Reising Article in March 2017 Blue Press - By John Marshall

[dalbert]

I want to thank John Marshall for the Reising article in the March 2017 edition of Dillon's "The Blue Press," which arrived in my mailbox today. I enjoyed reading most of it. Overall, he covered the Reising SMG in decent detail, however I do take issue with his characterization of the weapon as having "serious deficiencies." In my opinion, this demonstrates a misunderstanding of the circumstances under which the Reising was adopted by the USMC, and perpetuates a reputation for the weapon that is undeserved.

 

I want to clarify the circumstances around the H&R Reising Model 50, and its (in my opinion) undeserved reputation to which is often alluded, and is furthered by Marshall's article. The main failure with the Reising was communication within USMC ranks. The USMC could not get many Thompsons in 1941, because Savage production went to Britain and the U.S. Army, primarily. The Auto-Ordnance factory in Bridgeport, CT did not come online producing Thompsons until late 1941. Therefore, the USMC sought a different submachine gun that they could procure themselves. They found H&R's Reising Model 50, which began production in early 1941, with most guns going to police departments at the time. The Russians also tested the weapon, and purchased an unknown quantity early in production. The USMC decided to ask H&R to produce the Reising as their newly adopted submachine gun.

Now here's where the communication issues began within the USMC. Because the USMC did not want to delay availability of their newly adopted weapon, they did not require H&R to manufacture parts that were 100% interchangeable. Several parts were hand fitted. The guns had excellent test results at the factory, both by H&R, and by the Russians. At adoption, the interchangeability issue was not effectively communicated throughout the Marine Corps. When the weapon saw its first combat action at Guadalcanal, that's where some fatal mistakes occurred. Marines communally cleaned their Reisings, mixing up parts, and then many didn't function reliably thereafter. Realizing the mistake, and without the arsenal support necessary to fix the guns, and knowing that additional, new Reisings were on the way to him, the Colonel in charge of the operation gave an order to dump the Reisings in a river. This, along with the fact that the USMC accepted blued Reisings from H&R, resulted in the bad reputation the weapon developed at Guadalcanal that was difficult to overcome as Marines talked to one another. The finish rusted quickly in the jungle conditions, and the guns didn't function because the parts were mixed. The USMC brought the problem on themselves. However, they did attempt to fix its internal reputation, and continued to purchase additional Reisings to the tune of about 120K total production. It's very important to understand that the Reisings that were thrown into the river were thrown there while knowing that more were on the way. The right approach with the new Reisings would have enabled a second chance for the correct approach to occur.

So, my main objection to Marshall's article is that he simply blames the weapon design. He states, "The Reising submachine guns have a checkered past, and their reputation for unreliability in combat dogs them to this day." While true on the surface, the statement ignores the underlying root causes, which were much deeper than the weapon design itself. The root causes are so deep that, had they been potentially recognized prior to being sent into combat, the weapon might have enjoyed a vastly different initial reputation among Marines.

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[johnsonlmg41]

I guess my only question would be.........which river?

Otherwise, nice info!!!

[dalbert]

I guess my only question would be.........which river?

Otherwise, nice info!!!

 

The Lunga River...

 

David

[Got Uzi]

The Reising is on my list to purchase (it and a MKII STEN) will most likely be the next ones to sink my money into. I do however want a WWII Reising, so can you help point me to what I should look for?

[eewa]

All my firearms are shooting grade and own a very limited number of full auto firearms. I purchased a Reising seven years ago and first time out was disappointed with the performance. After extensive research it was alarming how divided everyone was on the Reising performance. Recently I took the time to resolve the issues and now the firearms is functioning flawlessly. If a firearm doesn’t function to your satisfaction fix it, live with it or sell it. For the few that don’t have the resources to fine-tune a Reising it’s sad that your not experiencing the firearms full potential. This website provides a lot of very useful information. Sorry for being off topic just needed to vent

[dalbert]

The Reising is on my list to purchase (it and a MKII STEN) will most likely be the next ones to sink my money into. I do however want a WWII Reising, so can you help point me to what I should look for?

 

Got Uzi,

 

The most telltale signs of a WWII Reising are 14 barrel cooling rings, and a parkerized finish. It should also not have any letter prefix to the serial number.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Devildog1987]

With all due respect to the author, I have heard this "communal cleaning of Reising" story several times now and I have to take issue with it. Neither in my service in the Marine Corps "85-92" nor my father's "44-50" nor several other Marines I have spoken to, have I ever seen or heard of throwing your rifle parts into a pile/bucket while cleaning and pulling random parts out. I have not spoken to any Edison's Raiders about this, perhaps it was something done on "canal", but I think it is unlikely. My guess is failures of the Marine Corps Resings were likely due to tight tolerances or magazine issues.

 

For the record, I love both my 50 and 55 Reisings. They shoot magnificently.

 

It is also important to note that although Col Edson did report throwing away Resings, many pictures later in the war show Navajo code talkers still carrying M55 Reisings. I guess not every Marine hated them.

[ordnanceguy]

Thanks for the tip, Dave. I don't get a hard copy of the Blue Press but found that is freely available online. The March 2017 issue can be downloaded here: https://www.dillonprecision.com/articles.html The Reising article is found on pages 44-45. Not much in the way of new info here but worth having for those completists among us.

 

Regards,

Charlie

[jim c 351]

I think the people who are most happy with their Reisings are people who don't do a great deal of shooting. That's why the Reising was popular with police , but not marines.

Like someone above stated any problem can be figured out and corrected but that's not something a soldier or marine needs to worry about.

A soldier should have full confidence that when he installs a magazine and pulls the trigger his gun will fire then and all day long. I should ad that marines probably take better care of their guns than an army trooper.

An M1 and M3 SMG will do what's needed all day long.

My gun is pretty dependable, but it has had issues in the past and will have in the future.

Like David said a WW2 gun will not have a letter prefix, but I will guess that the marines used as many early blued guns as later parked guns.

My Reising is not for sale but I don't shoot it much. My M1 and M3 do the heavy shooting.

Jim C

[luderacer]

thanks for all the info in this read, i have been thinking of picking up a m50 for a while now.

[1gewehr]

I once had a Reising and it didn't take long for the deficiencies as a combat weapon to become apparent. Tight tolerances, easily-lost critical parts, and weak magazines are not good qualities in a jungle weapon.

 

Still, I enjoyed the Reising as it was easy to shoot accurately and handled well.