.45 acp Liberator

Huh?

....... our reproduction is sold as a firearm and exceeds the mechanical strength of the original through the use of superior materials and vastly tighter chamber and headspace tolerances......

What is the point of making a "firearm" with better mechanical strength and "vastly tighter chamber and headspace tolerances" if the piece is never supposed to be fired? Why headspace it at all? Why use "superior materials"? And....why ask people to spend $600 for it?
Pete
 
What is the point of making a "firearm" with better mechanical strength and "vastly tighter chamber and headspace tolerances" if the piece is never supposed to be fired? Why headspace it at all? Why use "superior materials"? And....why ask people to spend $600 for it?
Lawyers! Seriously, its covering their butt. If you drill the hole and shoot it, and something goes wrong, they are somewhat insulated from liability.
 
The idea came from a novel, The Moon is Down, by John Steinbeck, in which the British parachuted cheap weapons to the Norwegian resistance.

It was one of those ideas that sounded good when someone briefed the generals, but in reality was, well, unreal. One nonsensical report says they were dropped over France by the millions - not parachuted, just dropped. (No mention of the holes in French roofs.) There is ONE report, which sounds made up, of the use of a Liberator pistol against the Japanese in the Philippines. But when US supplies did get through by submarine, they included conventional weapons, not single shot pistols.

Supposedly they were intended for Europe, but in fact the European resistance movements were supplied by air with much more effective weapons - STEN guns, US carbines, and British No. 4 rifles. The story was pretty much the same in the Far East, though a few were taken up by Chinese and some were reportedly carried after the war by Filipino police officers until they could procure conventional revolvers.

The theater commanders had no use at all for the guns, and kept trying to buck them off to somebody, anybody. Knowing that the idea was still in vogue in Washington and London, no one wanted to just scrap the guns, so they did nothing until the end of the war when tons of unused Liberators were dumped into the ocean.

Jim
 
I heard the original intent was to drop them to the (__________) but the gun designers said they wouldn’t hold up to being dropped twice.
 
The Liberator is the only gun made that it took longer to load than it took to manufacture. Supposedly, they rollled off the assembly line every 6-7 seconds, but took closer to 10 seconds to load and fire.
 
What is the point of making a "firearm" with better mechanical strength and "vastly tighter chamber and headspace tolerances" if the piece is never supposed to be fired? Why headspace it at all? Why use "superior materials"? And....why ask people to spend $600 for it?
Even with all the improvements it's still basically a disposable gun and won't hold up to being fired on a regular basis like a more typical design will.

So if you, against their recommendations, decide to make it a fireable pistol and wear it out by putting 3 or 4 boxes through it you can't come back to them and tell them that they owe you something because you wore out the pistol they sold you after shooting only a couple of hundred rounds through it.

That's the point. ;)
 
I read something somewhere that the original instructions had a watermark? Is it "obvious"?

I have some instructions that were in my dad's military collection, and they are definitely old (paper changing color), and holding the paper up to the light you can see a cross-fiber construction that is very unlike "normal" paper.

Thanks for any info!
 
Jim Keenan said:
The theater commanders had no use at all for the guns, and kept trying to buck them off to somebody, anybody. Knowing that the idea was still in vogue in Washington and London, no one wanted to just scrap the guns, so they did nothing until the end of the war when tons of unused Liberators were dumped into the ocean.

Yup. The initial idea was to produce a cheap weapon (circa late '42) that could be dropped to the French Resistance in small bundles (e.g. 10-15 guns per box). These would be used to shoot a German soldier up close & personal to obtain his weapons and ammo. By the time the bureaucracy got them approved and made, it was discovered that the French had their own methods of obtaining weapons.

A decision was made to ship them to the Philippines for its upcoming liberation beginning in '44. The plan was to paradrop them to resistance forces ahead of the invasion. But fate intervened again. Concerns were raised (up to MacArthur) that such a drop was likely to tip off the Japanese the invasion was imminent. After the liberation, the Liberator pistols were unceremoniously dumped into the ocean.¹

As produced by GM's Guide Lamp division, cost of the liberator is reported to have been about $2.10 to $2.40 per complete kit. That's about $26-$29 today.

¹ Some confusion exists with varying accounts. One account says a supply ship carrying the Liberators left port to return to Pearl Harbor and the pistols were dumped offshore. Other accounts have the crew dumping crates of them inside the harbor. Harbors being precious, it's doubtful that more than 20 crates would be dumped or that the pratice condoned. We do know they were dumped instead of being used. (No doubt a few stuck to some sticky fingered sailors though.)
 
Back
Top