"Lend Lease" M1s?

[Rick the Librarian]

The 48,000 or so M1s that were sent to Great Britain in World War II are usually referred to as "Lend Lease" rifles. I got to thinking the other day that they may actually be "sales" rifles. A little bit of background:

1) In addition to the M1s about 60,000+ Remington M1903 rifles got sent over to the UK, as well. Most of these (if not all) were NOT Lend Lease, as the UK had invested about a million dollars in "start-up" costs when Remington was tooling up to produce these rifles. Great Britain was, in effect, "paid back" with rifles when the Remington M1903 went into production.

2) Under the terms of Lend/Lease, the receiving country, when the war was done, had to do one of the following with material they had received through this program: 1) pay for it; 2) destroy it; 3) bring it back.

3) There are numerous photos of the UK dumping over the side Lend Lease equipment, such as aircraft and vehicles; large numbers of Lend/Lease ships were returned to the US, where they were generally scrapped. Obviously, Great Britain was not in the financial position after WWII to pay for any of this stuff.

Just to keep the argument straight, I'm NOT talking about M1s or other rifles given or loaned to countries AFTER WWII, such as the Greeks.

4) In the early 1960s, relatively large numbers of M1 Garands were sold through places as Interarmco, Kleins and other businesses; it is conceded that most of these were the early Garands sent to the UK.

Where I am going with this is I would suggest that these M1 rifles were PAID for, much as were the M1903s and most of the M1917 rifles. If the rifles were paid for, the "owning" country was free to do what they wanted with them. In other words, they were Sales rifles, NOT Lend/Lease.

Just wondered if anyone has or has seen any documentation for the M1 rifles sent to the UK?

That's

[5MadFarmers]

You're a thinker Rick. That's a good thing. Never take assumptions at face value. We call them Lend Lease. Are they?

Yes, they are. Didn't know either so I went digging.

On March 27th, 1941, 7 billion was appropriated for lend lease within the second supplemental national defense appropriation bill. The first group of M1s was billed against that appropriation.
On the 28th of October, 1941, another 5.9 billion was appropriated. The second group was billed to that one.

At least that's what the appropriations documents reflect. Then it got weird and unexpected but I'll not go into that.

The last shipment of rifles to the Brits appears to be the SMLEs in 1944. 219,427 that calendar year. 10.8 million worth.

[Rick the Librarian]

So you're saying that the M1s (or at least the majority of them) were Lend/Lease? Was there some exception to the rule regarding the three choices the Brits had after WWII was over? I know you like to delve into "primary sources".

[5MadFarmers]

So you're saying that the M1s (or at least the majority of them) were Lend/Lease? Was there some exception to the rule regarding the three choices the Brits had after WWII was over? I know you like to delve into "primary sources".

Generally I like to know about the stuff I have. I saw your post and, having a rifle from the first group of LL M1s, you got me curious. The best source for information on this depends on what you're after. The Army did a historical set, the "green books," after the war and those are killer. I buy those when I see them. The other good source is the congressional documents. Those are available at "federal depository libraries" scattered throughout the land. The library here is one such library. Strangely they have them from before the library existed (early 1800s) so maybe they were able to retroactively order some. Every month the GPO would put out a catalog of available documents and the libraries could order from it. That catalog itself is fascinating reading as the libraries have those as well. In any event between the two much can be gleaned. As a side note the green book "rearming the French" is, even if you only track one down, a really interesting book. Much of the equipment sent to the Brits early on was forwarded to the French. M-1917s in considerable volume as an example.

I've, unrelated, been spending much time with the 1940/1941 data lately. "Build up to war." So that kind of coincided. It's also kind of key. What is clear is they started a massive rearmament program after Germany invaded Poland. The scope is breathtaking. Which itself ties back to the previous war. So we have to keep rewinding. In the build up to WW1 the Army was pretty much ignoring the war and private industry. Which worked as private industry was pretty much ignoring the Army. When we entered the war we discovered that private industry had the ability to make munitions on a massive scale. The "problem" was it was all Brit, French, and Russian stuff. The Army wasn't keen on the entire thing.

So at the start of WW2 they stepped in and said: "not again." So when the Brits came calling for guns they were waiting. "No. Not again." Much interaction ensued and the Brits, desperate at the time, sent a mucky muck to figure something out. He agreed to have the Brits equip 10 divisions with US stuff. Get it? If they use our stuff we build up capacity and then when we enter we have the ability to make it. Their alternative was "nothing" really as it was take our models or go away. I can hear everybody screaming to themselves: "that isn't what the war shows!" No, not after. We're early here. So initially that was the plan. Which logically explains the M1s, M-1903s, M-1917s and whatnot.

Mind you I only looked at that time. I know later they turned over Savage to them and stopped shipping them US stuff in May? of 1942. So something changed in May of 1942, thereabouts, but I didn't poke at that.

This explains the early US stuff. Especially the M1 rifles. I mentioned above "it got weird and unexpected." Yeah, arming 10 Brit divisions with US army standard stuff was weird and I'd not encountered that.

So "yes" to all those M1s being lend lease. Along with much other stuff.

The same basic rule applies post-war. So you kind of already know the answer but are looking from the wrong angle. From the front an elephant has two feet but if you stop looking and give it thought you get that it has four. Hard to focus on that when you're staring at the trunk. At the end of the war we had a lot of stuff. Which, another war to end all wars, we really didn't need. So lets call that "stage 1." Then the cold war started, "a curtain has descended on Eastern Europe" or something to that effect, and the rules changed. So the question is then: "when?" If we're speaking of 1946 they really didn't want it but needed to account for it. If it was later they were inclined to provide it to keep the soviets at bay. So "lend lease" is replaced by "military aid program."

Long path to answer your question. Did they have more than three choices? It's bean counter territory. Accounting. There aren't three - only two.
1) We declare it surplus and you buy it. This was done with the Savage made SMLEs.
2) We let you borrow it.

So combine them and you get three. We let you borrow it. Then, when you're basically done, we can either take it back or declare it surplus. Then you buy it. MAP is "we give you the money and you buy it."

Borrow or buy. Only two. "Buy" being "we give you the money" sometimes. I guess we could "gift" it but that likely would be "declare surplus and let them have it for bid of $0." Accounting must line up right?

Then, back to those M1s, we enter another vector. The Brits went to North American. "We want airplanes." No biggy. Buying from a private company. Going to Springfield Armory and saying "we want to buy guns" won't work. It's a government facility. (Side note, that did in fact happen in the 1870s and it was very odd. Private people paying them to make guns and actually paying government armory workers overtime to do it).

What about Winchester? "Government owned machinery." So really no different from SA. Which really makes me wonder how HRA made guns for themselves. That violates the use of that government owned machinery.

So they were given those M1s as lend lease. We owned them. They couldn't buy from SA. Or WRA. We could buy and lend or declare surplus and sell or give. So, obviously given all the above, those M1s were "surplus" while in Brit hands and they paid for them. How much? No idea. Call it a discount DRMO sale.

[Sunray]

"...This was done with the Savage made SMLEs..." Nope. Savage didn't make SMLE's for one thing. They made No. 4 Rifles(A No. 4 is not and SMLE) under a contract that started before there was an Lend/Lease Act.
The Lend/Lease Act was Roosevelt's way of getting around The Neutrality Act of 1939 when Britain ran out of cash.
"...The 48,000 or so M1s that were sent to Great Britain..." Were mostly looked at then put into storage and never issued. Eventually they were sent back to the U.S. due to the logistics nightmare another cartridge would cause.
Great Britain was not in the financial position after W.W. I to pay for anything. W.W. I literally bankrupted 'em. If it hadn't been for companies like Supermarine and Hawker just developing stuff like Spitfire and Hurricanes, the Fall of 1940 would have ended differently.
Everybody dumped stuff over the side at the end of W.W. II.

[5MadFarmers]

"...This was done with the Savage made SMLEs..." Nope.

Yup. So I had the designation wrong, not a collector of Brit stuff, but that doesn't mean any other part is inaccurate. Whereas you seem to have it reversed.


Savage didn't make SMLE's for one thing. They made No. 4 Rifles(A No. 4 is not and SMLE) under a contract that started before there was an Lend/Lease Act.

Number produced before the act was zero. They're all "U.S. Property marked." Kind of obvious that is.


The Lend/Lease Act was Roosevelt's way of getting around The Neutrality Act of 1939

"Planning Munitions for War", page 73 will dispel that notion.



when Britain ran out of cash.

As of January 1941 Britain still had $1.8 billion in assets in the U.S. per the Treasury Department.


"...The 48,000 or so M1s that were sent to Great Britain..." Were mostly looked at then put into storage and never issued.

Covered that above. I've even figured out why.[1]


Eventually they were sent back to the U.S. due to the logistics nightmare another cartridge would cause.

Export marks on them leaving England are from the late 1950s on the ones I've seen to include the one I own. Must have taken some time to figure out that cartridge thing.


Great Britain was not in the financial position after W.W. I to pay for anything. W.W. I literally bankrupted 'em.

So they ordered rifles while bankrupt? Reference that $1.8 billion after they'd been spending money through the end of 1939 and 1940.

[1] The mucky muck was Sir Walter Layton. "To break the deadlock, Layton finally proposed in late October a solution on an entirely different basis - the British would place orders for American standard equipment for ten British divisions." Global Logistics and Strategy. Page 38. Yet another green book.

The Brit history also has the Layton solution listed. Only after that agreement were the Brits allowed to deal with Savage. The U.S. Treasury wouldn't permit it without approval from the U.S. Government (as of 29 October 1940). Ibid.

The green books are a good read.

[Johnny P]

The proofs found on the Lend-Lease arms that came back to the U.S. were not export marks. British law required than any firearm made in a country that did not have a reciprocal gun proof law with England had to be proofed in a government facility before it could be sold in England. The same proof marks show up on commercial firearms made in the U.S. but shipped to England for commercial sale. The military weapons did not have to be proofed when received, but did have to be proofed before being sold, regardless if they were staying in England or being exported. Even British made military weapons had to be proofed before being sold commercially. Occasionally a German Luger will show up with British proofs, and it was not Lend-Lease, but probably captured by a Brit soldier, and eventually sold by him or his family which required proofing before being sold.

The Lend-Lease Act gave the President very broad powers to transfer material just about any way he wanted to. Much Lend-Lease material was traded for the right to use bases and ports.

The Lend Lease Act of 1941 specified in part:

Not withstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government:

1. To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are made available therefore, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

2. To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article....

[5MadFarmers]

The proofs found on the Lend-Lease arms that came back to the U.S. were not export marks. British law required than any firearm made in a country that did not have a reciprocal gun proof law with England had to be proofed in a government facility before it could be sold in England. The same proof marks show up on commercial firearms made in the U.S. but shipped to England for commercial sale. The military weapons did not have to be proofed when received, but did have to be proofed before being sold, regardless if they were staying in England or being exported. Even British made military weapons had to be proofed before being sold commercially. Occasionally a German Luger will show up with British proofs, and it was not Lend-Lease, but probably captured by a Brit soldier, and eventually sold by him or his family which required proofing before being sold.

The Lend-Lease Act gave the President very broad powers to transfer material just about any way he wanted to. Much Lend-Lease material was traded for the right to use bases and ports.

The Lend Lease Act of 1941 specified in part:

Not withstanding the provisions of any other law, the President may, from time to time, when he deems it in the interest of national defense, authorize the Secretary of War, the Secretary of the Navy, or the head of any other department or agency of the Government:

1. To manufacture in arsenals, factories, and shipyards under their jurisdiction, or otherwise procure, to the extent to which funds are made available therefore, or contracts are authorized from time to time by the Congress, or both, any defense article for the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.

2. To sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise dispose of, to any such government any defense article....

Officer Smith: "Mr. Jones?"
Mr. Jones: "Yes?"
Officer Smith: "Bad news I'm afraid. Some kid in a Monte Carlo failed to stop for a stop sign and ran over your mother. She didn't make it."
Officer Thompson: "That's not correct."
Officer Smith: "Say what?"
Officer Thompson: "The car wasn't a Monte Carlo, it was a Buick Regal. She's still stone cold dead. Just figured I'd point out it was a Regal. I know they look pretty much like the Monte Carlo but it's a different car entirely."

Why do I feel like I'm participating in a Monty Python skit?

There were previous proof laws. Presumably the government was exempted. Presumably they released the guns and at that time they were given the proofs followed by the export and sale in the U.S.. I gather that presumably as the one I have was bought shortly after the proof mark date indicates. Purchased in the National Guard Armory in St. Paul by the guy I bought it from. At least he said it was the Armory. It may very well have been an administrative building attached to the Armory or it may in fact have been in the parking lot outside of the Armory. He said the Armory in St. Paul but that wouldn't necessarily rule out White Bear Lake, Minneapolis, or Eden Prairie. In fact I'd not rule out any of the cities, villages, and towns within the Ramsey or Hennipin County areas.

The M1 rifles were lend lease. They were sent about, but not precisely at, the time they sent the Model of 1917 rifles. Browning Automatic Rifles were also sent (fired one of those after it was returned. Via Chicago but "Chicago" may imply any of the surrounding cities, towns, villages, and other habitations legally designated as a location identified in a map, chart, or other such location indicator). They sent a boatload of ammunition with them. By "boatload" this would not exclude ships of any tonnage nor would it exclude the shipment via a multiple of vessels designed to travel on navigable waterways. Including canoes.

[Johnny P]

You always feel like you are participating in a Monty Python skit because you assume you are the only one with access to the instructions on the heel of the boot.

You fail to understand the English proof law. The law covers firearms sold commercially in England. Nothing more, nothing less. The military weapons did not fall under the British Gun Barrel Proof law. Only the weapons being sold commercially came under that law, and had nothing to do with whether they were exported or whether they were to be sold in England. The U.S. Lend-Leased 1515 Model 1911A1 pistols to Canada. After the war Canada sold a number of these Canadian property marked pistols to a British arms merchant who imported them into England. Under the existing proof law he had to send them through one of the proof houses before he could sell them commercially in England regardless of where they were to be sold later. Not really that hard to comprehend. They sent pork and beans under the same Lend-Lease Act, but none were sold commercially after the war.

Maybe it was a gun show that you went to in the National Guard Armory in St. Paul, as the weapons that had been Lend-Leased to England came back to the U.S. through commercial channels.

[5MadFarmers]

You always feel like you are participating in a Monty Python skit because you assume you are the only one with access to the instructions on the heel of the boot.

Perhaps you assume that I assume?


You fail to understand the English proof law.

Either that or you fail to understand what you're reading.


The military weapons did not fall under the British Gun Barrel Proof law.

Thus "Presumably the government was exempted." I put "presumably" as if I didn't somebody would point out that some random obscure government entity wasn't covered so, in spite of that being complete irrelevant to the topic at hand, I just went with "presumably" to avoid that nit.


The law covers firearms sold commercially in England. Nothing more, nothing less. Only the weapons being sold commercially came under that law, and had nothing to do with whether they were exported or whether they were to be sold in England.

Thus "Presumably they released the guns and at that time they were given the proofs followed by the export and sale in the U.S.."

This is where I suspect you're missing the point. Those guns are obviously the ones sent for lend-lease. They were under government control until when? When they were released. When were they released? We can pretty much date that by those proof marks. Do we know if they were sent back to the U.S. Government? Yes, we know that's negative as they received proof marks. Thus were "sold" in England. Using the date of those proofs we have a good idea that they were not returned but sold. Sold to a commercial entity. The sale of them in the U.S. and the dates determined from the proof dates let us know it was basically around the same time. So they were lend-lease. Were under Brit government control until the late 1950s/early 1960s. Then dumped on the market in England (although it may have been Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, or other locations generally part of the same island group but not excluding the New Hebrides). Then exported to the U.S..


Maybe it was a gun show that you went to in the National Guard Armory in St. Paul, as the weapons that had been Lend-Leased to England came back to the U.S. through commercial channels.

"Purchased in the National Guard Armory in St. Paul by the guy I bought it from. At least he said it was the Armory."

That it was a private sale in the Armory, or in an Armory annex, or in the Armory parking lot, or another location in the general vicinity is pretty much a given due to the above. It was so obvious that I didn't bother including it.

I'll mention that the odds that I bought it at that time are zero as I wasn't born at that time. Or conceived, or any other biological state having to do with life but excluding any genetic material being carried by my mother at or slightly before her birth.

The M1 rifles were lend-lease. They were released in England 20 years, that's an approximate and would be based one which shipment of M1 rifles it was, when that exact batch was released, etc., later. They were not returned to the U.S. government so they were paid for, in some way shape or form, by the Brits. Even items declared "surplus" had to be accounted for. At that time they hit our shores. Where they were sold.

Where the guns lend-lease or a private British contract was the question. They were lend-lease is the answer.

[dave]

An example I can give is the following. Mossberg made model 44MB .22 rifles as 'Lend Lease' for Britain, paid by the US. Contracts ran from 6-41 to 3-43. Prices ran from 10.00 ea. to 13.95. over the years. The 10.00 dollar rifles cost the Brits 65 cents ea., the rest paid by the US. They were sold to the British people in the 50,s and many were shipped to the US and sold here.

[musketshooter]

It was my understanding that true lend-lease rifles had to have been made and sent to England before our entry into the war (December 1941). Once we were in it, I thought the deliveries stopped.

[AlanD]

An example I can give is the following. Mossberg made model 44MB .22 rifles as 'Lend Lease' for Britain, paid by the US. Contracts ran from 6-41 to 3-43. Prices ran from 10.00 ea. to 13.95. over the years. The 10.00 dollar rifles cost the Brits 65 cents ea., the rest paid by the US. They were sold to the British people in the 50,s and many were shipped to the US and sold here.

They were Model 42MB rifles rather than M44's.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

[dave]

They were Model 42MB rifles rather than M44's.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

You are quite correct. As the pols say 'I mis-spoke' or in this case mis-wrote! The 44's were 44US and stayed here, must, if not all, with the Navy

[Redleg]

I seem to recall that the "Lend Lease" program also may have included a 100 year lease on the island of Diego Garcia.......the value of that acquisition may have to enter into the discussion of forms of payment and ownership of said firearms, ships, etc etc.

Clearly the US never tried to grab the Garands, when they left England.....or when at Kleins, in Chicago.

[dave]

I have seen a picture of Brit Troops in Korea armed with MI's. It may be in Scoot Duffs book. So they were being used, to some extent into the 1950's by the Brits!

[AlanD]

I seem to recall that the "Lend Lease" program also may have included a 100 year lease on the island of Diego Garcia.......the value of that acquisition may have to enter into the discussion of forms of payment and ownership of said firearms, ships, etc etc.

Clearly the US never tried to grab the Garands, when they left England.....or when at Kleins, in Chicago.

This deal pre dates Lend Lease and is known as the "Destroyers for Bases Agreement" . In brief the UK gave freehold some naval bases to the USA and leased some others for 99 years in exchange for 50 four stack destroyers. If you Wiki this term you can get plenty of info on this.

All this happened in 1940 early 1941 which is 75 years ago which means in less than 20 yeas the lease's will be up. Be interesting to see what happens then.

The Garand's you see British troops armed with in Korea we supplied in theater and were not purchased by the UK or from left over stocks the UK had from WW2. Regards

AlanD
Sydney

[AlanD]

The 48,000 or so M1s that were sent to Great Britain in World War II are usually referred to as "Lend Lease" rifles. I got to thinking the other day that they may actually be "sales" rifles. A little bit of background:

1) In addition to the M1s about 60,000+ Remington M1903 rifles got sent over to the UK, as well. Most of these (if not all) were NOT Lend Lease, as the UK had invested about a million dollars in "start-up" costs when Remington was tooling up to produce these rifles. Great Britain was, in effect, "paid back" with rifles when the Remington M1903 went into production.

2) Under the terms of Lend/Lease, the receiving country, when the war was done, had to do one of the following with material they had received through this program: 1) pay for it; 2) destroy it; 3) bring it back.

3) There are numerous photos of the UK dumping over the side Lend Lease equipment, such as aircraft and vehicles; large numbers of Lend/Lease ships were returned to the US, where they were generally scrapped. Obviously, Great Britain was not in the financial position after WWII to pay for any of this stuff.

Just to keep the argument straight, I'm NOT talking about M1s or other rifles given or loaned to countries AFTER WWII, such as the Greeks.

4) In the early 1960s, relatively large numbers of M1 Garands were sold through places as Interarmco, Kleins and other businesses; it is conceded that most of these were the early Garands sent to the UK.

Where I am going with this is I would suggest that these M1 rifles were PAID for, much as were the M1903s and most of the M1917 rifles. If the rifles were paid for, the "owning" country was free to do what they wanted with them. In other words, they were Sales rifles, NOT Lend/Lease.

Just wondered if anyone has or has seen any documentation for the M1 rifles sent to the UK?

That's

Rick

I have not seen any documentation in the National Archives in London about the 38,001 Garand rifles that were supplied under Lend Lease. Personally I think these would have been forwarded to allies.

What I have seen is numerous references to 30,000 Garand rifles. 25,000 were supplied to the Air Ministry and so would have ended up with the RAF. I have seen very detailed instructions on completely stripping a Garand in an official RAF armorers manual. The remaining 5,000 were supplied to Combined Operations. I believe it is these rifles which Interarms purchased - they bought 25,000 of the British government. These ended up in Guatemala, Haiti and Indonesia. I think these 30,000 were paid for and are separate to the 38,000 odd that were supplied under Lend Lease.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

[John Sukey]

Just an add. Te British call it lease lend since they provided access to some of their colonies in return.

[dave]

[The Garand's you see British troops armed with in Korea we supplied in theater and were not purchased by the UK or from left over stocks the UK had from WW2. Regards

AlanD
Sydney[/QUOTE]

Why? did they arrive in Korea un-armed? Just wondering. While I did meet some Brits in Korea (spent the afternoon sloppin beer at a NAAFI (sp?), I was stationed across the road from a Canadian Med. Unit. Never saw any rifles they used however. Being AF, we had MI Carbines.

[AlanD]

No, they didn't arrive in theater unarmed. For whatever reason it was decided that some units would be equipped with American equipment including small arms. I dont know why this was so.

[PhillipM]

No, they didn't arrive in theater unarmed. For whatever reason it was decided that some units would be equipped with American equipment including small arms. I dont know why this was so.

I've seen pictures.

I think at the time the UN was American policy writ large and the US provided the arms and ammo. The UK was broke.

[Johnny P]

"Table LL-14-Quantities of selected items included in War Department Lend-Lease shipments, 1941-1945, United States Army in World War II Statistics, Office of the Chief of Military History, Special Staff, U.S. Army, Historical Manuscript File, pp. 28-29, RG 156, WNRC."

For anyone with the desire to look it up, this is where Charles Clawson found his quantities of Lend-Lease small arms shipments.

[firstflabn]

The 38,001 number is for the British Empire (excluding Canada), not the UK alone. If there were any Garands provided to the dominions directly or delivered to them through the British, they would have been included in this total and any additional quantities supplied in-theater would not have shown up at all. Table LL-14 is a summary, so details necessarily get lost. It helps to read the notes, not just glance at a table.

I'm a huge admirer of Clawson's efforts, but this points to the problem of people taking secondary sources as the last word on any subject. It's easy to lose context, leave out important distinctions, and misinterpret facts.

I'm certain the answer is residing in a file folder in College Park (the notes mention L/L data compiled on monthly forms which themselves relied on data from shipping tickets), but no one takes the question seriously enough to undertake the work of finding it. So, incomplete as it is, 38,001 is the only answer available - but using it requires some explanation to avoid misleading the neophyte. Maybe it needs something like the Roger Maris asterisk (61*).

[Johnny P]

And really, he was noting Lend-Lease shipments to the various allies. Just a table in his book on the history and development of the 1911/1911A1 pistol rather than delving into the history of Lend-Lease itself.

[firstflabn]

Well said, Johnny. In trying to draw out some of the fine points, my post came across a bit harsh towards you. It didn't come out the way I originally thunk it.

Keep up the good work. I don't know if we'll ever catch 'em, but pretty sure we're getting closer.

[can14]

Canada had m1 Garand and carbines which the government paid for and issued. Much of the Canadian stuff was dumped into the ocean after ww2. My Dad spent months working on a Barge in Prince Rupert BC
dumping everything in the ocean, these dumping grounds were marked on charts. All US and Canadian equipment was dumped. In the mid 60s the Armory was decommissioned and all the guns,ammo and parts
were dumped also

[Johnny P]

Canada received 8,014 M1 Rifles, 230 M1 Carbines, and 1,515 1911A1 pistols via Lend-Lease. After the war a quantity of the 1911A1 pistols came back into the U.S. via England with post 1954 British commercial proofs.

Prior to the Lend-Lease Act England established the British Purchasing Commission in the U.S. which purchased weapons from U.S. Manufacturers. At Colt they literally bought everything on the shelf. Virtually all the weapons were in U.S. calibers, so most the weapons were first shipped to Winchester Repeating Arms where they were packed with the proper ammunition and shipped to England.

This is one of the Model 1911A1 pistols Lend-Leased to Canada, showing the Canadian broad-arrow C property mark. The barrel, slide, and receiver show the post 1954 British commercial proofs indicating the pistols went to England before being sold commercially.

http://i68.tinypic.com/zmo86d.jpg

[Chaz]

So, is this Lend Lease or Sales? Except for a few handling marks it looks like it just came off the "boat". Yes, it has a British proof mark on barrel.

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/022_zpshuttqahv.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/022_zpshuttqahv.jpg.html)

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/029_zpsj7a9kyyt.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/029_zpsj7a9kyyt.jpg.html)

[Johnny P]

So, is this Lend Lease or Sales? Except for a few handling marks it looks like it just came off the "boat". Yes, it has a British proof mark on barrel.



Yes it is, and a beauty. The red band on the front hand guard is normally gone, but traces of yours remain. Don't remove it. As mentioned previously, for the most part the rifles sat in a warehouse from 1941/42 until the British government released them for sale in the late 1950's. Is yours proofed in the chamber area of the barrel, or out on the barrel between the gas cylinder rings?

During the proofing process crossed sceptres with an initial on the left and right side of the X formed by the sceptres were applied. Can you make out those initials, with the right side most likely being a B.

[JimF]

. . . . During the proofing process crossed sceptres with an initial on the left and right side of the X formed by the sceptres were applied. Can you make out those initials, with the right side most likely being a B.

Johnny . . . .

I believe the mark you describe is the Birmingham proof mark . . .

London also proofed some of these LL rifles, using a "arm holding a raised simitar aloft", over the initials "NP".

It could be either proof house mark on Chaz's rifle.

Chaz . . .

How about removing the front handguard and carefully examine the lower band for any hint of red paint on it's interior? --Jim

[Johnny P]

The Birmingham proof mark is a BHP/Crown. The crossed sceptres I describe identifies the year of proofing and the inspector that did the proofing. By far the largest number of L-L M1 Rifles were proofed at Birmingham, but you are correct that it could be London proofed.

[Griff Murphey]

I asked my Brit friend Geoffrey if he remembered seeing any US weapons in Korea in British hands. He was a "Rock Ape" RAF regiment guy, the RAF's version of our Security Police, basically the RAF's private army. He said the only US weapons he saw were a few Thompsons. Mainly they had Stens and No. 4s. He hastened to add he was not in the infantry but would ask some other UK Korea vets about M-1s.

[Chaz]

"During the proofing process crossed sceptres with an initial on the left and right side of the X formed by the sceptres were applied. Can you make out those initials, with the right side most likely being a B."

Give me a day to break into the vault and look. Chaz

[n64atlas]

The Birmingham proof mark is a BHP/Crown. The crossed sceptres I describe identifies the year of proofing and the inspector that did the proofing. By far the largest number of L-L M1 Rifles were proofed at Birmingham, but you are correct that it could be London proofed.

Crown BHP? It would be Crown BP for WWII era and Crown BNP for post 1954. There were a lot of M1's that went thru the UK post 1954. These got the BNP proofs and some the London proofs. None of these were lend lease though. My M1 has these late proofs and was advertised as a LL. Turned out to just have went through Britain. One of the keys to identifying LL is the barrel stamps being upside down compared to other M1's

[Johnny P]

Typo on the BNP. Have never seen one of the L-L M1 Rifles with a pre 1955 British commercial proof. While other M1 Rifles did go through England and were commercially proofed, only the 1941 and 1942 rifles in virtually unissued condition were Lend-Lease, or there has never been an explanation as to where else they might have come from. The later British commercial proofed M1's were usually Korean War era well worn examples.

[Johnny P]

One of the unissued Lend-Lease Rifles with a 10-41 dated barrel, commercially proofed at Birmingham Proof House in 1955.

http://i68.tinypic.com/149xes6.jpg

[RCS]

SA 8-40 barrel with London proof35404

[Johnny P]

Years ago a friend had a photo from one of the wartime magazines with a British home guard holding a gas trap rifle.

[Chaz]

Here are some hasty photos taken this evening with poor light. Even with a magnifying glass, I can barely make out the proof marks. They are on the right side of barrel. There is a spot of red paint on the lower band. The band of red paint seems to have been delineated by a scored "ring" around the handguard. And there is the remains of a white painted stripe on stock. Barrel is stamped (upside down) SA 1-42.

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/001_zpsivzijodn.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/001_zpsivzijodn.jpg.html)

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/007_zpseafksdor.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/007_zpseafksdor.jpg.html)

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/009_zpsnsw8omp5.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/009_zpsnsw8omp5.jpg.html)

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/013_zpsyqyh1mom.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/013_zpsyqyh1mom.jpg.html)

[Chaz]

This is a little better but I need to photograph in daylight.

http://i966.photobucket.com/albums/ae145/DrBruno/dc7c4814-50ff-478d-b3c6-ad32fc5c09eb_zpsbhewfzvo.jpg (http://s966.photobucket.com/user/DrBruno/media/dc7c4814-50ff-478d-b3c6-ad32fc5c09eb_zpsbhewfzvo.jpg.html)

[Johnny P]

It is Birmingham proofed, but can't quite make out the letter on the left side of the crossed sceptres. Taking closeups is where a tripod becomes necessary. The photo I posted was taken under normal room light, but with a tripod.

[Chaz]

Tripod is in garage with spotting scope. This will take me through the weekend to attempt to take a clear photo. Proofs look like they were put there by a chinaman high on opium but I'll try to get a clearer pic.

What is the significance if any of the red spot on the lower band? It appears to have been purposely put there.

[Johnny P]

The M1 Rifle was not in standard British caliber, so the red band with the .30 caliber making was applied so that hopefully no one would try to put .303 ammunition in it. The other U.S. rifles in .30 cal. (.30-06) sent to England were also marked in the same way. Over the years most of the markings have been removed.

[Chaz]

JP, I understand that. I was referring to the clear red dot on the lower band. It does not look like a drip mark but a definite spot that "appears to have been purposely put there." Maybe the painter's name was "Kilroy."

[EdG]

I would be pretty sure that the date code is F on Chaz's rifle. The F used by Birmingham is weirdly stylized making it difficult to discern. I've yet to see anything other than F under the op rod, but I am open to correction.

Chaz, I have seen that scored "ring" around the handguard often on rifles that have had the red band removed. Many times there has been a trace of color in that scoring.
Thanks for pointing out this "ring". I've often wondered why it is seen on some handguards. I did not make note if the scored handguards show up on the handguards painted only on the end or if those guards painted in the middle are also scored.

I'm not sure why the red dot would appear on the back of the lower band as it does. The first thought would be that it is a slop-over or paint dripped as it was heading for the front handguard. But the uniformity of the dot could certainly suggest it was purposely put there. I myself have not seen that before.
I have seen the red paint slopped all over the place, including the gas cylinder and the stock. Some rifles did have the front of the stock and the rear handguard painted (I've seen only three of these), but I have seen paint on the stocks of some rifles that had only the front handguard painted.

[Johnny P]

The red bands and caliber marking were crudely done and nothing more than a warning of caliber, and I would suspect a drop of paint just happened during painting.

Here are two Remington 1903 L-L rifles.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2zjfac0.jpg

[Johnny P]

This is one of the L-L M1 Rifles with the marking between the gas cylinder loops. The proof house probably figured out that it was easier to mark them out on the barrel rather than on the chamber. This one has an L in the crossed sceprtres indicating proofing in 1960.

http://i68.tinypic.com/9tkbbl.jpg

[1/501]

35568

My nickel's worth. SA 406,XXX range. I sure wish they'd have not partially covered the barrel date!

[EdG]

Great pics, Johnny P.

My feeling is that the rifles in the first batch to be proofed (apparently 1955) were stamped under the op rod. The rifles in subsequent batches were stamped on the muzzle by Birmingham probably because it was easier to do so since Birmingham used such a long set of characters. London apparently continued to stamp under the op rod, maybe because London used fewer characters .

I've not yet seen a Garand with a serial number in the Lend-Lease time frame that is London-proofed on the muzzle. Unfortunately for us collectors, London did not use a date code, so we don't know in what year a rifle was proofed by the London house.

I have noted that those rifles stamped under the op rod by Birmingham have the crown over BNP facing to the right on the top of the receiver ring and on the right operating lug of the bolt. London also stamped the bolt on the right operating lug but stamped the receiver on the side under the hump of the op rod handle when the bolt is closed.

On the Birmingham muzzle-proofed rifles the crown over BNP on the receiver and on the bolt face to the left. The mark on the bolt is on the top front of the bolt and not on the lug. I believe, but memory may not be serving me correctly, that the Birmingham proofs on the muzzle always face left. The location of those muzzle proofs may vary but many are as seen in Johnny P's pic above.

I have seen only K and L date codes on the muzzle and only F under the op rod. I have seen some date codes on the muzzle that look to be the letter I but that may be a poorly struck K or L since the I was supposedly skipped.

I have seen very, very few London marks on the receiver and on the bolt that are discernible. Most of these look like smudges or dings.

Currently in my database, 72% of the serial numbers are Birmingham proofed and 28% are London.
Of the Birmingham serials, 60% are stamped under the op rod and 40% are stamped on the muzzle.

[Johnny P]

The rifle shown with the proofs out on the barrel is an early 391000 serial number range. It has the BNP on the top of the receiver read from muzzle end, and on the flat of the bolt just behind the lugs.

[EdG]

Johnny P,
I have seen a 600K L-L that I believe is marked like that. It was on an auction site but the pics were not clear enough to tell which way the stamps were facing.

Can you post pics of those BNP stamps on the 391000?
Thanks.

[Johnny P]

Johnny P,
I have seen a 600K L-L that I believe is marked like that. It was on an auction site but the pics were not clear enough to tell which way the stamps were facing.

Can you post pics of those BNP stamps on the 391000?
Thanks.

Receiver and bolt BNP marking on M1 Rifle 391085, SA 11-41 barrel.

http://i65.tinypic.com/1zqye0l.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/eugbaw.jpg

[EdG]

Johnny P, thanks for the pics.
Is the bolt -2SA RE4D ?
Is the follower stamped with an 8 in the middle or on the end?

The BNP I saw stamped on the 600K L-L bolt was farther back than on yours. It's neat to see these variations. Thanks for sharing.

[Johnny P]

Johnny P, thanks for the pics.
Is the bolt -2SA RE4D ?
Is the follower stamped with an 8 in the middle or on the end?

The BNP I saw stamped on the 600K L-L bolt was farther back than on yours. It's neat to see these variations. Thanks for sharing.

Correct on bolt, and 8 is in middle of follower.

Will get pictures of other rifle later.

[Johnny P]

Photos of 378852. Receiver marking is typical, but again bolt hardly marked, and at other end of bolt.

http://i67.tinypic.com/oqvafp.jpg

http://i67.tinypic.com/f3s7ew.jpg

[Johnny P]

Also, have you made anything of the letters on the sight cover, which were struck after finish. Since you hardly ever see an original early rifle, the L-L rifles are the only place I have seen them.

http://i68.tinypic.com/fk8mdf.jpg

http://i64.tinypic.com/2kmp6s.jpg

[Tom Doniphon]

Johnny, I'm not aware of anyone who knows for certain what those rear sight cover marks are. Likely inspection or proof marks. And like you said, seen only on early rifles from 1940 to around mid 1942. Didn't Winchester mark them with a punch mark?

[RCS]

Being a collector of some pre WW2 rifles, I have noted the following:

After the drawing number was deleted, you have the plain flat cover which also has a small symbol, letter or number.

By around Nov/Dec 1940 you find the ribbed rear sight cover, also with the above marking

These marking continue into parts of 1942.

Many years ago, Tony Giacobbe made up a list of these rear sight markings and the serial numbers, all of 1941 is covered except for
the early months which data was not available. The first six months of 1942 is also covered. Both35634356353563635637 Lend Lease and non LL rifles are
in this data. Winchester rear sight covers are not marked with these markings but sometimes a punch mark. The early Winchester
covers are DuLite color. Third from left is Winchester DuLite cover

some of these markings are NR, 2,7,B,J,F,*,T,vv, O, Q,J,X,<,

[Johnny P]

The sight cover on my 63000 rifle has no marking. First photo is of sight cover on 56000 rifle.

http://i67.tinypic.com/10ctfsi.jpg

http://i66.tinypic.com/v457pt.jpg

[RCS]

My SA 63282 also has a flat cover without the code

My 88k with SA 11-40 barrel has the X code flat cover

My 80K has the B code flat cover

I have a data sheet on 219876 with SA 7-41 bbl and indented cover coded, and SA 167583 has a J coded cover indented

Charles Redfield has told me that SA started to code the flat covers.

After SA started using the indent cover, Winchester production in 1941 started with the flat cover that was
DuLite and without a code, only lasted a few months

[AlanD]

What are the date of manufacture for some of the earliest British proofed 'Lend Lease' rifles please?

The reason that I ask is that I believe 30,000 Garand rifles were supplied under the Cash & Carry Act and are different to the 38,001 recorded as being supplied under Lend Lease to Britain and the Empire excluding Canada. On my last visit to the National Archives in London I managed to find information on the distribution of these rifles within the UK. I had been aware previously for many yeas of the order for 30,000 rifles. Although the Lend Lease Act was passed in March 1941 most orders that had been place by Britain in the USA under Cash & Carry were still supplied on that basis and were not transphered to Lend Lease.

Regards

AlanD
Sydney

[RCS]

I have a data sheet on Springfield M1 serial number 7860 which had been converted to the new front end (gas port barrel). This
rifle has a mix of parts. Interesting that the barrel is dated S-A 8-40 and has the London proofs behind the date near the receiver.
This data sheet came from the GCA

I have another rifle, also SA in the 50K serial range and also with a S-A 8-40 barrel with London proofs behind the date near the
receiver (photo)35686

[Rick the Librarian]

The red bands and caliber marking were crudely done and nothing more than a warning of caliber, and I would suspect a drop of paint just happened during painting.

Here are two Remington 1903 L-L rifles.

http://i68.tinypic.com/2zjfac0.jpg

These were not Lend Lease rifles. The Brits paid for the development cost of resuming M1903 production and were "paid" in M1903s - about 66,000 of the Remingtons.

[Johnny P]

The photo was to show as an example of the red band painted for caliber identification.