"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.