Why so many non-matching mags?
 

Why are there so many non-matching mags with Lugers and a lot of other WWII handguns? I would have assumed if it was a bring back they would have the correct mags.

Where the guys in the trenches required to turn in the mags for the trip home and then just get issued whatever was in the pile when they disembarked?
This I can understand as some knuckle head would eventually end up having a ND aboard ship.

Are matching ones officer bring backs who didn't have to turn in their mags?

Where they mixed up in the armory during the war?

Or have the majority been brought in after the war by importers prior to the mandatory importer desecration markings act and who knows what they did with them before they hit the streets?

All of the above?

Or does this fall in the category of "Why are we here?"

I have wondered about this for some time.

If I were to venture a guess, I would think that a German soldier in combat wouldn't give a darn about what some collector of a century later and half a world away considered collectable...I would just be content to have a full magazine of ammo, whether it came from my buddy, the armorer or a fallen comrade.

This maybe just a story. But I was told that when going into a mess or something like that, Not battle conditions, One had to disarm their side arm. This was done by taking the magazine out and putting it into a holding bin. When they left they would just grab a magazine to suit.

Probably BS, but who knows. The person that told me was no expert.

I read somewhere that when the german soldiers surrendered, they had to remove the mags from the pistols.
And after that they were mixed up.
I guess that is why there are some pistols with matching "+" magazine in the holster but not in the gun.

jussi

My hypothesis, from what I have put together, it tends to be with the case with Lugers for example is that weapons (Documented) captured off the enemy person directly had matching mags more of the time than just one found or brought home. Like others said before, upon mass surrender, guns in one pile and mags in another.
Now go on the otherside of the world to Japan, it seems (at least to me) that there are more Nambu type pistols around with matching mags and it's been said because the Japanese just fought to death or committed suicide rather than surrender.

This has been discussed before, but I could not find it :)

Anyway, all is conjecture, with several older members having witnessed #1 or heard it from stories, plus I have read it and seen a picture somewhere.

#1 - GI's when surrendering en-mass would take their holster off, and drop the pistol, magazines and holsters into separate piles or barrels.

#2a - As Ron said, in battle magazines were mixed up. In several luger books this is discussed, although I assume it is conjecture; that GI's just wanted mags that worked, not caring if they matched. Now, an armorer would match mags up when he had a chance and sometimes mark them or remark them / when he had time.

#2b - When taken off of police, they are more likely to be matched, I have seen more 'correct' police matched rigs than army

#3 - in the evening, cleaning guns or under fire but guns were dirty (trench warfare, WW1 esp) would not care if things got mixed up

#4 - US GI's probably could care less, as USA guns were not numbered like German ones were...

#5 - Items imported would not be matched and although they might have been matched at first in germany, once in a importers control, they just matched them up

Ed

From this forum previously:

Thanx for the interesting responses.

Since the second magazine was in the holster, to have a luger with 2 correct matching magazines is even rarer. If the gun was captured without the holster, or the holster was seperated later, the second magazine would be long gone.

Tom

I've taken another look at the well known photo posted by Fred (FNorm), above, and the Lugers quite clearly still have their magazines. There goes the "guns in one pile, mags in another theory". Regards, Norm

Appears to me to be a major breach of military procedure. Those mags were numbered to the pistol for a reason and knowing our Teutonic warriors, I doubt that they, UNLESS in a serious "fistacuffs", would show up for parade with a mismatched rig. Just does not seem reasonable. I believe that every effort would have been made to keep things matched. Agreed that after they surrendered the weapons to "not quite ready for prime time collectors" most of the mismatching happened. Used to be just my $.02, now my one dollar $3.98. :D

I disagree, since guns were handed over to officers, NCO's, taken off the battlefield, turned in by families during the amnesty, etc

I believe it was a mixture of many things that caused the above, one picture of a US GI arms room doesn't prove anything :cool:


Ed

War time is much different than peacetime

This year I saw M4's and M9's (M16 carbines and the 9mm pistol) carried in 20 different ways and in many, many conditions (used, abused and pristine), I assume all were working fine, but GI's carried them everywhere in Iraq, chow, latrine, even the gym.

Back in the 'real-world' they would be carried on the hip and cleaned and if finish was missing, then they would be fixed (unless at a training fort)


Ed

To shift this discussion somewhat to my own area of interest, Imperial Navy Lugers, which have an even lower rate of matched mags than Army, particularly when one considers that each gun was issued with three, not two, numbered mags. My theory is as follows: Most of the world's Navies kept, and still keep, their small arms under lock and key (probably because of that nasty business with H.M.S Bounty). In the case of the Imperial Navy this would have meant that the guns were locked in a rack or case, while the rest of the rig, with two of the mags, would most likely have been hung on a hook or stuffed in a cubby. When a landing or boarding party was formed, an officer would have unlocked the guns and the men would have grabbed a gun and rig without regard to matching numbers. It wouldn't take long before guns, stocks and mags were well and truly mixed. Remember, it's just a theory. Regards, Norm

I think the fact that more police Lugers have matching mags than Army suggests that much of the mismatching occurred before capture since police and Army weapons were probably treated much the same after capture.

I was told this same story back in the 1970's by a man who had picked up a Luger while stationed in Germany in the '50's.
Although, his Luger had at least one matching magazine.

I've taken another look at the well known photo posted by Fred (FNorm), above, and the Lugers quite clearly still have their magazines. There goes the "guns in one pile, mags in another theory". Regards, Norm


Norm, There is another well known photo of a long line of German Soldiers surrendering and that is exactly what they are doing..throwing a pistol in one pile and magazines in another. So that procedure is well documented.

I would guess by the time pistols ended up in storage bins magazines had been re inserted helter skelter.

Hi Jerry, We'll probably never know the truth, and you may well be right. However, if I was supervising the surrender and disarmament of prisoners, I'd have them drop their gun belts. If their pants fell down, too bad. The last thing I'd want is an "enemy combatant" fiddling around with a loaded pistol just a few feet away from me. Best regards, Norm

The last thing I'd want is an "enemy combatant" fiddling around with a loaded pistol just a few feet away from me.

Norm..A different day and age..If you study the history of WW2 ...by the time hundreds of thousands of German Soldiers were surrendering they had but one intention..to get home to their families and what might be left of Germany. They had known for months if not longer the war was a lost cause. Most if not all were delighted to be able to surrender to Allied/US forces.
These Soldiers were fiddling around with their sidearms for many years as seasoned combat veterans. I would have to bet they knew what they were doing and held no animosity towards Allied Soldiers.

Hi Jerry, It was widely known by US troops that there were at least two incidents of surrendering GIs being machine gunned by the Germans, towards the end of the war during the Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge). I doubt that, when it came time for the Germans to surrender, the victorious GIs would have been as trusting as you make them out to be. All the best, Norm

Many more than two. Bullingen, the Hotel de Moulin and Malmedy come to mind in the Ardennes. Kurt Meyer also killed all those Canadians in Normandy. While I do agree that GIs were probably wary, most Germans with the exception of a few SS diehards were ready to give up and posed no threat to their captors.

I doubt that, when it came time for the Germans to surrender, the victorious GIs would have been as trusting as you make them out to be.

Norm, You put words into my mouth and that ain't sanitary!

I have said nothing about how trusting GI's might have been. I do know that there are photo's of thousands of Germans lined up, pile of weapons on one side and magazines on the other. How else would they go about disarming these Soldiers but to trust that they would do as they were told?

There were many atrocities perpetrated by all of the participants, Axis and Allied. Plus wild and unchecked rumors..The minds of these people must have been a whirlwind of unknowns.

I would imagine surrenders to the Russian lines might have been much different than ours.

Hi:

My father was one of the 35 survivors of the 509th Parachute Infantry Battalion, attached to the "All American" 82nd Airborne, at the Battle of the Bulge. They were trucked in early in the battle and their unit was "committed to the engagement" meaning: stop the German advance or let no man return alive!

Dad was granted Knighthood (Second Order) by the King of Belgium and decorated by the United States, France and Lux. for his efforts during that battle. Like most combat GIs, Dad never discussed his war experience. I only found out about his Knighthood after his death in 1995.

No Norm, the US Army handled it in a different way. After it was reported and verified that GIs had been murdered while surrendering or murdered after having already surrendered, the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners".

The overriding "rule of engagement", during that war, was to give the enemy back the same medicine that they were giving us.

Sieger

In both my service tours, rifles/pistols were stored separately from their magazines. When issued, the first mag to come to hand was used. If a FTF or malfunction was noted, the mag was turned in for inspection and survey. No special emphasis was put on matching mags with individual weapons.

I imagine any US GI's who acquired foreign pistols would adopt the same philosophy...

Interchangeability of parts...part of our heritage... ;)

Big difference in the during the war and after war was over. Huge difference.

And although there were stories as you said and I have been told of them too, but I have never seen this in writing... That said, SS troops were treated differently than other german soldiers I have always been told.

But during war and after the cessation of hostilities are two big differences in how things were carried out on either side.

Ed

the US Army handled it in a different way. After it was reported and verified that GIs had been murdered while surrendering or murdered after having already surrendered, the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners".

The overriding "rule of engagement", during that war, was to give the enemy back the same medicine that they were giving us.

While there were isolated incidents of this behavior your statement above is patently false. US forces DID NOT on the whole act in such a barbaric manner as you describe. They acted according to the Geneva Convention. It was not in the nature of Allied Forces and in particular US forces to harm prisoners and there is no documentation that this was a widespread or ongoing practice and in point of fact ...the oppisite is prima face..literally millions of Germans were captured, disarmed and interred in a peaceable manner.

For you or anyone else to say " the order was given "not to take any enemy prisoners". Is perpetuating a myth and at worst a lie. That is a slur on US & Allied forces that cannot remain unanswered.

Perhaps if your Father were to have talked to you.. you would not say things like this..

My Father was captured by the Germans and told unending stories of his experiences..he always told me the Germans were honorable and treated them with respect. Harsh but fair.

Jerry:

I am discussing a particular engagement, at a particular place and time. I don't believe that this was a wide spread practice in Europe during WWII, but things do happen, as you well know.

Yes, most of the enemy were SS recently transferred from the Russian front where there were no Geneva Convention rules to follow (the Russians never signed the Convention, nor did the Japanese).

My father, by the way, was the one that told me about it. You were not there, my father was and I have no reason to disbelieve what I was told.

By the way, after my father got out of the hospital in February of '45, he had no unit to return to, so he was made a MP for the last three months of the war. His unit was in charge of processing those hundreds of thousands of enemy soldiers surrendering in the west. These men were, indeed, treated quite well by us. My father commented just how quickly things returned to normal and just how orderly the process, as a whole, was.

Having explained my comments further, I'll have no further comment on the matter.


Sieger