They were there

[el Woodman]

Some of our experts can show me all of the paperwork under the sun. From personal interviews with Marine Vets of Guadalcanal, taken at the reunion of the First Marine Division Association,1997, THEY said that most Marines were armed with M1903 rifles. I'll take their word for it.

[firstflabn]

Too bad you missed the excellent article in the Fall 2016 GCA Journal covering the subject. You would have seen a textbook case of how historical inquiry is done. Good luck with those voices in your head.

[John Beard]

From his excellent book, "Shots Fired in Anger," Lt. Col. John George, who served on Guadalcanal in the Army, was abundantly clear that the Marines were armed with M1903 rifles.

J.B.

[cplnorton]

Is there anyone who makes a claim that the Marines weren't armed by a majority of M1903's on the Canal? The only thing I've ever seen argued is everyone says the Marines didn't have any Garands. But this isn't correct as the Marines did take some, but they were mostly in rear echelon units and not in the hands of the Infantry.

Before the Canal ever happened, the Marines had already chose the M1 Garand as their Service rifle, but had not switched the infantry over from their M1903's before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Between bad timing and the huge expansion of the Marine Corps in 1942 and Army supply not being able to keep up, is what lead to the M1903 being the main service rifle on the Canal. If the invasion had been pushed back around 6 months, the M1903 wouldn't have been used.

I have the counts of every weapon the Marines took for the invasion of the Canal, and which units had what. In total they had a little over 24,000 M1903's they took there. But also they had other weapons such as Garands, M50 Reisings, M1928A1 Thompsons, shotguns, boys antitank rifles, M1911's, M1918 and M1918A2 BAR's, and M1917A1 and M1919A4 Machine guns.

They even took some oddities. A few m1922 .22 Springfields, some Winchester A5 Telescopic sighted rifles, and even a few maxim silenced M1903's.

But no everything I have ever seen has always stated the Marines were mostly armed with the M1903. I've never seen anyone claim otherwise.

[bruce]

In my first pastoral appointment, my Sunday School Director was a Guadalcanal veteran. One afternoon I emerged out of the woods behind his house after a day of deer hunting. I was carrying a nice 03-A3. He looked at it a bit. I remember some of what he said. Speaking of the 03 he said, "It's to slow! To slow! That thing'll get you killed!" He said is 03 had an accident and that he replaced it w/ a BAR. He much preferred the BAR. Sincerely. bruce.

[Sunray]

It's more like "Who makes a claim that the Marines weren't armed with '03 Springfields?" The M1 Rifle was adopted in February of 1941, but first issued to Stateside guard units. Supposedly, the majority going to the 1st Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, another portion to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, and the rest to the Marine infantry and officer schools."
https://usmcweaponry.com/wwii-korean-era/
Marines(1st Division) on Guadalcanal were reported to have "reallocated" M1's from Army units who came along to help though.
I'd prefer an LMG to a 5 round bolt action too. Even with the weight difference.

[el Woodman]

Apparently firstflabn thinks that no one else majored in history, or knows how to do research... Or maybe his delivery figures are supposed to carry more weight than a first person account. So be it in his world...

[gnoahhh]

Is there anyone who makes a claim that the Marines weren't armed by a majority of M1903's on the Canal? The only thing I've ever seen argued is everyone says the Marines didn't have any Garands. But this isn't correct as the Marines did take some, but they were mostly in rear echelon units and not in the hands of the Infantry.

Before the Canal ever happened, the Marines had already chose the M1 Garand as their Service rifle, but had not switched the infantry over from their M1903's before Pearl Harbor was attacked. Between bad timing and the huge expansion of the Marine Corps in 1942 and Army supply not being able to keep up, is what lead to the M1903 being the main service rifle on the Canal. If the invasion had been pushed back around 6 months, the M1903 wouldn't have been used.

I have the counts of every weapon the Marines took for the invasion of the Canal, and which units had what. In total they had a little over 24,000 M1903's they took there. But also they had other weapons such as Garands, M50 Reisings, M1928A1 Thompsons, shotguns, boys antitank rifles, M1911's, M1918 and M1918A2 BAR's, and M1917A1 and M1919A4 Machine guns.

They even took some oddities. A few m1922 .22 Springfields, some Winchester A5 Telescopic sighted rifles, and even a few maxim silenced M1903's.

But no everything I have ever seen has always stated the Marines were mostly armed with the M1903. I've never seen anyone claim otherwise.

Pray tell what did they do with M1922 .22's on Guadalcanal?

The uncle of my ex-wife (how's that for a tenuous connection?) was a young Marine Lieutenant stationed at Pear Harbor, December 7, 1941. He talked freely of the time up to his finding himself on Guadalcanal (after that moment he didn't have a lot to say). He was armed with a 1911 and knife, canteen and ammo pouch on his web belt when he stepped ashore a month or so after the landings. He was quite specific about all that. When he saw General Vandegrift stalking about with a M1903 slung over his shoulder he said he wised up and snagged one for himself.

[Clark Howard]

Are we now in possession of 4 xxxxxxx?

[cplnorton]

Pray tell what did they do with M1922 .22's on Guadalcanal?

The uncle of my ex-wife (how's that for a tenuous connection?) was a young Marine Lieutenant stationed at Pear Harbor, December 7, 1941. He talked freely of the time up to his finding himself on Guadalcanal (after that moment he didn't have a lot to say). He was armed with a 1911 and knife, canteen and ammo pouch on his web belt when he stepped ashore a month or so after the landings. He was quite specific about all that. When he saw General Vandegrift stalking about with a M1903 slung over his shoulder he said he wised up and snagged one for himself.

I'm not 100% sure. The 1st Raider BN took them to the Canal. In General those .22 rifles were used for rifle practice or training. But that was before and after the war. What they intended to do with them on the Canal, I don't know.

Yeah the M1911 pistol was mostly declared useless in the Pacific in the beginning of the war. The first after action reports coming off the Canal stated the m1911 really wasn't used. So right after the Marines actually looked at phasing it, as well as the .45 Sub Machine guns out. Since the Carbine was arriving in number and the carbine took the place of the pistol and sub machine guns.

The Marines figured one less caliber and less spare parts on hand to worry about. So it made sense logistics wise.

Even though they tried at first by the wars end it never happened other than the middle of the war years.

[el Woodman]

"Reallocated"? Is that anything like "Active acquisition, through the employment of stealth, initiative, and distraction"?

[Clark Howard]

In and around an active combat operation, excess weapons turn up quite often. Casualties are evacuated, but their assigned weapons stay with the operation.

[Sunray]

"...Is that anything like..." Kind of, yeah. Isn't right to disparage guys that lived and fought in those conditions though. snicker.
The reallocation of M1 Rifles by personnel of the 1st Marine Division has been mentioned in every book, both fiction and historical, I've ever read about the Battle of Guadalcanal. U.S. Army and National Guard guys were fairly well known for leaving stuff laying around unattended. Or so I've read.

[cplnorton]

The Marines did have M1 Garands though on the Canal. I think this is the thing that history has forgot. We actually did a story on this for the Garand Collector's Journal.

The Marines had 24,000 M1 Garands by the time Pearl Harbor was attacked. The Marines were going to retrofit everyone but the infantry first. Their thought process was there would be more revisions coming to the Garand and they would retrofit the infantry last so they received the newest revisions of the rifles. Then Pearl Harbor was attacked and the Marines grew at exponential rates.

But the Marines still took with them over 2000 Garands on the Canal. They just weren't in the hands of the infantry. For instance one of the Defense BN's were totally armed with Garands on the Canal. They didn't have any M1903's. They had 884 M1 Garands. The 1st Marine Division Air Wing had a 132. The 5th BB Squadron had a 171. The 3rd Def BN had 250.

The only M1's I've seen officially with the Infantry were like 12 with the 1st Raider BN, and then the 8th Marines who landed in October had 259.

[Rick the Librarian]

One thing I've noticed is that ships' Marine detachments sometimes had M1s. There are several pictures of the USS Washington (BB56) with King George VI inspecting the Marines. They obviously have M1s.

[cplnorton]

One thing I've noticed is that ships' Marine detachments sometimes had M1s. There are several pictures of the USS Washington (BB56) with King George VI inspecting the Marines. They obviously have M1s.

Yes sir. Many of the ships Detachments got them first. The USS Washington had 80 M1's.

Do you know when the pic was taken of King George? It looks like the USS Washington was supposed to get their 80 M1's in Jan 1942 according to the schedule to retrofit the Marines.

[Rick the Librarian]

Sorry, should have mentioned the date of King George's visit to the ship -- June 7, 1942. Somehow, I thought it was earlier than that.

[el Woodman]

All this because on another thread, I wrote that the 1st Marine Division at Guadalcanal was the only major battle in WWII where US forces met the enemy primarily armed 5 shot bolt action-vs- 5 shot bolt action, and won. Apparently someone on that thread thinks he's the Professor Emeritus of military history, and everyone else watches too much Star Wars. I do not doubt the veracity of any of the responses on this thread though. And I am WELL aware of the 1st Mar Div's penchant for appropriating anything that isn't nailed down & guarded, and one third of the stuff that is. 1st Bn., 5th Regiment, 1st Mar Div...1/5 Forever! Thank you, Gentlemen...

[RH Scott]

Seems like a logistical headache. After the navy departed shortly after the invasion it must have been a PITA to get 5 shot clipped ammo vs 8 shot clipped ammo to the right units and quantity being they only had a finite quantity at first. Hopefully someone remembered some crates of 8rd clips or guys would be feeling around each morning for last nights clips. Seems pretty silly to equip half a division then move them to a remote island for the first offense of the island war.

[cplnorton]

Yeah somewhere I have documents talking about they didn't have that many 8 round clips, and after they would fire the last shot, they would collect the clips so they could reload them.

For the most part I have no clue how many saw combat on the Canal. At least early on I mean. They had the rifles but mostly they were in the hands of rear echelon Marines.

One interesting thing I saw, the individual Marines did not really carry as much ammo with the m1903 as I would have guessed. On patrol the after action reports state they usually carried 25rds and they never ran out in a firefight.

To me that shocked me, as that just didn't seem like that much. Though they do comment that grenades were more effective and each man carried 2 grenades on a patrol. They stated that they believed the men should have carried more as the grenade was the go to weapon in the jungle on the Canal.

- - - Updated - - -


Sorry, should have mentioned the date of King George's visit to the ship -- June 7, 1942. Somehow, I thought it was earlier than that.

That is still really early. Think about all the times you have seen online someone saying well the Marines were going to keep their M1903's until they went to the Canal and saw the Army's M1's. Well that is all false.

The Marines wanted to adopt a semi automatic rifle since at least 1936 and probably earlier.

The Marines even declared the M1 superior to the M1903 under normal conditions in early 1941. So to me that June 42 date is still pretty early. Especially comparing it to the urban legend that has persisted a long time on the Marines relationship with the M1 early on.

The funny thing is this legend even existed back then. Post WWII a Marine Commandant actually even wrote a magazine trying to correct this story that the Marines didn't want to adopt the M1 until the Canal. So this has been around a long time.

[Rick the Librarian]

One interesting thing I saw, the individual Marines did not really carry as much ammo with the m1903 as I would have guessed. On patrol the after action reports state they usually carried 25rds and they never ran out in a firefight.

Guadalcanal wasn't the only instance of that happening - about 7300+ M1s got sent to the Philippines before WWII and equipped most of the infantry units of the U.S. Philippine Division as well as the 26th Cavalry. As the vast amount of ammunition was either packed in bulk or 5-round strippers, it was also necessary for soldiers with those units to retrieve their empty clips, if possible, after firing.

Another "myth" I deal with on a fairly regular basis is the one that states that the U.S. Army fought the Japanese in the Philippines "armed only with bolt-action rifles". Such was not the case (although, of course nearly all of the Philippine National Army carried M1917s and a few M1903s).