10 gauge Very pistol shell. It fits perfectly and wouldn't fall out accidently. The holster fits the grommets nice, but still doesn't explain why there are the two extra holes in the center.

[robinb]

[subsystem4]

I just checked my 1918 LFM and there is no mention of shotguns.

 

I have a 1916 LFM aswell I'll look in there this weekend.

[Charlie Flick]

I still do not believe any of the WW1 " web shotgun belts" were officially used by the Army. So how can one explain this belt? First off I do find it interesting that this is the only one dated like this that a lot of advanced collectors have seen. This indicates to me it was a small run.

 

1. I think the most logical answer is that the belt was partially made up at some point, and not finished until after the war thus the older stamp.

 

2. Similar is that MILLS just wanted their name on it, so reused an old stamp (or by accident) not caring if the date was right or not, which does appear to have happened with some companies.

 

3. Also, at that time the Army was buying things as fast as they could., and getting in trouble by Congress for not equipping the men fast enough. I suppose a potential answer would be that MILLS just put everything they had into production hearing shotguns might be issued- and this either not being purchased by the Army, or bought in the mad rush to build up stocks, then later sold off as surplus after it wasn't used.

 

4. I'm wrong and the Army did buy some in 1917, of which my explanation or the lack of evidence is that the Army quickly decided not to use them for the above reasons.

 

\Comments?

 

Another possibility is that the belt is not USGI but instead was purchased for use by one of the State Defense Forces during WW1. (Note the important distinction between the National Guard of the various states which received US equipment and the state militias which relied solely on state funding for equipment.)

 

As an example during WW1 New York State equipped its militia (after the NY National Guard was federalized) with .30 caliber rifle cartridge belts that did not strictly conform to the US pattern. These belts also had the official seal of the State of NY on the pocket snaps.

 

My point is that this shotgun belt may well have been purchased for that purpose, and would have served well in that role since it would not be subjected to the rigors of trench warfare. Again, this is pure speculation but given the lack of any other documented explanation for these belts this speculation may be valid.

 

Regards,

Charlie Flick