Jump to content

Barrel fin study - Commercial Transition to Military


Recommended Posts

I have 8 Savage "Russian" kits on hand. These must be from the earliest days because

many of the parts are in almost new condition. The barrels are interesting because most of

them have M1921 Colt-like thin fins and a couple have M1928A1 thicker military fins. The

thin fins run from about 0.065-0.070" thick and the thick military fins run about 0.090".

Here is a photo of Commercial thin fins and later thick military fins:

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5101_zpscae34a0c.jpg

 

While thinking about all this it occurred to me that it is quite unusual (at least in my experience)

to see military thick fins on a barrel with the Savage round S. By far the military fins are on

barrels made by Stevens with the square S. All of the thin fin Commercial type barrels have the

Savage round S like this:

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5103_zps9e21ec9b.jpg

 

This would make sense. Savage was already making guns and was using their own Commercial

barrels when production ramped up. They did not yet have a drawing for the military barrel. When

the new M1928A1 barrel was approved my guess is that Stevens tooled up and made many

hundreds of thousands of these barrels and supplied them to Savage and to Auto-Ordnance.

Savage did make some because you occasionally see them, but not as many as Stevens.

When M1 production commenced Savage must have increased their smooth barrel production

because it seems that Savage and Stevens M1 and M1A1 barrels are found in similar quantities.

If anything I would say that a Savage M1 barrel is much more common than a Stevens M1 barrel.

This conclusion is not due to any official documents but from my observations over the years.

 

One other observation. I have mentioned this before. Some barrels have the fins milled as

opposed to being turned on a lathe. I have no doubt that when they machined the fins on a barrel

that they had multiple cutting tools to turn/cut many fins at a time. There is no way they did them

one at a time. In the same way they gang milled (had multiple milling cutters) the fins on barrels

as well. You can spot these milled-fin barrels by looking for the "ridge" line where the cutters

start and stop. I have tried to show this line in these photos - the tip of the scribe points to

the noticeable high spot where the cut stops: The ridge is on all of the fins in the same spot and

make a line when you look at the barrel. This is easier to see in the second photo.

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5095_zps1c4e71fe.jpg

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5098_zps3502ce11.jpg

 

Fins that are turned on a lathe do not have this ridge because the barrel rotates completely.

When milling the fins they probably rotated the barrel 360 degrees which would account for the

ridge. When milling, if you start and stop at the same spot you get a line like this. To have a

smooth cut you would have to overlap an extra 5 or 10 degrees.

 

I do not think that milled-fins barrels are better or worse. They are just unusual.

 

Bob

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Thank you for the pictures of the barrels and your insight into the manufacturing process by Savage and Stevens. I look forward to studying these pictures further.

 

I do have one comment. It deals with your use of the term "commercial" regarding the production of Model of 1928 Thompson guns at Savage Arms. While Auto-Ordnance and Savage Arms were non-government entities and the product under contract for production was being produced without any direct government involvement, all of the product being produced was for military sales. For example, in 1940 there was not one Thompson gun manufactured by Savage Arms that was not already sold when it passed inspection by Auto-Ordnance Inspector George E. Goll. The military customers were the British, the United States, the French and the Canadians. There were no guns being manufactured and set aside for any "commercial" market anywhere, not even when the first guns rolled off the assembly line in mid April 1940. Orders were already in-hand at Auto-Ordnance; every gun was sold. Savage could not manufacture these guns fast enough to keep up with orders - military orders.

 

I will agree that a few guns were taken off the line and sold commercially to law enforcement organizations in the United States but these few guns are statistically insignificant when looking at the entire production of the Model of 1928 Thompson gun by Savage Arms (for Auto-Ordnance). Known serial numbers of these few guns sold to law enforcement agencies in the USA indicate this practice only lasted a few months.

 

There is nothing in the history of Auto-Ordnance to suggest Russell Maguire was interested in the commercial marketplace when he assumed control of Auto-Ordnance. He saw war clouds in Europe and acted accordingly. The first order of business was to sell off the remaining (approx) 4600 Colt era guns in inventory - the great great majority, maybe all, sold to military organizations (French, Swedes, United States).

 

I will agree there is a difference in quality or appearance with the first guns manufactured by Savage Arms as compared to the latter guns. There were differences with the early Colt era guns as compared to the late guns (but the differences do not deal with quality per se). With the exception of the fore grip (on some guns) I cannot tell you the difference between a Model of 1928 Thompson gun sold to the British as compared to a Model of 1928A1 gun sold to the United States.

 

I bring this up because I have heard on the Board statements about pre-World War II Savage Thompson's. I guess it all depends on when you believe World War II formally began, but in April 1940 when the first Savage guns rolled off the assembly line, the war in Europe was on-going. And when the last Thompson guns rolled off the assembly line the war had not ended.

 

I welcome your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Commercials go, I've read every single thing I could find on them, including the many posts on the topic on this site.

 

It seems to me that a lot of guys are under the impression that "Savage Commercials" are somehow different from the regular production guns that went to Britain.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken but it appears that some think the Savage Commercials have a higher grade finish and parts than the British guns.

 

Maybe that notion comes from the fact that the Savage Commercials carry a premium price tag among collectors?

 

Or that the very early Savage may have some Colt parts on them.

 

 

I'd be interested to know what Colt parts were used and when they ran out.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I've seen numerous references to "bright blue" barrels, but none of them seem to look bright blue, or even very shiny.

 

The early 17,000 serial number Savage in the British Donnington collection has a barrel that looks like regular old WWII-Winchester-style matte dulite.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are a couple of barrels from these early kits. OK, it does not have the high finish of an S&W revolver,

but otherwise I'd say this finish is as good as it gets:

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5105_zpsb025950c.jpg

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_5106_zps2112f952.jpg

 

For some reason the picture makes the compensators look crooked.

 

When I am using the term "Commercial" I do not mean that the guns were manufactured for commercial sale, but rather that the production

process was the same as you would use for a commercial/sporting firearm. These early Savage guns which we mostly now see in the form of kits

or parts sets have the same high quality appearance and finish as you would see on M1921 Colt parts. The only difference is Savage did not

have or use the Colt "Royal Blue" finish. If you blued either of the barrels above using the Colt process they would look exactly the same as a Colt.

 

As time went by Savage did make some concessions to the necessities of wartime production, although not much. The early receivers had

a very smooth flat finish (probably from polishing then sandblasting) which gave way to the raw Blanchard ground finish. Bright bolts gave way

to blued bolts, thin, rounded Colt type fins gave way to thicker chamfered fins (although I don't see how this made it go any faster). And of course

knurling or actuators and fire control levers went away and finally the dramatic changes of no fins on the barrel and no Lyman 55B sights.

 

Probably the most "military" quality gun Savage made was their run of No. 4 Mk 1 Lee-Enfields. Savage also made .50 Cal. Browning

machine guns and since these are pieces of machinery as opposed to shoulder weapons they have the same utilitarian appearance as

machine guns made by Inland or Saginaw.

 

Non-firearm industry manufacturers made guns in WW2. This is when you had the likes of Inland Division of

General Motors, Saginaw Steering Gear, International Postal Meter, I.B.M., Smith Corona, and others who had no history at all making firearms.

They were not burdened by tradition. And of course, most significant to us here on this board the Guide Lamp Division making

the M3 submachine gun.

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read TD's post weveral times and can;t seem to get what he's driving at.

I know that he's always disputed the fact that the early Savages that were

sent to Britan were not "Commercials" even though they are the same gun that was sold

to some PDs during the early Savage run. I beleive he's stated that the only true "Commercials" were

in the 20k serial number range. Have you changed your mind TD?

-Darryl

Edited by darrylta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what actually happened?

 

I was under the impression that Savage built several thousand Thompsons for the British in 1940.

 

They plucked a couple off the assembly line and sold them to police departments.

 

Those 50 or 100 police guns are distinguished from the rest of the British order by the collector's nickname of "Savage Commercial."

 

 

If you call the entire British contract "Savage Commercials" then what meaning does the nickname have?

 

 

 

Do those police guns have a better fit and finish than the rest of the British guns or not?

 

Does anyone know or is it still out for deliberation?

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,
Thank you for your informative reply. Please do not infer that I take exception to great pictures and manufacturing observations and expertise you have provided this board regarding the manufacture of Thompson barrels. We have all learned a lot from your post. My comments are intended to avoid confusion to the novice enthusiast. There is much mis-information about the very few collector named "Savage Commercial" Thompson's manufactured by Savage Arms and sold by Auto-Ordnance Corporation to law enforcement organizations in the early days of WWII production. I believe Roger Cox coined this collector term when he realized these police guns were different from their military counterpart. My post was meant to give anyone pause from thinking all the early Savage Thompson guns were "Savage Commercials" or initially manufactured as a commercial product for the marketplace.

For example, you posted in your reply: "When I am using the term "Commercial" I do not mean that the guns were manufactured for commercial sale, but rather that the production process was the same as you would use for a commercial/sporting firearm." I believe your correct with this assessment. However, you have to remember that there were many AOC and Savage contracts to manufacture the Thompson gun. The first contract was for only 10,000 guns and one of the terms was the finished product had "to be produced exactly as it appeared in the 1936 Thompson Catalog." (TUTB p.302) A quick review of an original 1936 AOC catalog shows a pretty nice looking Thompson gun. There is no reason to believe Savage Arms did anything other than set up a normal production line using as much of the Colt era tooling and machinery as existed to manufacture an acceptable product for AOC. At the time this first contract was signed no one knew if this would be the only contract. And orders for Thompson guns were slow at first, only becoming enormous as the guns started rolling off the assembly line. The differences you note between early and later Savage guns are a result of the large orders and the expansion of World War II to include the United States. It had nothing to do with a commercial manufacturing process changing to a military manufacturing process. The change in the manufacturing process dealt with cost cutting methods to make the process faster. I agree that cosmetics suffered during these changes.

Shown below are other statements in your original post that caused me concern:

"Here is a photo of Commercial thin fins and later thick military fins:"

"By far the military fins are on barrels made by Stevens with the square S. All of the thin fin Commercial type barrels have the Savage round S like this:"

"Savage was already making guns and was using their own Commercial barrels when production ramped up. They did not yet have a drawing for the military barrel. When the new M1928A1 barrel was approved my guess is that Stevens tooled up and made many hundreds of thousands of these barrels and supplied them to Savage and to Auto-Ordnance."

I believe Savage Arms just manufactured barrels. There is no "commercial" twist to this process. However, I do agree the early finned barrels are much nicer than the finned barrels produced later in the war. This has to do with making the process faster to keep up with production demands and nothing to do with first manufacturing "commerical barrels" and later changing to a "military barrel." Other than cosmetics, I doubt there is any difference in the first finned barrel and last finned barrel produced by Savage Arms and installed on both Model of 1928 and Model of 1928A1 guns. I also believe using the term "commercial" in conjuction with the production of the early Savage Thompson causes unnecessary confusion, hence my original reply.

Darryl,
I have stayed pretty firm in my beliefs but do change when new information is found. The collector term "Savage Commercial" to me means a Savage Thompson that was sold by AOC to a law enforcement organization in the United States in 1940. Law enforcement provenance is the key for these very highly priced collector items. Bob is talking about the commercial like quality of the gun and he is correct the early Savage Thompsons were very nice, almost as nice as the Colt guns. I believe it is the commercial sale of this product to a non-military organization that makes these few guns special. My issue with Bob's post deals with providing the reader enough information to know that all the early Savage Thompsons sold to the British, French, Canadian and United States military are not the same as the term Roger Cox coined long ago. I also dispute his theory the production at Savage started out the same as any sporting rifle and later changed to a military process. I believe it just started like every other gun manufactured at Savage and changed under production demands - very large production demands. There was no "Commercial Transition to Military" as the title of his thread implies. As to serial numbers, every a true Savage Commercial Thompson I have seen has a serial number under 30,000, most way under.

Buzz makes a great comment regarding how could the term "Savage Commercial" Thompson have a special meaning if as some people believe all the early Savage made Thompson guns are Savage Commercial Thompson's. That is an excellent point. Unfortunately, there is no answer to Buzz's questions about Colt era parts or anything else because these few law enforcement sales were not a standardized item. In that regard I will leave you something to think about because you have expressed an interest in this Thompson variation over the years. What AOC employee at Savage Arms do you think selected the actual Thompson guns from the assembly line and made sure the finished product was something that represented the best AOC Thompson gun money could buy? He was someone that understood the law enforcement customers well. And had many years of hands on experience with the Colt guns. I can't say for certain he was the one that performed this duty - but I don't know of another AOC employee at the Savage plant in the early days of production. If true, it may well explain why these few guns look so good and why some have the Colt era parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have two basic questions about the 1940 Savage 1928s:

 

 

1. Was the whole production run of 1940 Savage Thompsons finished nicer than the later 1928s?

 

 

2. Were the police-purchased 1940 Savage Thompsons finished nicer than the guns sent to Britain?

 

 

From a logic standpoint, I would expect random Colt parts were used on the 1940 guns until they ran out of Colt parts.

 

Aside from that, I would be very skeptical of a "yes" answer either question #1 or #2.

 

I'd have to see some original guns with really awesome looking "S: marked parts to give affirmation to either of those two questions.

 

The 1940 production was wartime production.

 

I have seen photos of the Thompson in the British Donnington museum, the serial number is around 17300 or so, the finish quality looks like regular old WWII Winchester-grade Dulite finsh.

 

 

The above isn't an opinion, it's questions.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding of the term `Commercial Savage` implied a low serial.. i.e. first 10,000 production run and the patent dates identical to Colt 21s.Comparing the finishes side by side they are nearly the same.I will ad that both my 21 and low serial number Savage were probably refinished eons ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tracie Hill adds to the confusion in TUTB in that the "Commercial" Savage pictured has a fourth pattern Cutts Compensator. (like the ones on Bob's Russian kit barrels) and a serial number in the 40,000 range. Not to mention it has a NAC suffix indicating Numrich imported the Thompson. The "Commercial" Savage would have the 2nd pattern Cutts with the Colt internal parts, checkered select levers, blued barrel, and no U.S. or foreign government proof marks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Savage 28 that TD and Arthur are describing is what is commonly called a transitional gun. These transitional guns shared componets of the earlier model in the new updated model.

With this reasoning the PD purchased Colt Thompsons are commercial guns,,,yet many, many Colts were purchased by foreign countries for warfare. My point is that...there the same gun, just as the

Savages above the 10K number range that have the same attributes as the earlier guns...are the same gun. I own a 69K range Savage with Brit stampings,,,it's the same gun as the so called commercials.

 

My 2 cents,

Darryl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the Savage 28 that TD and Arthur are describing is what is commonly called a transitional gun. These transitional guns shared componets of the earlier model in the new updated model.

With this reasoning the PD purchased Colt Thompsons are commercial guns,,,yet many, many Colts were purchased by foreign countries for warfare. My point is that...there the same gun, just as the

Savages above the 10K number range that have the same attributes as the earlier guns...are the same gun. I own a 69K range Savage with Brit stampings,,,it's the same gun as the so called commercials.

 

My 2 cents,

Darryl

 

"Transitional" Thompsons are those whose receivers and or frames were manufactured by Colt with unfinished markings that were serial numbered and assembled by Savage. There is no dispute about this variation. Whether the term "Commercial" is up for interpretation, the parameters that denote a "Commercial" Savage begin with the serial number range which is limited to the highest serial number in the 25,000 range(?). The added proof markings would tend to disqualify a Savage TSMG as a "Commercial" version (as defined by Cox, Iannamico, and Hill) since this would suggest a non-military purchaser. AOC intended that the Colt Thompson was for anyone who could pay for them. On the other hand, the Savage Thompson went into production to meet the demands of foreign and U.S. military needs. That AOC did accommodate police departments during the earliest production of the Maguire era Thompson when they were trying to fill military orders is what makes the "Commercial" Savage different. That these types also fall under the 30,000 serial numbers, have Colt parts, 2nd pattern Cutts, etc is also characteristic of the "Commercial" Savage. If the Thompson collector community decides that the Savage "Commercial" Thompson is a distinction without a difference from any other Savage MODEL 1928, and, therefore, should not command any greater value, so be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I have is whether ALL savages under the 30,000 range are the same fit and finish or if the police purchased guns are different.

 

Did they just pluck the police guns out of the assembly line or did they get special preparation?

 

Either this is unknown or I'm being dense about it. It's a mystery to me.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question I have is whether ALL savages under the 30,000 range are the same fit and finish or if the police purchased guns are different.

 

Did they just pluck the police guns out of the assembly line or did they get special preparation?

 

Either this is unknown or I'm being dense about it. It's a mystery to me.

 

I don't believe any author of Thompson history has stated or implied that the "Commercial" Savage were selected for additional special spa treatment with mud baths and cucumber slices in preparation for sale to a police department. This would mean the fit would be to the same tolerances as any other Savage 1928. As far as finish, the consensus is that they were duilte with blued barrels and compensators.

 

These early Savage 1928 Thompsons would also have 12 patent dates, not patent numbers, on the right side. The stampings/roll marks are different from late serial numbered Colt Thompson 1922 patent date markings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My stance is I've stated and depicted in Tracie's book showing a 40K range as an example of a Savage Commercial.

The early Savages up to at least the 70K range are pretty much the same gun. Just as the Colts to the 15K range are pretty much the same gun

no matter who the original purchaser was. Why is that so hard to see or agree with? It's the same gun?

 

I think the transitional guns included more than just the Colt receivered and frame guns. Savages that had surplus Colt internals & externals were

also transitional guns. Once the surplus Colt parts were exhausted and the 100% early Savages were built is the initial time line for the Savage Commercials.

Savage's contract with AO dictated that Savage build their guns as close as possible to the Colt established standands. In my opinion, they gave it a good try, but were not totally sucessful.

 

I'm not debating that my Savage was not orginally a military gun, what I'm stating is that it's same gun as what some collecters call a PD Savage Commercial. Built on the same production

run-by the same craftsman.

 

Case closed.

 

-Darryl

 

P1010098.jpg

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you're right. Except for the markings. Your gun has British proofs and likely has 13 patent numbers instead of 12 patent dates. As to Colt parts, if they were used it would have been to facilitate production so the first guns got 'em. Fit and function are probably the same but the guns are different by virtue of the markings. As to value, that is up to those who are true collectors.

 

Bob D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My stance is I've stated and depicted in Tracie's book showing a 40K range as an example of a Savage Commercial.

 

Case closed.

 

-Darryl

 

Was your Savage advertised as a "Commercial" Savage by the seller before you purchased it? It shouldn't have been.

Savage 1928 #43351NAC as pictured in Hill's book could not be a "Commercial" Savage because it has late model selector levers, patent numbers, fourth pattern Cutts, a butt stock with a reinforcing bolt and British proofs. Says who? Tracie Hill. As per Hill's own rubric of what it takes to be a true "Commercial" Savage as stated in TUTB. It is a rather embarrassing error that the photo doesn't synch up with the text, but perhaps Hill couldn't find a real deal "Commercial" Savage before his book went to press and figured John Boyce's Savage would do in a pinch.

 

You want to change the over 30 year accepted definition of a Savage "Commercial" to include any Savage MODEL 1928 that were also sold to the military, have patent numbers, and serial numbers above the 20,000 range. Whether in your mind it shouldn't make a difference to a collector about these subtle differences that would ultimately be the decision of the next purchaser should you advertise #69770 as a "Commercial" Savage.

 

 

 

 

"For identification purposes , the Savage Commercial Thompsons have all internal nickel steel parts like the Colt guns, a flat-sided (machined) ejector made by Colt or Savage, a New York address on the right side of the receiver, a blued barrel, without any proof marks and a butt stock without a reinforcing bolt." Tracie Hill, TUTB p.310

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a savage discussion.

Arthur Fliegenheimer, on 16 Jul 2014 - 13:42, said:

 

 

buzz, on 16 Jul 2014 - 12:05, said:

The question I have is whether ALL savages under the 30,000 range are the same fit and finish or if the police purchased guns are different.

 

Did they just pluck the police guns out of the assembly line or did they get special preparation?

 

Either this is unknown or I'm being dense about it. It's a mystery to me.

I don't believe any author of Thompson history has stated or implied that the "Commercial" Savage were selected for additional special spa treatment with mud baths and cucumber slices in preparation for sale to a police department. This would mean the fit would be to the same tolerances as any other Savage 1928. As far as finish, the consensus is that they were duilte with blued barrels and compensators.

 

These early Savage 1928 Thompsons would also have 12 patent dates, not patent numbers, on the right side. The stampings/roll marks are different from late serial numbered Colt Thompson 1922 patent date markings.

 

/

 

Maybe the books don't say that the Savage commercials had special fit and finish, but it's implied all the time on this site.

 

People always write, "In order for it to be a Savage Commercial, it has to have checkered selector levers, 2nd model cuts, etc."

 

I don't see why those features would be constantly mentioned about Savage Commercials if the first 5000 or 10000 guns had them.

 

It implies that those properties are particular to the Commercials instead of particular to the whole first couple of batches of guns that were made.

 

 

As far as the name tag of "Savage Commercials" goes, the word "commercial" as applied to guns almost always means non-military guns.

 

So it would make sense to call the police guns "commercial" since the police sales were literally commercial sales.

 

I don't see how it makes any sense to use it for virtually every Savage 1928.

 

Especially since the Savage production was started specifically because of the war in Europe, to sell guns to the military.

 

 

I'm hoping someday to actually see a decent number of bona fide police Savage 28s and see how the theories match up with reality. Not holding my breath on that one, they seem pretty far between.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion, one as good as you will find in the Cox, Iannamico and Hill books. There is no doubt this Thompson variation exists, it is just very difficult to quantify. I had never heard the term "Savage Commercial Thompson" prior to the Cox book. Perhaps some of the older enthusiasts can pre-date this term for us. Or not. I do believe Cox noticed this variation was different and special when compared to the military Thompson guns also found in law enforcement armories. The information found in the later Hill and Iannamico books is very similar to the Cox book. Yes, Tracie and Blake Stevens screwed the pooch with the pictures of the NAC marked 40,000 serial numbered Savage Thompson. Such errors happen in a 833 page book. Even Cox did not recognize one item on the Savage Thompson he claimed was a Savage Commercial and pictured in his book, S-17375. Look close; it has the standard early knurled Savage fire control levers, not the "finely checkered fire select and safety levers" as he claims in his description. I would guess Roger Cox owned more of these guns than anyone else. I would like to see S-17375. Does anyone know of its whereabouts?

 

Of all the claims and conjecture there is one steadfast rule: a commercial sale to a law enforcement organization in the United States in the 1940 time frame. This verifiable provenance on a good or better condition Savage Thompson with original finish and wood will get you top dollar. I used to think that all the Savage Commercials had the patent dates. I have since changed my stance on this. I have seen two that have patent numbers - but none above the 27,000 serial number range. That is only 12,000 guns (September 1940) from the beginning of production. The only way to study this variation is one gun at a time. It is much like the crate or NAC Thompsons in that regard. You have to look at each individual gun when you are lucky enough to find one. Finding any surviving Savage Thompson gun with a serial number under 30,000 is difficult. This is why the information on the Savage Commercial Thompson in the books does not change. And the questions abound. These guns have a certain look about them. Don't get hung up on the Colt parts. Some have Colt parts, some don't. The look of the barrel and wood is much more informative - to me.

 

I have more problems with the early Savage guns identified as "transitional" Thompson's. I agree that some Colt era parts were used in the production of the early Savage guns (commercial and military) but I believe this has been over exaggerated. I don't see how anyone can find enough original early Savage Thompson guns to make a determination this practice was wide spread. Question: what is your definition of a Savage "transitional" Thompson? And how many has anyone seen? I am not sure this claimed variation exists!

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a good conversation.

 

As a newbie I was assuming that there is more information available on original police Savages.

 

I guess there are just not enough of them around in original condition to "connect the dots."

 

I'm officially coining a new term, for my own use anyway: "Original Police Savage".

 

There's no point in me addressing the guns as "commercials" unless the word has a set meaning among collectors.

 

 

Until decent data exists, I'm going to assume that the "Original Police Savages" did not get any special fit or finish. Just because that assumption is the most direct and simple. When you're making a guess, you start with the simplest and most obvious.

 

I would love to see pictures of 17375.

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a great discussion, one as good as you will find in the Cox, Iannamico and Hill books. There is no doubt this Thompson variation exists, it is just very difficult to quantify. I had never heard the term "Savage Commercial Thompson" prior to the Cox book. Perhaps some of the older enthusiasts can pre-date this term for us. Or not. I do believe Cox noticed this variation was different and special when compared to the military Thompson guns also found in law enforcement armories. The information found in the later Hill and Iannamico books is very similar to the Cox book. Yes, Tracie and Blake Stevens screwed the pooch with the pictures of the NAC marked 40,000 serial numbered Savage Thompson. Such errors happen in a 833 page book. Even Cox did not recognize one item on the Savage Thompson he claimed was a Savage Commercial and pictured in his book, S-17375. Look close; it has the standard early knurled Savage fire control levers, not the "finely checkered fire select and safety levers" as he claims in his description. I would guess Roger Cox owned more of these guns than anyone else. I would like to see S-17375. Does anyone know of its whereabouts?

 

Of all the claims and conjecture there is one steadfast rule: a commercial sale to a law enforcement organization in the United States in the 1940 time frame. This verifiable provenance on a good or better condition Savage Thompson with original finish and wood will get you top dollar. I used to think that all the Savage Commercials had the patent dates. I have since changed my stance on this. I have seen two that have patent numbers - but none above the 27,000 serial number range. That is only 12,000 guns (September 1940) from the beginning of production. The only way to study this variation is one gun at a time. It is much like the crate or NAC Thompsons in that regard. You have to look at each individual gun when you are lucky enough to find one. Finding any surviving Savage Thompson gun with a serial number under 30,000 is difficult. This is why the information on the Savage Commercial Thompson in the books does not change. And the questions abound. These guns have a certain look about them. Don't get hung up on the Colt parts. Some have Colt parts, some don't. The look of the barrel and wood is much more informative - to me.

 

I have more problems with the early Savage guns identified as "transitional" Thompson's. I agree that some Colt era parts were used in the production of the early Savage guns (commercial and military) but I believe this has been over exaggerated. I don't see how anyone can find enough original early Savage Thompson guns to make a determination this practice was wide spread. Question: what is your definition of a Savage "transitional" Thompson? And how many has anyone seen? I am not sure this claimed variation exists!

 

 

Yeah, this is neat stuff. Did you see a 27K gun with Pat numbers? Were there 12 or 13? I've often wondered how and when they changed. My 16K gun and its twin sat in the Memphis PD armory for well over 35 years along with 8 Colts before being liberated. I'm sure other Commercial guns had similar experience. Colts come out of PDs with Savage parts so I'd bet that can go both ways.

 

 

 

Edited by bug
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The information found in the later Hill and Iannamico books is very similar to the Cox book. Yes, Tracie and Blake Stevens screwed the pooch with the pictures of the NAC marked 40,000 serial numbered Savage Thompson. Such errors happen in a 833 page book. Even Cox did not recognize one item on the Savage Thompson he claimed was a Savage Commercial and pictured in his book, S-17375. Look close; it has the standard early knurled Savage fire control levers, not the "finely checkered fire select and safety levers" as he claims in his description.

 

That the photo of S-17375 doesn't show a Colt safe/fire selector, yet does have the correct serial number range, sale to PD, as well as the other required features for a "Commercial" is hardly commensurate to Hill's selection of S-43351 NAC for a "Commercial". Should Cox have replaced the selector lever before photographing the TSMG? Come on. The easily substituted parts are not the same as the permanent features such as serial numbers, patent numbers, and lack of proof marks. After all, Hill had Cox's spade work on the subject to rely upon for TUTB written 27 years after Cox's book.

 

Not sure the relevance of the number of pages in TUTB (or the efforts of editor R. Blake Stevens) as this type of misinformation isn't a grammatical or printing error. S-43351 NAC on page 310 is the same Thompson shown on page 470 (Ch.30) as an example of a NAC marked Thompson. It's not as if Blake mixed up the pictures from the two different chapters. There is no picture of a Savage "Commercial" in TUTB. Surely Hill knew this before the book went to press.

 

Hill couldn't have selected a better example of a Savage MODEL 1928 that illustrates what a Savage "Commercial" couldn't be. Yet, as Darryl 's post illustrates, an owner of the Savage MODEL 1928 will cite TUTB page 310 photos as proof they must have a Savage "Commercial". This is a continuing problem for all firearm reference books. Once it is in print, many collectors rely on the book/periodical/magazine information to the exclusion of contrary post publication irrefutable evidence from any other source.

 

If Hill was unable to locate a Savage "Commercial" MODEL 1928 for TUTB he should have omitted any Thompson photos for that section. It isn't hindsight to suggest that back in 2009, or before, Hill could have easily used this board to solicit an owner of a Savage "Commercial" . Maybe Bug could have obliged with a few pics of his SCT. It has all the requisite "Commercial" requirements including serial number range, sale to PD, patent dates, Colt parts, 2nd pattern Cutts, no proofs,

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b56/Polythemus/MachinegunbooksboardmemberBuigsSavageCommercial_zps8f2c7d8c.jpg

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...