MuffinMaster
Member
I am hoping that someone familiar with C&R regulations could comment on this weapon.
Sedgley glove gun from WWII
- Thread starter MuffinMaster
- Start date
- Status
See No. 7 and others. The Glove gun is a C&R.
AFAIK, all glove guns were made by Sedgley; the BATFE is simply listing the same gun under two headings.
Nothing I have ever seen indicates an OSS or CIA connection. The idea came from the Navy SeaBees, and the contract was a Navy contract. It may seem strange but not every cockamamie idea in WWII came from the OSS; sometimes the armed forces did some wacky thinking too. Nor was silliness limited to WWII and to the U.S. The Brits came up with some doozies, including the Grand Panjandrum. And the U.S. in WWI had the Pedersen Device, guaranteed to get soldiers killed long before they got into range to return fire.
Jim
AFAIK, all glove guns were made by Sedgley; the BATFE is simply listing the same gun under two headings.
Nothing I have ever seen indicates an OSS or CIA connection. The idea came from the Navy SeaBees, and the contract was a Navy contract. It may seem strange but not every cockamamie idea in WWII came from the OSS; sometimes the armed forces did some wacky thinking too. Nor was silliness limited to WWII and to the U.S. The Brits came up with some doozies, including the Grand Panjandrum. And the U.S. in WWI had the Pedersen Device, guaranteed to get soldiers killed long before they got into range to return fire.
Jim
MuffinMaster
Member
Hi JimK
I am not too familiar with a C&R. I am still a little confused. I thought I only needed a C&R to transfer the listed weapon with, not to own a weapon with. Is that correct? Lets say I bought this gun and had it transfer by and to a FFL dealer would I still need a C&R to own this gun?
Thx
I am not too familiar with a C&R. I am still a little confused. I thought I only needed a C&R to transfer the listed weapon with, not to own a weapon with. Is that correct? Lets say I bought this gun and had it transfer by and to a FFL dealer would I still need a C&R to own this gun?
Thx
Last edited:
AlexanderA
Member
There are two categories of "C&R" determinations under the NFA: guns that are removed from the NFA entirely (while still remaining Title I C&R weapons), and those that are ruled to be C&R's while still remaining under the NFA regulations. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason why a particular item would fall into one category or the other. It all depends on the vagaries of the ATF ruling process. I suppose how the formal application is worded could make a difference.
Note that some C&R's are C&R's simply because they are 50 or more years old. These don't require a specific ATF ruling. On the other hand, these C&R's fall into the second category above (that is, they still come under the NFA if applicable). To be removed entirely from the NFA, a gun always requires a formal ruling.
The significance of being a C&R simply is that such a gun can be acquired interstate by a licensed collector without going through an FFL dealer. If the gun is subject to the NFA (has not been removed from the NFA entirely), the transfer requires prior approval by the ATF. The C&R collector's license relates to the acquisition; it is not required for the continued ownership and possession of the item.
Note that some C&R's are C&R's simply because they are 50 or more years old. These don't require a specific ATF ruling. On the other hand, these C&R's fall into the second category above (that is, they still come under the NFA if applicable). To be removed entirely from the NFA, a gun always requires a formal ruling.
The significance of being a C&R simply is that such a gun can be acquired interstate by a licensed collector without going through an FFL dealer. If the gun is subject to the NFA (has not been removed from the NFA entirely), the transfer requires prior approval by the ATF. The C&R collector's license relates to the acquisition; it is not required for the continued ownership and possession of the item.
MuffinMaster
Member
I believe that this gun MIGHT fall under section 4 and would require that you fill the correct paper work out with ATF. NFA may need to clarify if the section IV covers all the Sedgley gove pistols since it is for one with a particular serial number. The listing in section III is just too general. Sedgley might of produced a few with no marks at all or maybe the were filed off before a mission. There again were is the proof that Sedgley is or ever was an OSS gun. ATF might ask for proof than legend.
I do not believe any of these guns have serial numbers. This maybe a requirement for a NFA prior to transfer or ownership for it to recieve a serial number. Clarification from NFA maybe needed as well.
Then what does your state feel about you having this gun.
Boy O Boy, this is the stuff lawyers are made of. Although I would love to own one it is just not worth the hassle. After spending what you must to aquire and a lawyer and still you could still find yourself in a nightmare if something was to do wrong. There is just no fun in any of this.
I do not believe any of these guns have serial numbers. This maybe a requirement for a NFA prior to transfer or ownership for it to recieve a serial number. Clarification from NFA maybe needed as well.
Then what does your state feel about you having this gun.
Boy O Boy, this is the stuff lawyers are made of. Although I would love to own one it is just not worth the hassle. After spending what you must to aquire and a lawyer and still you could still find yourself in a nightmare if something was to do wrong. There is just no fun in any of this.
JRH6856
Member
And that is just the way "common-sense" firearms regulation is supposed to work.
The terminology used by ATF is "Firearms removed from the provisions of the National Firearms Act and classified as curios or relics, still subject to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44, the Gun Control Act of 1968."
In other words, it is still a handgun and subject to the rules and regulations concerning any other handgun, except that it is also a C&R item and can be shipped in interstate commerce directly to a holder of a Type 3 FFL (collectors' license) without going through a dealer.
It is a handgun; beyond that, you do not need any special license to own such a gun (as far as federal law is concerned) nor do you need to go through any special procedures to transfer it to someone else.
The main barriers to owning a glove pistol are 1) money, 2) money, and 3) money. Plus they are very rare and almost never come up for sale. Plus about 99% of those offered for sale are fakes.
Jim
In other words, it is still a handgun and subject to the rules and regulations concerning any other handgun, except that it is also a C&R item and can be shipped in interstate commerce directly to a holder of a Type 3 FFL (collectors' license) without going through a dealer.
It is a handgun; beyond that, you do not need any special license to own such a gun (as far as federal law is concerned) nor do you need to go through any special procedures to transfer it to someone else.
The main barriers to owning a glove pistol are 1) money, 2) money, and 3) money. Plus they are very rare and almost never come up for sale. Plus about 99% of those offered for sale are fakes.
Jim
MuffinMaster
Member
IF ... it is concider a regulated handgun/firearm does it REQUIRE a serial number carved on the gun in the required locations?
Serial numbers weren't federally required until the 1968 Gun Control Act, but they were common on handguns even at the turn of the century. Guns that never had a serial number don't have to have a serial number added to them.
MuffinMaster
Member
I am not too sure I would want to collect this weapon any more.
A ruling from NFA would be required for me on EXACTLY what this thing really is and what proof is require by ATF for them to believe it is authentic.
If it is a fake then it fall under some type of homemade weapons law. You might need lawyer after you find that out.
Then how could you ever prove it is authentic anyway. There maybe documents that they were made once upon a time but that does not prove that the one offered to a collector is authentic.
This gun is fun to learn, research and chat about. It is however just too dangerous to collect. The possible legal fees and even resultant jail time far exceeds even the possibility of the loss of investment because of a fake. A fake is a threat to any collector.
A ruling from NFA would be required for me on EXACTLY what this thing really is and what proof is require by ATF for them to believe it is authentic.
If it is a fake then it fall under some type of homemade weapons law. You might need lawyer after you find that out.
Then how could you ever prove it is authentic anyway. There maybe documents that they were made once upon a time but that does not prove that the one offered to a collector is authentic.
This gun is fun to learn, research and chat about. It is however just too dangerous to collect. The possible legal fees and even resultant jail time far exceeds even the possibility of the loss of investment because of a fake. A fake is a threat to any collector.
Last edited:
MuffinMaster
Member
Yep, my last post did sound a little paranoid .... hahaha.
Gee next I'll be thinking they are coping and tracking all my Internet action, financial transactions, logging all my phone calls, recording all GPS location, and recording all my medical records. Thats really crazy besides any normal law biding citizen would have no problem with that any way. It's our government you can trust them.
O' Well what can I say. I'm not really worried toooooo much.
I'm getting off topic
Gee next I'll be thinking they are coping and tracking all my Internet action, financial transactions, logging all my phone calls, recording all GPS location, and recording all my medical records. Thats really crazy besides any normal law biding citizen would have no problem with that any way. It's our government you can trust them.
O' Well what can I say. I'm not really worried toooooo much.
I'm getting off topic
Last edited:
MuffinMaster
Member
National WWII war museum has a copy with the donors history:
http://www.nww2m.com/2011/09/weird-weapon-with-a-hollywood-connection/
http://www.nww2m.com/2011/09/weird-weapon-with-a-hollywood-connection/
MuffinMaster
Member
I see nothing about a shotgun shell. The term "shell" is often used for any cartridge, and the actual guns were made to fire .38 Special, which was in the Navy supply system. Note that while the patent was not granted until 1947, long after the war was over, it was applied for in February, 1944, indicating a reasonable period from conception to design to patent (and almost exactly 70 years ago.)
Jim
Jim
JRH6856
Member
Look at page 2, Figure 5, item #37. Looks more like a .410 shotgun shell than a .38 special.
Obviously the design may have changed before manufacture.
rcmodel
Member in memoriam
Well, the 'Shell' and chamber shown in the patent drawings is clearly a 'Shotgun shell'.
Most likely a .410.
That they changed it later in production to the more common military issue .38 Special is no big surprise.
rc
Most likely a .410.
That they changed it later in production to the more common military issue .38 Special is no big surprise.
rc
Last edited:
MuffinMaster
Member
The patent shows a different glove gun in construction that what is on display at the WWII musuem in New Orleans.
I believe the patent shows a device with an internal hammer of sorts that can be externally cocked from the rear with a button. The plunger acts a trigger. Where as the device on display show no external cocking button in the rear. I am guessing that the plunger is directly connected to the firing pin. Both construction designs seem to have a safety which is a good thing since the patent states it could be attached while sleeping (hahaha). The safety seems to be a simple slide button to engage. I am not too sure how safe that would be anyway while sleeping.
There is rumored to be another copy of this device at the WWii musuem in Boston. I have not seen any pictures of it. Has anybody been in that museum and seen it?
The Spy museum in DC has a copy of it however it does not quite look right. Maybe it is damaged or something.
Does anybody know of other museums that has one of these devices on display?
I will try to reach these museums and ask if they would release detail photos and historys of how they acquired those devices. What ways they authenticated the devices they have on display and experts in the field of identifaction of these devices if any.
It was brought up that there is no direct link/evidence between the OSS and the glove gun. I have yet to see any. A purchase contract, official statement or a reliable source .... well there is one. The only official source I could quote is the C&R list for section III where it states an OSS glove gun. There is no real discription. I would love to know WHAT they are calling an OSS Glove gun exactly. See a copy of that particular rule and the request application made for its ruling. It would be interesting if the request came from a govermental agency with knowledge and sources in such devices. Is that public information that would be readly shared?
I believe the patent shows a device with an internal hammer of sorts that can be externally cocked from the rear with a button. The plunger acts a trigger. Where as the device on display show no external cocking button in the rear. I am guessing that the plunger is directly connected to the firing pin. Both construction designs seem to have a safety which is a good thing since the patent states it could be attached while sleeping (hahaha). The safety seems to be a simple slide button to engage. I am not too sure how safe that would be anyway while sleeping.
There is rumored to be another copy of this device at the WWii musuem in Boston. I have not seen any pictures of it. Has anybody been in that museum and seen it?
The Spy museum in DC has a copy of it however it does not quite look right. Maybe it is damaged or something.
Does anybody know of other museums that has one of these devices on display?
I will try to reach these museums and ask if they would release detail photos and historys of how they acquired those devices. What ways they authenticated the devices they have on display and experts in the field of identifaction of these devices if any.
It was brought up that there is no direct link/evidence between the OSS and the glove gun. I have yet to see any. A purchase contract, official statement or a reliable source .... well there is one. The only official source I could quote is the C&R list for section III where it states an OSS glove gun. There is no real discription. I would love to know WHAT they are calling an OSS Glove gun exactly. See a copy of that particular rule and the request application made for its ruling. It would be interesting if the request came from a govermental agency with knowledge and sources in such devices. Is that public information that would be readly shared?
Last edited:
Patent drawings show information that is considered original enough to obtain a patent; they don't necessarily show every nitty gritty detail, and often the production models are different from the patent drawings. Nor do patent drawings of guns usually show caliber, so I don't know how anyone can be absolutely certain from the patent drawing that the gun was made or intended to be made for a shotgun shell. Every smoothbore gun made for a rimmed case is not a shotgun and every rimmed cartridge is not a shotgun shell.
I will say again that there was NO OSS connection. The "spy gun" nonsense was put out to add even more dollars to the pockets of those selling the guns (and the fakes). Even the stories that call it an "OSS" gun say it was made for the Navy. The idea came about just as I said earlier, and the Sedgley contract was with the Navy, not the OSS. They were not even secret; when the gun came out I recall reading articles in the papers showing the gun, describing how and why it came into being and how it was supposedly going to be used. The fact that the gun is attached to a heavy work glove should indicate it was made for laborers, not for gentlemen spies.
Jim
I will say again that there was NO OSS connection. The "spy gun" nonsense was put out to add even more dollars to the pockets of those selling the guns (and the fakes). Even the stories that call it an "OSS" gun say it was made for the Navy. The idea came about just as I said earlier, and the Sedgley contract was with the Navy, not the OSS. They were not even secret; when the gun came out I recall reading articles in the papers showing the gun, describing how and why it came into being and how it was supposedly going to be used. The fact that the gun is attached to a heavy work glove should indicate it was made for laborers, not for gentlemen spies.
Jim
Last edited:
JRH6856
Member
Well, while I do not doubt that the gun was later made in .38 Special, or that other aspects of production models differ considerably from the drawings, I am absolutely certain that item 37 in the patent drawing does look more like a shotgun shell than a .38 Special. :banghead: But it really doesn't matter what it looks like, does it? It was made the way it was made no matter how the drawing looks.
No matter how unorthodox, it was a military weapon and using a conventional shotgun shell would have raised some Hague convention questions. Remember, the military .38 Special rounds had jacketed bullets.
I am digging around looking for the book I had which showed some correspondence between the Navy contracting officer and Sedgley, but no matter what, I suspect the "OSS spy gun" myth is so deeply engrained now that there is no hope of correcting it.
As to details of the guns, there are pictures of them. Maybe the pictures are all of the same gun, but they appear identical. I have seen only one, perhaps in the Spy Museum, which I have been in, but if so it really doesn't belong there. I have darned little hope of ever actually owning one.
Jim
I am digging around looking for the book I had which showed some correspondence between the Navy contracting officer and Sedgley, but no matter what, I suspect the "OSS spy gun" myth is so deeply engrained now that there is no hope of correcting it.
As to details of the guns, there are pictures of them. Maybe the pictures are all of the same gun, but they appear identical. I have seen only one, perhaps in the Spy Museum, which I have been in, but if so it really doesn't belong there. I have darned little hope of ever actually owning one.
Jim
JRH6856
Member
And that would have prompted a change from the patent drawings if they were made for military use. I'm not sure the OSS would have worried about it. So existing examples in .38 special does provide more support for Navy use than OSS.
I have been doing some digging and there was an article in the February 2007 Man at Arms magazine on the Sedgley Glove Gun. I can't copy the picture (copyright!), but what I can make out is essentially what I said about SeaBee use. The pictures also show the guns clearly marked "Property of U.S. Navy", a rather odd marking for a secret spy weapon (or maybe the Germans or Japanese wouldn't catch on that the U.S. Navy had some connection with the United States).
Anyway, unless someone has documentary evidence that the glove gun was used by the OSS and that the Navy marking is some kind of uncovered cover story, I will go with intended SeaBee use. Improbable as it sounds, the idea was that bulldozer operators would use them to fight off Japanese attackers, the same thing I read in 1944.
Incidentally, the Seabees had something of a mystic quality as heroes in those days. There were stories of bulldozer operators charging Japanese machine gun nests with their big machines, deflecting bullets with the raised blade, crushing the enemy under the tracks, then backing up, lowering the blade, and neatly burying the bodies. Who knows, it might even have happened!
Jim
Anyway, unless someone has documentary evidence that the glove gun was used by the OSS and that the Navy marking is some kind of uncovered cover story, I will go with intended SeaBee use. Improbable as it sounds, the idea was that bulldozer operators would use them to fight off Japanese attackers, the same thing I read in 1944.
Incidentally, the Seabees had something of a mystic quality as heroes in those days. There were stories of bulldozer operators charging Japanese machine gun nests with their big machines, deflecting bullets with the raised blade, crushing the enemy under the tracks, then backing up, lowering the blade, and neatly burying the bodies. Who knows, it might even have happened!
Jim
JRH6856
Member
- Status