Altering M1951 Trousers

-So I brought so M1951 Field trousers for a steal, they're in great condition, sturdy as hell construction. Only one problem in my eyes is they are cut MASSIVE in the legs, 11" hems! This on a 31-35" waist .

I don't mind the 13.5" rise, they've got great side adjusters, a nice green wool cloth and there is plenty to hem up into cuffs.

I'm just wondering if any has experience in taking them in? I'm thinking of having them tapered down through the legs to down to a 9-9.5 hem. I don't mind them being a fuller cut but right now they are a little too big

Wouldn't mind something not a million miles way from the aviation greens worn in The Bridges at Toko-Ri

Turns out it'll be quite easy?

A lot of soldiers had their fatigues cut down, both the pants and the shirt or jacket. They just took them to the post laundry and dry cleaners and asked them to do it. It was also common for boys and young men to have pants tapered ("pegged") in the late 1950s and early 1960s, too, because narrow pants legs (and narrow lapels and narrow ties) were in fashion at the time, the same way they are now. But the waist was still at the waist.

We were issued both the Korean war era wool pants and cotton field pants, I don't think anyone ever cut them down. The wool shirt and pants were only worn for guard duty and some inspections but the field trousers were actually worn only in the field, also with the wool shirt, in cold weather.

My Tailor's wife took one look at them and smiled and said "easy"! They've kinda turned down their operations now, but since both have a history of making clothes, they seem to be able to reconstruct most things to fit me.

You wouldn't know it because they're tucked away at the back of a large Haberdashery shop, in a couple of beat up old rooms, though he used to have a nice little studio before.

BlueTrain said:

A lot of soldiers had their fatigues cut down, both the pants and the shirt or jacket. They just took them to the post laundry and dry cleaners and asked them to do it. It was also common for boys and young men to have pants tapered ("pegged") in the late 1950s and early 1960s, too, because narrow pants legs (and narrow lapels and narrow ties) were in fashion at the time, the same way they are now. But the waist was still at the waist.

We were issued both the Korean war era wool pants and cotton field pants, I don't think anyone ever cut them down. The wool shirt and pants were only worn for guard duty and some inspections but the field trousers were actually worn only in the field, also with the wool shirt, in cold weather.

Click to expand...

When we're you in the military then Blue Train?

From 1965 to 1968. Basic training at Ft. Knox, same place both my father and my son took their basic training. AIT at Ft. Sill, then rest of the time in Germany. My son also went to Germany, then to Iraq. My father went to Germany as a POW.

BlueTrain said:

A lot of soldiers had their fatigues cut down, both the pants and the shirt or jacket. They just took them to the post laundry and dry cleaners and asked them to do it. It was also common for boys and young men to have pants tapered ("pegged") in the late 1950s and early 1960s, too, because narrow pants legs (and narrow lapels and narrow ties) were in fashion at the time, the same way they are now. But the waist was still at the waist.

We were issued both the Korean war era wool pants and cotton field pants, I don't think anyone ever cut them down. The wool shirt and pants were only worn for guard duty and some inspections but the field trousers were actually worn only in the field, also with the wool shirt, in cold weather.

Click to expand...

Presumably having them obviously altered would lead to a disciplinary of some sort, given that uniform is meant to be, well... uniform. Wasn't Korea around the time when the US military started to tighten up on correct uniform being worn in the field? Though it was obivously on the radar after the hoohah with the "Murder Inc" boys and the official ban on painting flight jackets....

For modern civilian wear, of course (as OP has already discovered), this is dead easy for a competent alterations tailor / seamstress.

I am not aware that the US Army ever "tightened up" the uniform as worn in the field. You must not imagine that everything done or worn in the army is regulation or current. As it was, there was a lot of latitude in regulations anyway. When I was issued clothing, there were older patterns and newer patterns of fatigues being issued at the same time. What you received was dependent on chance and what your size was. One old master sergeant was still wearing the old HBT fatigues from the Korean War period, which were definitely not tightened up in any sense of the word. No one would dare tell a senior NCO like him that his uniform was not regulation. It was hopeless trying to make troops actually in the field look like they did in garrison, no more than it was possible to make the guys down in the motor pool look anything but like men working in a garage everywhere.

I never saw any flight jackets when I was in the army but I saw a lot when I (much later) attended a couple of ceremonies for an Air Force general who was related to my wife.