28 Savage Info

[gijive]

Balder,

 

Interesting information. I thought the early Savage guns may have had patent dates, but couldn't remember for sure. When the NAC reference was brought up I thought TD had the right answer, one of the leftover Colt receivers. I was certain about the New York address position, though. I can't remember reading about the serial number range breakdown. Thanks for posting it. What is the source for that information? Was that in Cox's book?

[Balder]

gijive,

 

My best source for general history on military Thompsons are three articles written by Mr. Tom Ødemark here in Norway. In addition to his own research he has used Cox and Helmer as sources. I'll check to see if his articles have been translated into English.

 

Balder

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Helmer never got into the minutia of stamping idiosyncrasies his book about the TSMG. Cox only makes mention of the approximate serial number range of "Commercial" Savage TSMG's and their internal Colt parts possibility. I am not aware of any publication that delves into WWII production TSMG's with any degree of detail other than Frank's two books. And even his first book doesn't show the right side portion of the receiver that was in question by some. Mr. Odemark must be using personal inspections of various WWII TSMG serial number groupings as his reference.

[jcorns]

smoker 21 are you sure the thompson you sold me is semi-auto because it might be full auto after you touched it, as lucky as you are with all these wonderful finds. Hey man my birthday is coming up if you want to give a birthday gift a full-auto 21 or 28 would be nice with regular wood ,although the crotch would be nice http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

[TD.]

I thought my reply would generate some responses; it looks like I was right. 21 smokers 1928 Savage with 1922 patent dates is a first for me – and I think many others too. Lets see what we have.

 

I checked Frank’s and Tracie’s book again for a reference or picture of 1922 patent date markings on Savage produced Thompsons - nothing was mentioned. Tracie states on Page 179, “ For identification purposes, the Savage Commercial Thompsons have all internal nickel steel parts like the Colt guns, a flat-sided (machined) ejector, a New York address on the right side of the receiver, and a blued barrel without any British proof marks.” I also noted during the question and answer session at the 2003 TCA Show and Shoot, a question on Savage Commercials was asked and Tracie respond as above and added ‘no proof marks.’ Tracie also stated to the best of his recollection the highest serial number he had seen for a Savage Commercial Thompson was in the 19,000 serial number range. As we all know, Tracie’s main interest is with the Colt Thompsons. However, I do not think he would have omitted information (and a picture) about 1922 patent dates on the right side of early Savage receivers if he would have known about it.

 

Frank’s second book on Page 174 tells about how the “early Savage manufactured receivers had Auto-Ordnance’s original New York, NY address roll marked on the right side at the rear of the receiver, while the patent numbers were located at the center of the receiver’s right side. I find no reference in Frank’s books about 1922 patent dates on any type of Savage Thompson. Again, I do not think he would have omitted this information if he would have known about 1922 patent dates on early Savage receivers. Does anyone doubt Frank would have omitted a picture of this variation if it was found on approximately 10,000 early Savage receivers? Remember, this is his second book on military Thompsons. Perhaps, Frank will see this thread and respond. Frank was also at the 2003 TCA Show and Shoot, above.

 

I checked Cox’s book and again no reference or pictures of 1922 patent dates on early Savage Thompsons. Jim Bannan’s 2nd edition book with Tracie Hill - nothing. I cannot find a single reference in print to 1922 patent dates on Savage Thompsons by anyone. Doug Richardson never mentioned 1922 patent dates in his TCA article on Savage Thompsons (Vol. 19-3).

 

PhilOhio – I agree, the NAC markings bring up all kinds of possibilities.

 

Bug – Another early Savage Thompson with markings exactly like 21 smoker. Would you please post a picture of the right side receiver of your Thompson. We have gone from none to two in a very short period with no reference in several respected published works.

 

Balder – I noted you posted in a previous thread about patent dates, not numbers, on early Savage receivers. Does your early Savage Thompson have the same 1922 patent date markings as 21 Smoker? I have never heard of Mr. Tom Ødemark. Would it be possible to obtain a translated copy of his articles? I agree with Arthur that Cox and Helmer never referenced this 1922 patent date receiver. I can surmise (from published data) where Mr. Ødemark may have obtained the, “15041-26000 approx: NY address, 12 patent dates; address to the rear and dates to the front of receiver” information but it would only be a guess on my part. I would like to hear his source before I make any comments on this.

 

gijive – obviously, one of us is right http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif If you recall seeing patent dates on early Savage Thompsons, then there must be more of this variation in existence. I am sure you have seen many more Savage Thompsons than me. Question: Do you believe all Savage receivers below Serial Number 26000 have 1922 patent dates?

 

Arthur – I believe the NAC markings on 21 smoker’s Thompson are a good indication this Thompson is not, nor never was, a Savage Commercial Thompson. I think PhilOhio’s statement that this Thompson is probably an import from England is more than likely true. As to NO 7886 and NO 14586, no one knows for sure how those two Thompsons came to be – only that they are not Colt production Thompsons. I do not believe any pictures have ever been published of the Swedish NO 14586. I agree that Frank’s two books on the WWII Thompsons are the best source of information for the war Thompsons. I think the 1922 patent dates is just too important of a detail to overlook; I do not believe that Frank (or Tracie) knew about the Savage patent date receivers. What is even more interesting is Frank had access to several large private collections of Thompsons during research for his books and this detail never surfaced. I will ask you the same question I asked gijive, above: Do you believe all Savage receivers below Serial Number 26000 have 1922 patent dates?

 

This is one interesting thread. Let’s keep it going. It would be great to see a few more pictures posted and possibly hear from Frank about this topic.

 

Question: Does anyone have an early Savage Thompson with a New York address and patent numbers?

[21 smoker]

TD,.. well,this Thompson question certainly has sparked some interest... some background I can provide is that this Savage does have the British proof mark with the House of Enfield seal of approval,and was imported back to the US in the late 40s...pic 3 shows the proof mark(my photography skills are lacking)...I could not find any reference to this variation of Savage,hence my original question...I appreciate everyones input...this place is the best.. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

[gijive]

QUOTE (TD. @ May 17 2005, 06:45 AM)

gijive – obviously, one of us is right  http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif  If you recall seeing patent dates on early Savage Thompsons, then there must be more of this variation in existence. I am sure you have seen many more Savage Thompsons than me. Question:  Do you believe all Savage receivers below Serial Number 26000 have 1922 patent dates?

TD,

 

I actually haven't seen that many Savage guns over the years, at least not as many as I would have liked http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

In the early 1980's, after I had purchased a Colt gun from Roger Cox, I had the opportunity to examine an early Model of 1928 with British proof marks that was owned by a neighboring police department. I was particularly interested in comparing the markings on the two guns after practically memorizing Cox's book. I remember the serial number being only a few thousand past the last Colt numbers and remember comparing the right side markings. I thought the gun had patent dates as opposed to numbers, but truthfully, I can't specifically remember all the details after twenty-plus years. I do remember reading in Cox's book about the 1922 patent dates appearing on late Colt guns and thought I saw that difference on the Savage gun, but that may just be faulty memory and/or wishful thinking.

 

As far as all guns below 26,000 having the patent dates, I couldn't say. Is it possible that the early British contracts guns purchased directly from Auto-Ordnance at the begining of Savage production may have all had the patent dates? Maybe by the time the U.S. Government got involved in handling the Lend-Lease shipments to foreign countries would be a good gauge of when the markings changed to patent numbers? Just a thought, I really don't know. Obviously, early Savage production guns were marked almost identically to the late production Colt guns. Maybe the roll-mark dies just wore out after production of a few thousand guns and that is when the change was made.

 

This is an interesting topic, however.

[TD.]

21 smoker – thank-you for the additional information. This is a great thread you started. I saw the British “Broad Arrow” marking on your pictures but never thought too much about it because the NAC suffix markings alone indicated this was more than likely a Thompson imported into the USA by Numrich Arms Corporation. However, given the British markings, I was surprised by Arthur’s post that he believed your Thompson was a Savage Commercial. Arthur is correct more times than not so we will have to see what additional information is found. I do like Arthur’s use of the words “head scratch” and “NAC” in the same sentence. That practice should be mandatory http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Quick question: Does the serial numbers match on the upper and lower receivers?

 

gijive – I too thought about the roll dies but that led me to wonder why Savage (apparently) changed the right side markings from New York, U.S.A. to New York, N.Y. U.S.A. I do not understand the significance of this change so I decided not to comment. One thing that surprises me is with all the hoop law over a Savage Commercial Thompson, no one has documented Colt type 1922 patent dates on the right side of the receiver. I always key in on the 1922 patent dates because I like the late Colt production Thompsons and the NAC (head scratch) prefix Thompsons. I wonder if early Savage Thompsons exist with variations of the patent dates and patent numbers and the two different New York address markings. Think of all the different marking possibilities. We may be just scratching the surface on this subject http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif

[bug]

TD, I have digital pics but can't post to this forum. I can email them to you (or anyone else) if you want. My gun was a PD gun that went through Cox in late 70's. I have copies of the form 3 from him to the dealer I got the gun from. I probably should do an FOI request to see if the PD was original owner.

 

Bob D

[21 smoker]

TD,... There is no way to tell if they match because the lower serial number has been milled off like it had been through an arsonal rebuild...and PK said it would be difficult to restore the number and the only benefit to me would be if it matched...plus I wanted the controls upgraded....more than likely they don`t match given the somewhat sorted history of this Thompson i.e. early markings,Brit proofed,NAC,dewatted,amnesty registered by a deputy,and finally restored by Paul Krogh...kinda unique in a way and a dream to shoot... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

[Balder]

QUOTE (TD. @ May 17 2005, 06:45 AM)

Balder – I noted you posted in a previous thread about patent dates, not numbers, on early Savage receivers. Does your early Savage Thompson have the same 1922 patent date markings as 21 Smoker? I have never heard of Mr. Tom Ødemark. Would it be possible to obtain a translated copy of his articles? I agree with Arthur that Cox and Helmer never referenced this 1922 patent date receiver. I can surmise (from published data) where Mr. Ødemark may have obtained the,  “15041-26000 approx: NY address, 12 patent dates; address to the rear and dates to the front of receiver†information but it would only be a guess on my part. I would like to hear his source before I make any comments on this.

My M1928 Thompson has the exact same markings as the ones found on 21 smoker's. Mr. Ødemark has, as I stated in an earlier posting, based his articles on reference material and his own research. I happen to know that this research was quite extensive as the Norwegian armed forces received quite a number of Thompsons during and after the war. The markings on Savage serial numbers 15041-26000 (approx.) were identical as far as I know - some are today called "commercial" due to the fact that A-O sold these to customers in the US as well as to the British government. The Lend-Lease act was not passed until March 1941. I will talk to Mr. Ødemark soon, if his articles haven't been translated I'll offer to do it for him - if my English is up to it.

 

Regards,

 

Balder

 

PS: I had actually resigned from this board due to the attitudes shown by some members, it's nice to observe that common decency has again found its way back to the Thompson forum. DS

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Arthur – I believe the NAC markings on 21 smoker’s Thompson are a good indication this Thompson is not, nor never was, a Savage Commercial Thompson. I think PhilOhio’s statement that this Thompson is probably an import from England is more than likely true.

TD

 

 

QUOTE

For identification purposes, the Savage Commercial Thompson's have all internal nickel steel parts like the Colt guns, a flat-sided (machined) ejector, a New York address on the right side of the receiver, and a blued barrel without any British proof marks.†I also noted during the question and answer session at the 2003 TCA Show and Shoot, a question on Savage Commercials was asked and Tracie respond as above and added ‘no proof marks.’ Tracie also stated to the best of his recollection the highest serial number he had seen for a Savage Commercial Thompson was in the 19,000 serial number range.

Tracie Hill

 

TD,

 

Notice when I mentioned the Commercial appellation I placed it inside quotes. It is the serial number parameter that denotes the initial Savage TSMG's that incorporated Colt parts and Colt type finishing. It is technically correct that a true Savage Commercial (in the strict sense of the word commercial, not for military sales) would lack foreign government proof marks, even though some examples were Brit proofed in the U.S., but never sent overseas. Of course the off kilter Numrich stamp coupled with the Brit Arrow, insure that this Savage left the shores of the U.S. and he was the importer.

 

But there are now three (3) board members who confirm that they have the same marked Savage. I guess your proclamation about Smoker's "one of a kind Savage" needs an asterisk. Just because previous authors screwed the pooch with omitting certain pics doesn't substantiate anything other than human nature. But don't feel bad since you are in good company. Doug Richardson believed the "climbing" dash on a patent date mag was also "one of a kind." That inspired Murry Willis to submit an article to TCN that he had the only second example in existence. And it snowballed from there.

 

 

But the reason why real deal Commercial Savage TSMG are so rare in the U.S. is because out of the 10,000 or so produced with Colt 2nd Model comps, Savage Barrels, checkered select levers, flat ejectors, etc, most were sent overseas prior to the 3/11/41 Lend Lease Act and not to American PD's. The only distinction that Cox and Hill make regarding a Savage TSMG with Colt parts and a Savage TSMG with Colt parts with the Commercial identity is that some of the former had the third or fourth pattern Cutts and the latter didn't have a passport. Since Smoker's Savage has been subjected to all kinds of rebuilds/dewats/rewats/ and now PK, who knows what Cutts it originally had on the barrel. So I wouldn't get hung up over that caveat when determining the origin of 21 Smoker's Savage TSMG.

 

Where did Hill get the 19,000 serial number cut off date from? Even the notorious J.C. Earl credited his S-71189 NAC marked TSMG as a COMMERCIAL. Yet that TSMG does not have Brit proofs, but has all the requisite "Commercial" parts including the second pattern Cutts, but with a pretty high serial number. Does a NAC marked Savage immediately disqualify it as a Savage Commercial in the strict sense? No doubt. Does a NAC marked Savage with patent dates and the New York,N.Y.U.S.A. address make it some sort of anomaly that couldn't be a "Commercial" equipped Savage (aside from crossing the pond) and, therefore, it must have started its life out as a Colt TSMG? There is no evidence currently to support this assumption.

 

When the PD's ordered Colt TSMG from Auto-Ord in 1940, Maguire, being the devious SOB that he was, delivered Savage TSMG 's with the left receiver discreet "S" Savage marking with serial number, the traditional Model of 1928 and Thompson Submachine Gun Calibre. 45 Automatic Cartridge, and on the right side was stamped the Auto-Ord Corp and cramped New York, N.Y.U.S.A., and to save money, the last used Colt patent dates markings.

[TD.]

As promised, here is bug's early Savage Thompson with 1922 Patent Dates. There is no doubt is was a police gun. Very nice. Thanks Bob.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Auto-Ordnance/IMG_2268.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Auto-Ordnance/IMG_2272.jpg

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Auto-Ordnance/IMG_2276.jpg

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Congratulations Bug! You have another "one of a kind" TSMG. Sorry TD.

[TD.]

Bug – Pictures posted. Nice Police Thompson Thanks again.

 

21 smoker – thanks for the info on the lower. I was just curious. I bet it is a dream to shoot.

 

Balder – thank-you for coming back to the board. Yes, some members are at times hard to get along with. I too thought about quitting at one time. However, I decided I was not going to leave a place with many good members that provided the opportunity to learn. This thread is an excellent example of previously unpublished information (in the USA). I know everyone would be interested in learning from Mr. Ødemark’s research. It will be interesting to see what differences he noted on Thompsons acquired by Norway during and after WWII. Depending on the size of his sample, his research could be very predictive of what was happening at Savage and Auto-Ordnance during the war years. I will also post a picture of your early Savage Thompson if you so desire (just send me an e-mail through the board).

 

For what its worth: My definition of a Savage Commercial Thompson is an early Savage Thompson that has many features of the Colt Thompson discussed during this thread and was sold by Auto-Ordnance to a United States law enforcement or governmental agency during WWII. I am sure some will disagree or want to add more to my definition. I have no problem with that. I would have different names for identical early Savage Thompsons that were not sold commercially to a law enforcement or governmental agency during WWII in the USA. Examples include, British sale or export Thompsons, lend lease Thompson’s, etc. To me, it is the documented WWII civilian sale and police connotation that makes an early Savage Thompson a Savage Commercial Thompson – not solely the markings or parts.

 

Arthur - As to 21 smokers Savage Thompson not being a Savage Commercial Thompson – agree. (I did wonder about the quotation marks in your earlier post)

 

As to three board members who have a Savage Thompson with 1922 patent dates – this is a good thing. Only a very few on this board knew of this particular Savage variation before 21 smoker asked a simple question. I don’t think you are included in those few (you never answered my question http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif ). As to the other respected authors, they not only omitted pictures of this variation, they never referenced this variation in print. That tells me this post is the first time this information has come out in a public forum (actually, I feel in pretty good company with the members on this board).

 

As to Tracie’s comment the 19,000 serial number range was the highest serial number range he had personally seen on a Savage Commercial Thompson - Tracie never stated this number was a cut off (and this observation was to the best of his recollection at the time).

 

As to whether or not these now three early Savage 1922 patent date Thompsons started life as a Colt receiver – the verdict is still out - but it now appears this new variation may well have been totally Savage produced. However, I am going to stick with my first opinion until more data is collected (remember, I am in good company).

 

As to McGuire being a devious SOB – agree. As to using the left over Colt 1922 Patent Date dies to save money – not enough information known at this time to make that determination. I do think if money were the sole object, McGuire would have also used the Colt New York, U.S.A. roll dies.

 

Any more early Savage Thompsons out there?

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Only a very few on this board knew of this particular Savage variation before 21 smoker asked a simple question. I don’t think you are included in those few (you never answered my question  ). As to the other respected authors, they not only omitted pictures of this variation, they never referenced this variation in print. That tells me this post is the first time this information has come out in a public forum.

TD

 

Negative. The early Savage 1928's were already known to have patent dates and not numbers. Just because Cox, Hill and Iannimico neglected to publish said photos, or think to make note of this fact, does not make the existence of these examples any less prominent for those who actually examine TSMG's in the flesh. Once all of Smoker's pics were in, it wasn't alchemy to deduct that his early Savage depicted the usual markings for that serial number grouping. I did offer Earl's S-71189NAC as bona fide reference point. I think perhaps it is to one's detriment to presume the infallibility of authors who have written on the TSMG. The errors in Cox, Hill, Richardson and errors of omission in Innamico's books seem to bear this out.

 

As to the often misused, but inconsequential, Commercial applied variant of the Savage TSMG, you seemed to change your focus from your belief that Smoker's Savage receiver was actually of Colt origin to "it maybe a Savage, but not a Commercial variant," as described by Hill in his lecture. I know you wanted to send a shot across my bow that even though my initial observation that Smoker's Savage was not unusual for an early example, it wasn't technically a Commercial example. Had I shared your opinion that his TSMG receiver was not Savage, I am sure I would not be able to fetter my twinge of the oops factor.

 

Now as far as your tendency to imbue "missing link" status to TSMG variations that do not appear in print (you had G.I. Jive spinning) may be a sort of uncontrollable reflex. But you might not be so hasty to declare a Yeti sighting next time before determining the footprints are actually made from snow drifts.

 

Eventually your enthusiasm for the elusive "one off" TSMG might pay off. We all await such an auspicious day.

[Balder]

TD,

 

The date/number issue has been up several times before, here's one:

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invb...&f=3&t=1064&hl=

 

What still puzzles me are the two versions of the NY address.

 

Balder

[TD.]

Balder – I also do not understand the significance of the two New York addresses. Perhaps the earlier Colt roll die was completely worn out or lost by the time Savage went into production. I can tell by the earlier threads you (and few others) have consistently talked about the 12 patent dates on the early Savage Thompsons so none of this is news to you. It is interesting to note craig101 later posted pictures of S-25688 with the 12 patent dates. I still find it amazing the markings on these early Savage Thompsons were never noted or photographed by the various authors referenced in this thread. Again, I think this is more than an omission because of the obvious value of this information. Your definition of a Savage Commercial Thompson does make a lot of sense. It is different than mine, but this is a subject that is almost subjective, not objective. I look forward to hearing more about Mr. Ødemark’s research. Please stay on the board and keep us informed on your conversations with Mr. Ødemark. Thanks.

 

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

[gijive]

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ May 17 2005, 10:29 PM)

Now as far as your tendency to imbue "missing link" status to TSMG variations that do not appear in print (you had G.I. Jive spinning) may be a sort of uncontrollable reflex. But you might not be so hasty to declare a Yeti sighting next time before determining the footprints are actually made from snow drifts.

Arthur,

 

The "spinning" analogy was pretty good! I'll concede that I originally thought the Savage guns had patent dates, then contradicted myself in a subsequent post. I do try to contribute to the discussions in a factual manner. I have not seen as many examples of different guns as I would like, but have studied the guns and read as much as I could for a good number of years.

 

I'm interested in learning as much as I can about the guns and find that I learn something new all the time. I respect your knowledge of Thompsons as well as many others, TD included, and find the discussions about the minutiae of the various models interesting. I learned something on this post and hope eventually someone will be able to approximate when the change was made from the patent dates to numbers.

[Balder]

QUOTE (gijive @ May 18 2005, 07:50 AM)

I learned something on this post and hope eventually someone will be able to approximate when the change was made from the patent dates to numbers.

gijive,

 

That change was approximated in my first post in this thread:

 

15041-26000 approx: NY address, 12 patent dates; address to the rear and dates to the front of receiver

 

26000-80000 approx: NY address, 13 patent numbers

 

 

I hope to be able to narrow it down after talking with Mr. Ødemark.

 

Regards,

 

Balder

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

TD

 

I'm taking TSMG minutia way too seriously? Weren't you the one who immediately raced through all your periodicals to state unequivocally that Smoker 's patent date Savage had to be a Colt? I think you are confusing "knowledge" with having the earliest "post mark" when it really is about accuracy. Newsweek magazine is reeling from this very practice.

 

I thought my first response on the 16th was succinct and to the point. Reviewing the thread, it sure seemed G.I Jive had already put the matter to rest with his May 14th post. But you bamboozled him out of his originally correct recollection. When Smoker's right side receiver's pics were in, they confirmed G.I.'s initial post. But when you posted your "one of a kind" theory, after dismissing G.I's original post , and contrary to what the pics showed, I got into the game.

 

G.I. Jive,

It's like an SAT. One's initial answer is usually correct. TD was pulling a Regis Philbin with you.

[Balder]

Gentlemen,

 

I do not want to join in on the "who said what when and why and to whom" debate, I'm just curious to know what the address on a Colt-made M1921 Thompson looks like. Can anybody enlighten me please?

 

Balder

[TD.]

Balder – I agree with you completely. Unfortunately, the gotcha attitude sometime prevails on this board. It is really unfortunate in that the right information, if available, usually comes out in the end when everyone is polite and respectful. Attached below is what the address looks like on the right side of a Colt Thompson. Let me know if you need any additional photographs. And thank-you for your posts. I can’t wait to hear about Mr. Ødemark’s observations. It will be interesting to see if any patent date/number and address variations appear in his research. Thanks,

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/Auto-Ordnance/crop5.jpg

 

gijive - I too find the discussions about the minutiae of the various Thompson models very interesting. I started not to join this discussion because I have never really studied the WWII Thompson and you covered everything completely in your first post. However, the reference to patent dates struck a chord and as they say, the rest is history. This turned out to be a great thread. It was great to learn something from you and Balder I consider very important that has apparently been overlooked (at least in print) by such respected authors as Cox, Hill, and Iannamico. I don’t have all of Richardson’s works so it may be possible he noted these differences in one of his later writings. I apologize for leading you down the wrong road but when Frank’s two books specifically referenced patent numbers on early Savage Thompsons, I thought 21 smoker’s Thompson may have been something very noteworthy. And yes, I do respect your knowledge regarding Thompsons. Thanks,

 

Bug - Again, nice Thompson. Thank-you again for sharing.

 

Arthur – you are taking this way too seriously. If you would have known the answer to 21 smokers initial question, you would have posted earlier, succinctly and left all readers no doubt of your vast knowledge relating to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

21 smoker - thank-you for starting this thread. You have one nice Thompson. I believe many of the board members interested in the WWII Savage Thompson learned a lot from all of this - and that is always a good thing.

[21 smoker]

I thank you all who have contributed to this thread....I have learned much about the early Savage 28s in a short time span...and maybe we will further our knowledge if Frank or some other author continues researching this topic.TD.,gijive, AF,Phil O, and everyone else...thanks for keeping it lively...and at the very least it brought back a respected member..Balder..welcome back, it was especially good to hear from you...I said it before....this is a great place!... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

 

Your apology to G.I. is a prime example of the "polite and respectful" attitude that bubbles up to the surface in the end.

 

Think of me as a lifeguard keeping you from going off the deep end when your enthusiasm for TSMG information that's new to you propels you to make grandiose statements, i.e., "one of a kind." If you believe that debunking a poster's rush to proclaim eureka! is a knuckle rap or "gothca" board journalism, then you are taking this, to use your over worked phrase, way too seriously.

 

 

But if you are chummy with Tracie and Frank, you might wish to direct your disappointment to them personally about not being able to consult their periodicals for help on this issue. Maybe Frank can send out a flier to those who purchased his most recent edition of "American Thunder" addressing this matter. Sort of the same way GH updates his serial number compendium.