Jump to content

British Thompson Submachine Gun Model 1928


Recommended Posts

Hello everyone, I was looking to ease my mind on a particular TSMG that I was looking to add to my collection. I am more of a shotgun collector, but this item caught my attention, that would make a good candidate to add to my collection.

 

There were a few things that I wasn't convinced about, but after my pending membership was approved, I was able to find more information on the forum. Now only one question remains. If you look at the left side of the receiver, it states the "model of 1928". The thing that I noticed is that the part "of 1928" is recessed. It almost looks like part of the model year was milled down to add another designation. Is this common in other firearms, or was the designation rolled in with to much force?

 

This may be a stupid question, but hey, my knowledge is more with the shotguns.

 

As you can see in the pictures, further markings are similar to the guns that have been discussed before within the same 41.000 range of serial numbers. I forgot to take more pictures than the ones attached.

 

post-262799-0-65586200-1592563432_thumb.jpg

post-262799-0-53847900-1592563456_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are referring to in the pictures you posted, the Model of 1928 roll mark on the pictured gun looks consistent with the early Savage Model 1928 roll marks. Yes, sometimes the roll stamping was inconsistently impressed into the metal with one side appearing slightly shallower than the other, if that is what you are referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The deep gashes on the receiver are unusual and are serious cosmetic damage that significantly diminishes the value of the gun. If the price is really low then perhaps it is worth buying with that defacement or if such condition interests you as character and history or other reasons that make the gun attractive.

There is no lack on the market of examples of these specific types of Thompsons in a wide range of conditions. In a market with such extreme sensitivity to condition as is the Thompson market, and considering the high cost of all types, finding a less compromised and more "collectible" example would, in my opinion, be worth the time and effort. Regardless of one's perspective, the purchase of a Thompson is an "investment" and while the excitement of acquisition and possession is high, the day will come when the gun will be sold and the value of having invested in the best possible example will be evident.

Another point that is worth considering is one that I've experienced with MG collecting and is a point in favor of the gun you are considering. When I had the resources to buy very high condition MGs, and I have owned some, including a Colt Thompson, they always had some minor scar or blemish that becomes an irrational and annoying focus of attention because of the exceptional condition of the rest of the gun. Personally, I am susceptible to that "princess and the pea" foolishness and it always interfered with my full appreciation of a high condition gun. It was the feeling of "if only" that blemish wasn't there, I would really like the gun. Plus the constant need to protect it. There is a place for such collectibles of course. However, the gun in question can be far more easily be accepted for what it is without the worry of blemishes and can be handled and fired and enjoyed without so much anxiety. I am partial to these guns, have many that I feel ver good about and prefer them to the "perfect" examples for which I always felt that I had to apologize for the blemishes. Just an odd personal quirk.

Since you are new to the Thompsons, in my opinion, it is worth taking your time to consider and evaluate many guns with the assistance of the amazing wealth of information and experience of those frequenting this site who've been down this path for many years. FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

v.Alemannien,

Welcome to the Thompson forum. The above posts are by some very knowledgeable members of this forum.

 

I agree with gijive. I do not see the milled out or depressed area around the nomenclature markings you are talking about. Can you provide a close-up picture so we can see exactly what you are referring to. It appears like the normal Model of 1928 markings applied by Savage Arms for Thompson guns manufactured on behalf of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation in the 1940s. This S-41XXX was most likely manufactured in September or October 1940. It is the second variation Savage Arms receiver with a New York address and patent numbers on the right side of the receiver.

 

Questions:

Does it have any proof markings, probably on the receiver nose, close to where the barrel attaches. These markings would probably be on the right side but I have also seen these marking on left side. Many, but certainly not all, of these early Savage Thompsons were sold to the British and so marked with British markings. A number of these found their way back to the USA after the war via GI souvenirs or were imported by several arms companies, i.e., Interarms.

 

Can you post some pictures of the barrel and fore grip. I would be especially interested in the markings on the barrel collar, the part of the barrel that is against the receiver. I would like to know if there is a matching (and aligning) index line on the right side barrel collar. There may also be a one letter manufacturer mark on the opposite side and a proof mark top dead center. Let us know if any of these markings exist.

 

As stated by Colt Chopper, the fire control levers and no-hole magazine catch are definitely a plus on this early Savage. Same with the milled ejector. And all correct for this early of a Savage. However, the receiver defacement will have a big impact on value. As stated by Black River Militaria CII, if not now, when you or your estate go to sell it. I would not pay a premium price for this early Savage. That said, it appears like it would make an excellent shooter grade gun.

 

My main interest is in the actuator. Could you provide some close up pictures of the actuator cocking ball from the front or rear? I want to see the shape between the cocking ears. If you can field strip this early Savage, I would like to know if there are any manufacturer marks on this actuator and would like to see additional pictures. This will help us help other that will bring questions to the forum in the future. The more pictures you post, the more comments you will receive that will help you evaluate this Thompson gun. For example, does the frame number match the receiver number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your response. I guess the thing I was referring to, is difficult to see in the picture. The gremlin teethmarks are damage due to improper handling, I know. Also when you look at it, the deep gashes take away the attention from the depression in the metal where roll stamped with "of 1928". I'm not familiar with production processes at the time, but it seemed odd to me that not just the lettering would leave a mark, but perhaps also part of body of the rolldie itself. Personally I would expect the roll die to have flanges to prevent it from making such impressions the gunmetal as could be expected from a narrow rolldie with only the hight of the lettering.

 

The thing with this particular firearm is that it might have been assigned to the communications centre of NORTHAG (NATO War Headquarters led by the British BAOR) in the Cold War era. That is what made it interesting to me. I would have to spend some time to access archives to research this possibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have to agree how the gashes could not show up on the 1928 lettering, typically gashes will deform material into the engraving, I do see a faint line from the L thro to the 1928 given the crisp numbers is it a scribe line to align stamps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to make another visit to the seller to take more pictures, as I do not own the gun yet. When possible I will leave more pictures on the forum.

 

To answer some questions by TD.

 

It has proof markings of British origin, including the broad arrow and some other marks. I'll have to take specific pictures for reference.

 

Serial numbers are matching as stated by seller, I did not check yet, because I had some doubts about the condition and depression I mentioned. Now I know what to look for next time I visit the seller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be inclined to ask the seller to remove the white highlight in the numbers which are intersected by the gashes. The white highlight appears possibly recently applied to me and it covers the edges of the rollstamped numbers. What do those edges look like under the highlight?

While it is academic concerning the source of the quite weird gashes, it is physically impossible for those gashes, if mechanically made, not to distort the metal at the edges of the letters. Oddly, the gashes also do not have raised edges suggesting that they are impressions and not gouges. Possible an acidic application? Very curious. Any indication of pressure applied to the opposite side of the receiver? Doesn't seem like it in the pic.
Your supposition about the possible service use of the gun post-war is interesting. Let us know what you find out.
Curious stuff......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another thing regarding the gashes, they seem to be 3 distinct gashes equally spaced with the lighter 3 gashes at a different angle, this would give the impression these are mechanical such as being held in a vise and pulled out when clamped but nothing on the other side visible

 

looking at the scratches by the pivot plate someone sure tried to take the plate out many times with no care how it got marked up, never seen this many scratches before

Edited by laurencen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To Laurencen,

 

Yes, that is the depression I was talking about. The gashes are deep, but not that deep to deface the lettering. That is because it is almost like it was milled down.

 

The line you see is the shadow of the depression.

 

Upon blowing up the photo it becomes apparent that the gashes certainly would have interfered with the "OF 1928" markings. The numbers 1928 appear to be similar font but appear a bit wider than the numbers on the original, but that could be the white high-lighting. It appears that the numbers could have been re-engraved (maybe with a panto-graph) or almost appear to be "Photoshopped" in the picture. The white high-lighting would have to be removed to make an accurate assessment.

 

Model of 1928.jpg Model of 1928-2.jpg Model of 1928-1.jpg

Edited by gijive
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To BillyDixon, the gun is in Europe and fully functional with another collector.

 

To GIJIVE, the only photoshop is the last three digits of the serial number. But I do understand that you would mention it, I would say the same if I didn't take the pictures myself. Re-working just the lettering seems a lot of work for something that doesn't add anything to the function of the gun, from a military perspective or for a collector.

 

To Black River Militaria CII, thinking about where it was deployed after been used in WWII (a communicatons centre in the city of Maastricht, as marked on top of the receiver), electrical arcing from some electronic source could perhaps cause this type of damage? I wanted to add an image from ResearchGate with similar electrical arc damage to a metal object, but this forum didn't accept the linked source.

 

Chemical damage wouldn't leave straight lines like these I suppose... mechanical you would expect to see some raised edges as mentioned by Black River Militaria CII, if even possible as I have seen someone throw some Thompson receivers around on a concrete floor without leaving even a single scratch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gouges and other smaller nicks appear consistent with shrapnel or other battlefield explosion damage.

 

Also agree with those who find no apparent explanation for the perfect letter/number condition.

Edited by mnshooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that perhaps something happened and the upper receiver was bent.

Not sure if grip frame matches but those lines look suspiciously like heavy strikes from a cold chisel, or perhaps the straight end of a masonry hammer +for cleaving bricks).

If the guns upper was bent and needed to be struck to flatten out the bulge (perhaps a nasty out of battery pop?) Then sometime later a new owner had the side flattened a tad with a mill?

Is the side wall thickness concentric in that spot?

As previously stated, damage that was pounded back into place and maybe milled off at some point after that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is that perhaps something happened and the upper receiver was bent.

Not sure if grip frame matches but those lines look suspiciously like heavy strikes from a cold chisel, or perhaps the straight end of a masonry hammer +for cleaving bricks).

If the guns upper was bent and needed to be struck to flatten out the bulge (perhaps a nasty out of battery pop?) Then sometime later a new owner had the side flattened a tad with a mill?

Is the side wall thickness concentric in that spot?

As previously stated, damage that was pounded back into place and maybe milled off at some point after that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The finish kinda looks original...inspectors marks show some silver at the bottom but looking at the nea stamping near the back, it appears almost washboard.

Wouldn't think it would be possible a gun would make it past final inspection like this so happened during it's duty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see several areas of weld porosity or deep rust scaling. Those marks are not from any mechanical means, they are not uniform enough. It may be weld since the engraving fonts are off slightly IMO and where the marks intersect the engraving the engraving is still good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

v.Alemannien,

I thought this early Savage was located outside the USA. That is a good thing because it most likely has not been molested by an arsenal or depot rebuild - or by the importer or previous owners in the USA. One look at the fire control levers and no-hole magazine catch show this Savage likely to be in original condition. Pictures of the barrel, barrel collar and especially different angles of the actuator would be very helpful. I also suggest a picture of the frame serial number. I have seen frame serial numbers close by not matching the receiver number or ground away and a hand-stamped number that matches the receiver serial number in its place. A picture could authenticate originality or disclose any problems.

 

I am not concerned about the defacing on the left side of the receiver. This would certainly impact value in the USA but I doubt this early Savage is priced anywhere near what a registered example in the USA would cost. If you like the history and are eligible to own it, I would buy it.

 

Again, additional pictures will help us help you (and us). If you decide not to purchase, I would be interested in starting a dialog with the seller.

 

Thank you for sharing S-41XXX with the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I see the pattern of gouges the first thing it reminds me of

Is when you are milling a surface and the piece is not clamped

tightly it can be pulled by the cutter and each flute of the cutter

leaves a straition as the piece is pulled by the cutter. I am not

saying this is how it happened, just what it reminds me of.

 

I do not think this is electric arc damage which defacto vaporizes

the steel. These are mechanical gouges/cuts.

 

It is interesting that the gouges and other damage (some pits)

have the same blue finish as the un-damaged areas so I wonder

if the gun was refinished - dipped only, not polished - to account for

this. Otherwise you would expect the gouges to be "white" or

even rusty. The deep pit below the actuator knob looks the same.

 

My $0.02

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...