Post Office/Marine Corps Thompsons

[dalbert]

I have been watching this thread unfold from a distance since I was out of town without access to the Board when the thread began. Given the account of how the US Post Office purchased Thompson Submachine Guns for the US Marines to guard the US mail has been around since 1926, I am not so quick to dismiss the story. I am also not so quick as to dismiss the writings of Mr. Helmer and Mr. Hill - or Mr. Herigstad. I find it interesting this is a story that has never generated much controversy – until now. I have not performed any original research, only read all that I could find on the subject. My comments are based on these readings.

 

The October 27, 1926 story in the New York Times stating then “Postmaster General New has purchased 250 Thompson machine guns for immediate delivery to the marines” is short and to the point. I don’t see how it could be misunderstood. There is no doubt Thompson guns were available from Auto-Ordnance (AOC) for immediate delivery, probably about 12,000 guns in 1926!

 

I find it interesting the Postmaster General and later the US Marines are quick to cite the use of the Thompson Submachine Gun to protect the US Mail. It is almost a concerted effort to warn all potential robbers that any robbery attempt will be met with machine gun fire. There does not appear to be a dispute about this point. AOC certainly used the fact the Marines guarded the mail with the Thompson gun in their advertisements. I am not surprised the law enforcement division within the Post Office, the Postal Inspection Service, is not cited as a purchaser or user of the Thompson gun in 1926 or even in the later 1929 AOC catalog. My quick review of the 1929 AOC catalog does not reveal any federal law enforcement organizations using the Thompson gun. So who was the first federal law enforcement agency to officially adopt the Thompson gun for duty use? But I digress…

 

I feel certain all AOC sales records will indicate the US Marines took delivery of the 250 Thompson guns in question as they were the end user. The only real question or controversy is who paid for the guns. From Gordon’s book, I found this quote from THE MARINES CORPS GAZETTE 1926 very interesting: “The funds appropriated for the maintenance of the Marine Corps for the fiscal year being barely sufficient for the current needs of the Corps, it was apparent that if the Marines were detailed to the duty in question it would be necessary to secure additional funds.” This could lead one to surmise if the Marine Corps had barely enough funding to exist, how did they find the funds to purchase 250 Thompson Submachine Guns right after they were detailed via Presidential Directive to guard the US Mails.

 

The dates of all the events that led to the US Marines guarding the mail do not rule out the Post Office funding this purchase. Actually, the dates really lend credibility to the story (The AOC contract dated October 22, 1926 happened days after the October 15th Elizabeth, New Jersey machine gun robbery and the call up of the Marines on October 16th. And yes, a government organization as large as the Post Office would have had ample money on hand to make this type of purchase. My math indicates we are talking about less than $50,000.

 

I believe the folklore part of this story is how the Marines would not return the Thompson guns to postal officials when the guard detail was completed. If the post office purchased these 250 guns for the Marines to use in protecting the US Mail, I feel certain there was never a plan for the guns to be returned to the Post Office. This was not a piece of equipment that was needed at the post office; the continual inventory, storage and security concerns for 250 submachine guns would have involved a lot of resources.

 

The New York Times story cannot be dismissed outright – unless it can be proven incorrect. It must be included in the story to let the reader decide. I find it interesting the very proud US Marines never denied receiving their first large shipment of Thompson guns courtesy of the US Postal Service. From what I can read on the subject, this was treated as a well known and publicized fact, not some spurious story as Arthur has alluded too. Would not someone in the US Marines have set the story straight years ago if this was a real controversy, not the complete story or simply incorrect? I don’t believe anyone in the Marines would have hesitated to set the record straight – if that course of action was needed.

 

While still giving credit to Gordon for all his meticulous research, I am going to keep an open mind on this story in Thompson history. More information may just surface some day that really ends this new controversy. I feel certain Gordon would want everyone on this Board to continue his research; that is the only way we learn.

 

TD,

 

Very well stated.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I have been watching this thread unfold from a distance since I was out of town without access to the Board when the thread began. Given the account of how the US Post Office purchased Thompson Submachine Guns for the US Marines to guard the US mail has been around since 1926, I am not so quick to dismiss the story. I am also not so quick as to dismiss the writings of Mr. Helmer and Mr. Hill - or Mr. Herigstad. I find it interesting this is a story that has never generated much controversy – until now. I have not performed any original research, only read all that I could find on the subject. My comments are based on these readings.

 

But the story has been reported as fact in most books and websites dedicated to the TSMG. The only author who has written about the "USPS Colt TSMG" episode that didn't accept the Postmaster General story is G.H. Did you accept the story as fact until now, but now you have doubts? If so, then G.H.'s work was not in vain.

 

The October 27, 1926 story in the New York Times stating then “Postmaster General New has purchased 250 Thompson machine guns for immediate delivery to the marines” is short and to the point. I don’t see how it could be misunderstood. There is no doubt Thompson guns were available from Auto-Ordnance (AOC) for immediate delivery, probably about 12,000 guns in 1926!

 

Did you know that WJH's New York Times annotation about the "USPS Colt TSMG" consisted of an AP story relaying PG New's press release until you read this thread?

 

I find it interesting the Postmaster General and later the US Marines are quick to cite the use of the Thompson Submachine Gun to protect the US Mail. It is almost a concerted effort to warn all potential robbers that any robbery attempt will be met with machine gun fire. There does not appear to be a dispute about this point. AOC certainly used the fact the Marines guarded the mail with the Thompson gun in their advertisements. I am not surprised the law enforcement division within the Post Office, the Postal Inspection Service, is not cited as a purchaser or user of the Thompson gun in 1926 or even in the later 1929 AOC catalog. My quick review of the 1929 AOC catalog does not reveal any federal law enforcement organizations using the Thompson gun. So who was the first federal law enforcement agency to officially adopt the Thompson gun for duty use? But I digress…

 

Except that the AOC ad featuring the Marine guarding the mail mentions after "Thompson guns are Adopted and in Use by:" The United States Treasury Dept, you know, T-Men, a law enforcement agency.

 

I feel certain all AOC sales records will indicate the US Marines took delivery of the 250 Thompson guns in question as they were the end user. The only real question or controversy is who paid for the guns. From Gordon’s book, I found this quote from THE MARINES CORPS GAZETTE 1926 very interesting: “The funds appropriated for the maintenance of the Marine Corps for the fiscal year being barely sufficient for the current needs of the Corps, it was apparent that if the Marines were detailed to the duty in question it would be necessary to secure additional funds.” This could lead one to surmise if the Marine Corps had barely enough funding to exist, how did they find the funds to purchase 250 Thompson Submachine Guns right after they were detailed via Presidential Directive to guard the US Mails.

 

 

Well, the fact that the USMC took delivery of the 250 Colt TSMG is not what WJH or Hill reports in their publications. While WJHl was relying on the AP blurb, since he didn't have G.H.'s research on the subject to consider, surely Hill had access to this information before he wrote page 167 in "The Ultimate Thompson Book." The quote sounds like they "secured additional funds." Not that they hit up the USPS for the coin. Since it was a Presidential Directive, the $35K(?) could come from the Fed. Remember, at this time, October 1926, Congress was in adjournment. The PG Hill declared to the media in October, 1926 that they were going to ask Congress for a $1 million to fund their own security measures.

 

 

The dates of all the events that led to the US Marines guarding the mail do not rule out the Post Office funding this purchase. Actually, the dates really lend credibility to the story (The AOC contract dated October 22, 1926 happened days after the October 15th Elizabeth, New Jersey machine gun robbery and the call up of the Marines on October 16th. And yes, a government organization as large as the Post Office would have had ample money on hand to make this type of purchase. My math indicates we are talking about less than $50,000.

 

Not according to New. If they had "ample money on hand," why did New declare he was going to Congress for appropriations when they were in session in December, 1926?

 

 

I believe the folklore part of this story is how the Marines would not return the Thompson guns to postal officials when the guard detail was completed. If the post office purchased these 250 guns for the Marines to use in protecting the US Mail, I feel certain there was never a plan for the guns to be returned to the Post Office. This was not a piece of equipment that was needed at the post office; the continual inventory, storage and security concerns for 250 submachine guns would have involved a lot of resources.

 

Agreed. So since the USPS was never in possession of these Colt TSMG, the animal known as the "USPS Colt TSMG" is a myth.

 

The New York Times story cannot be dismissed outright – unless it can be proven incorrect. It must be included in the story to let the reader decide. I find it interesting the very proud US Marines never denied receiving their first large shipment of Thompson guns courtesy of the US Postal Service. From what I can read on the subject, this was treated as a well known and publicized fact, not some spurious story as Arthur has alluded too. Would not someone in the US Marines have set the story straight years ago if this was a real controversy, not the complete story or simply incorrect? I don’t believe anyone in the Marines would have hesitated to set the record straight – if that course of action was needed.

 

But that is not how the "USPS Colt TSMG" is depicted in WJH and Hill's works. The reader isn't given the opportunity to consider whether the story is apocryphal or documented since one would have to get a hold of the AP wire, or a newspaper that carried it, to know that this was all based on PG New's press conference. General Vandergrift's comment about the Thompson Submachine Gun made no mention of the USPS being the source for them. Does not crediting the USPS as the source for the TSMG count the same as discrediting them as the source?

 

While still giving credit to Gordon for all his meticulous research, I am going to keep an open mind on this story in Thompson history. More information may just surface some day that really ends this new controversy. I feel certain Gordon would want everyone on this Board to continue his research; that is the only way we learn.

 

That's fine. But people reading Hill's book will likely just accept what he included on the subject of the "USPS Colt TSMG" as fact since he didn't leave any room for doubt.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[TD.]

Arthur,

 

We probably agree more on this issue than disagree. I respect the work of Mr. Helmer, Mr. Hill and Mr. Herigstad. Different conclusions were reached based on each ones research. As I have stated before, when you do the research, you get to write the story as you believe it happened based on the new documentation and evidence you uncovered. Then you have to sit back and let all the pundits sift through your work and give their opinions based usually on only their opinions. I know Helmer, Hill and Herigstad understand completely.

 

Regardless of what happened in 1926, these 250 Thompson guns will always be associated with the US Post Office and the US Marines guarding the US Mail. Given this assignment was the first time the US Marines deployed the Thompson gun in force, I don’t consider this a bad thing. Helmer and Hill’s story will be the most accepted by Thompson enthusiasts as their work is published in much greater quantity. But that does not diminish the work of Herigstad. I value all information in the history of the Thompson gun and decided to keep an open mind for now.

 

I also respect the work and opinions of David Albert. He believes there is more to this story. David looks at history much like Helmer, Hill and Herigstad. He is not interested in only reading what others have written; he can view a part of history and see where research has not been done. Given David’s success in the past, why rush to judgment – especially when all that is being debated is who paid for these 250 Thompson guns. I can solve that mystery right now; it was the taxpayers of the United States of America. These guns were property of the US Government.

 

This is a good thread. What this Board is all about.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

 

I also respect the work and opinions of David Albert. He believes there is more to this story. David looks at history much like Helmer, Hill and Herigstad. He is not interested in only reading what others have written; he can view a part of history and see where research has not been done. Given David’s success in the past, why rush to judgment – especially when all that is being debated is who paid for these 250 Thompson guns. I can solve that mystery right now; it was the taxpayers of the United States of America. These guns were property of the US Government.

 

When did Dave believe there was more to this story? When he read WJH's TGTMTTR? Hill's book? Or when he read this thread? If Dave doesn't rely on reading what others have written, what does he use for sources? There are many of us who question the conclusions of those who mistake opinion for evidence, even if they are considered knowledgeable or authorities in their field. We are just amateur historians who do not rely" ONLY" on what others have written. Even when these opinions originate from published authors, we challenge them with contrary evidence just as if they were the anonymous musings of those who post on the internet.

 

BTW: Did you know about the first time the USMC rode shotgun for the USPS back in November, 1921 before reading this thread?

Edited April 21, 2010 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[dalbert]

Gordon Herigstad has done yeoman work in correcting the confusion over the "Post Office Thompson Submachine Guns," and yet the apocryphal story is still thriving. G.H.'s extensive research that uncovered historical documentation regarding the Marines association with the Colt TSMG is infinitely more superior and reliable than the AP's blurb..

 

Because of an Associated Press wire story that was picked up by the newspapers, we know how this confusion got started...

 

Arthur & Interested Others,

 

Gordon did very good research on the Post Office/Marine Corps Thompsons, there is no doubt. There is more to the story, though, and the AP wire account is almost certainly accurate.

 

I’m researching this subject further, and have acquired a number of documents from the National Archives directly related to the Post Office and the Marine Corps Mail Guard arrangements in 1926.

 

The Post Office footed the bill. They made an accounting arrangement with the War Department to pay for lodging, weapons, and supplies for the assigned Marines. It appears they paid for most expenses beyond their normal military salaries. A few documents provide specific insight into how the relationship was handled.

 

On October 27, 1926, Postmaster Large of the Atlanta Post Office corresponded with Acting First Assistant Postmaster General Trotter regarding riot shotguns purchased for the Marines in the Mail Guard Company at Atlanta. It states that the War Department had been requested by the Post Office to ship the Post Office 86 riot guns with approximately 15 rounds of ammunition for each gun, and that they should be receipted by the Post Office, and turned over to the officer in charge of the U.S. Marines detailed for guard duty at the Atlanta office. The Marine officer in Atlanta was Lieutenant B. Dubell.

 

The Post Office paid for weapons and ammunition. In another internal Post Office letter written November 10, 1926 by Postmaster Gordon of the New Orleans Post Office to the First Assistant Postmaster General in Washington, he forwards a summary request from 1st Lieutenant Francis I. Fenton, U.S.M.C., Commander of the New Orleans detachment. In his statement, Lt. Fenton describes how the detachment strength was being increased to 100 men, and that an additional 1000 rounds of shotgun ammunition was needed. He based his request upon orders furnished by the Commanding General of the Eastern Mail Guards, which apparently called for each man armed with a shotgun to carry fifteen rounds for the weapon. He stated that the detachment had already received and receipted for 1000 rounds of shotgun ammo, but needed more based on the increased number of soldiers, weapons, and the fact that he considered it imperative that each gun be tested by actual firing prior to being issued to the guards. Postmaster Gordon then summarized by requesting that the First Asst. Postmaster General cause 1000 rounds of additional 12-gauge, brass shotgun shells to be forwarded to his office at once. Included with this letter is an interesting follow-up letter dated November 18, 1926 from the Office of the Chief Postal Inspector, Rush D. Simmons, which indicated that the Marine Corps had already taken the necessary steps to have the Marines in New Orleans supplied with an additional 3500 rounds of shotgun ammunition, shipped by the Marine Quartermaster from the Philadelphia Depot. Inspector Simmons further explained that the Post Office Department was not accountable to the War Department for any ammunition the Marine Corps furnished their men in the field.

 

Another letter dated February 5, 1927 from John H. Bartlett, First Assistant, sent to Postmaster Power in San Francisco states that the 253 riot type shotguns furnished to the Marines for duty at the San Francisco office should be received by him from the officer in command as the Marine ranks were reduced.

 

I have copies of a number of internal Post Office letters, several of which describe in detail how each major Post Office handled shipments of cash. These letters were based on a questionnaire sent out from Washington. It is apparent that significant human resources were necessary for the Post Office to guard the mails themselves, and they used various postal employees, contractors, and law enforcement personnel when available. The timing of shipments, and the availability of personnel was documented in several cases down to the man-hour and route, and the effect of the Marine Mail Guard on individual Post Office budgets was also discussed.

 

I consider this research ongoing, and I want to share my findings to date. Based on the documents I have seen so far, there was a financial arrangement between the Post Office and the War Department to furnish the Marines called to Mail Guard duty with specifically needed weapons on a temporary basis, and my assumption so far is that Thompsons would have been handled in the same manner as were the hundreds of riot shotguns.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

[dalbert]

I believe the folklore part of this story is how the Marines would not return the Thompson guns to postal officials when the guard detail was completed. If the post office purchased these 250 guns for the Marines to use in protecting the US Mail, I feel certain there was never a plan for the guns to be returned to the Post Office. This was not a piece of equipment that was needed at the post office; the continual inventory, storage and security concerns for 250 submachine guns would have involved a lot of resources. .

 

Agreed. So since the USPS was never in possession of these Colt TSMG, the animal known as the "USPS Colt TSMG" is a myth.

 

Arthur and TD,

 

Based on what I've found in 1926-27 postal documents regarding the disposition of riot shotguns, which were purchased by the U.S. Postal Service through the War Department, then issued to the Marines for use in guarding the mail, then collected back from the Marines upon completion of their assignment to Mail Guard duty, I'm leaning toward the refusal by the Marines to return Thompsons used for the same duty not being folklore. A plan existed to return weapons issued by the USPS to the Marines back to a USPS Quartermaster upon completion of their special duty. I agree that the subsequent inventory and storage of USPS Thompsons was potentially problematic for the USPS, and perhaps their retention by the Marines may have become a convenient situation for both entities.

 

"Myth" does not appear to accurately depict the circumstances of the USPS involvement in arming the U.S. Marines for their special Mail Guard assignment.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[TD.]

David,

 

Excellent research. Thank you for sharing. The Marines not returning the Thompson guns to the Post Office when the guard detail was completed may explain why the Marines have never commented publicly about the story of the Post Office purchasing the Thompsons. It has been reported in main stream periodicals for years that the Post Office purchased the Thompson guns for the Marines. The joke was that the Marines would not return the guns to the Post Office. Maybe it was not a joke. And the Marines chose to keep the guns and say nothing about the method of acquisition.

 

Please continue your research. It appears the answer to this one question will be in Post Office documents, not Marine Corps documents.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur & Interested Others,

 

 

The Post Office footed the bill.

 

It states that the War Department had been requested by the Post Office to ship the Post Office 86 riot guns with approximately 15 rounds of ammunition for each gun, and that they should be receipted by the Post Office, and turned over to the officer in charge of the U.S. Marines detailed for guard duty at the Atlanta office.

 

 

and my assumption so far is that Thompsons would have been handled in the same manner as were the hundreds of riot shotguns.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

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

 

A publicity photo of Postmaster General Harry New and USMC General Lejune in a Washington D.C. post office. This photo is more interesting for what it doesn't show than for what it does: Marines with Springfield rifles, but no Colt TSMG. You would think after his press release to the AP, PG New would sure want to be photographed with Marine mail guards holding at least one of those 250 Colt TSMG he supposedly "purchased" and "issued" to the Marines.

 

You are correct that the purchase of the Colt TSMG's. just like the riot guns, would have gone through the OPA.

 

Office of the Purchasing Agent

The Purchasing Agent supervises the purchase of all supplies, both

for the Post Office Department proper and for all branches of the

Postal Service (5 U. S. C. 366). He reviews all requisitions and

authorizations for supplies and, if proper, honors them. He passes

upon the sufficiency and propriety of all specifications for proposals

for supplies, prepares the advertisements and forms for proposals

necessary for the making of contracts for supplies, and enters into

contracts for such supplies for the Postmaster General.

 

US Marine Corp Mail Guard Time Line:

 

October 15, 1926 : PG new requests President Coolidge to order the USMC to be assigned as mail guards.

 

Under the October 18, 1926 Presidential Directive/Executive Order #4523(?),Secretary of Navy Wilbur contacts his friend USMC Commandant General John Jejune about the new assignment.

 

October 22, 1926. the USMC contracts with AOC for 250 Colt TSMG and begins guarding the U.S. Mail.

 

October 26, 1926: Postmaster General New is attributed in an Associated Press release to have said that he purchased 250 Colt TSMG for the Marines to use in their role as mail guards.

 

By November, 1926, a total of about 65 Colt TSMG were in the hands of the Marines in the East and West.

 

In December, 1926 all the available Colt TSMG in the hands of the Marines guarding the mails were recalled back to Quantico.

 

A February 15, 1927 Auto Ordnance Corporation advertisement depicts a Marine brandishing a Colt 1921 AC guarding a mail truck. By this time, all the Colt TSMG were no longer being employed for mail guard duty by the Marines.

 

By February 21, 1927, all Marines had been withdrawn from USPS guard duty. From a "A Brief History of The 10th Marines" who were assigned to Chicago & Atlanta mail guard duty..

 

"One week after the Postmaster General had asked for help, the Marines were guarding the mails as they had in 1921-22. To achieve parity in firepower with the mail bandits, Marines were armed with Thompson Submachine Guns and Browning automatic rifles, as well as the usual riot guns and service pistols."

 

Until the documents are located from the OPA confirming the purchase of Colt TSMG for Marine postal guard use, the AOC sales records (that are now in the possession of Doug Richardson) should confirm that the Marines, not the USPS, were issued the Colt TSMG. But whether it was the USPS or the Marines that funded this acquisition, it still comes down to federal funding. And since the Marines, not the USPS employees, were the ones issued the Colt TSMG and then actually handled them, the post office Colt Thompson moniker is a misnomer. If the Marines absconded with these 250 Colt TSMG, and the USPS were desperate for the firepower, why didn't PG New ever place another order to AOC for Colt TSMG?

Edited June 1, 2010 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[Sculptor]

I found this ad in an old "Guns" magazine. I wonder if any of these were Marine Thompsons.

Dick

[Sculptor]

I made the ad too small. Here is the 1921 Thompson part blown up and readable. "Guns" magazine January, 1958.

Dick

Edited June 17, 2010 by Sculptor

[dalbert]

 

Dave,

 

The $350,000 that was necessary to equip and deploy the Marines as USPS Mail Guards for three months was surely added to the USMC budget not the USPS budget.

 

The AOC ad "Thompson Gun The Ultra Modern Superautomatic" with the photo of the USMC guard brandishing the Colt 1921 AC protecting a U.S. Mail truck and U.S. Mail bags has a subtitle: "Thompson guns are Adopted and in Use by:

 

The entities include The United States Marines and The United States Treasury Dept, as well as several state National Guard, Texas Ranger, Constabularies, State Penitentiaries, Sheriffs, Detective Agencies, Banks, Mines Express Companies and Industrial Plants. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of the USPS. Would AOC slight the USPS after they supposedly purchased 250 Colt TSMG?

 

I think it's time to revive this subject. It took a while, but I found some AO literature that references sale to the Post Office...This one does not mention sale to the Marines.

 

 

 

I'm away from my copy of Gordon's book at the moment, but I think it would be interesting to research the dates of acquisition for the entities listed as adopting the TSMG in this AO publication.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@ Dave

 

Your 1926 AOC ad mailer proclaiming that the U.S. Government selected the TSMG for protection of U.S. Mail should have been a persuasive marketing technique. As far as the Colt TSMG being in use by the USPS (as in by their own employees) in 1926/27 is not corroborated by period photographs or even AOC advertising photos. Oddly enough, the circa 1927 AOC TSMG advertisement doesn't mention the USPS but does mention the USMC. The USPS website claims that "Postal Inspectors among the first to use Tommy Guns." Here is a 1967 photo of USPS Postal Inspector LeRoy Kingsland brandishing a TSMG. Where are the 1920's period photos of Postal Inspectors armed with the Colt 1921 TSMG? The TSMG in the USPS Smithsonian Museum that is supposed to be one of the two that "survived" from the 1920's appears to be a WWII Savage 1928 with a Colt Navy horizontal foregrip and Enfield offset swivel.

[dalbert]

That's a frail rebuttal to the additional evidence provided, in my opinion, Arthur.

 

I think we can say with a good degree of certainty that the U.S. Post Office paid for the Thompsons that the Marines used to guard the U.S. Mail. If anyone has any data from research they have performed that substantially contradicts my hypothesis, I would welcome the evidence. The documentation I reviewed in 2010 particularly supports my hypothesis, and this additional evidence further validates it.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@ Dave

 

My skepticism is suffering from osteoporosis but your hypothesis is winning the CrossFit games? How did you arrive at this prognosis? To date, no Colt TSMG has surfaced with any U.S.P.S. property marking. No AOC record of sale to the USPS has been produced or even a contract number. No 1920's pictures of Postal Inspectors using Colt TSMGs have been revealed. The TSMG on display at the USPS museum is not even a Colt. So far, you managed to find one mention of the USPS in one of the numerous AOC advertisements of the period and yet the next year AOC removes the USPS from their list of prominent purchasers. Why? The intriguing aspect of the USPS is not just whether the American taxpayers purchased Colt TSMGs that AOC delivered to the USMC, but that the U.S. Mail folks actually passed them out to their employees and used them to intimidate perspective bandits from robbing the mail. At the time of this post, their is no evidence that either of these components about the USPS and the Colt TSMG exist not withstanding a now you see it now you don't reference in one AOC flyer.

[Motorcar]

As a note to the Marine side of this, I was at the Marine Corps Command Museum, MCRD San Diego two weeks ago. On display is a Bridgeport '28A1 (operational as best as can be seen) along with everything else you might expect to see. The gun room has a locked bar door and contains nearly 400 fully operational weapons from the entire history of the Marines. No Colt Thompsons. I have on good authority there is another room not viewable by the public that has nearly as much, not sure what is there. The museum of the Pacific War in Fredricksburg Texas does have a Colt Thompson on display, though I neglected to get the serial number when I was there last.

[dalbert]

The discussion of the USPS purchase of Colt Thompsons in 1926 has been quiet for a while. I want to add an illustration that a member here forwarded to me this evening that further supports the conclusion that the USPS purchased Thompsons in 1926.

 

post_office_thompson.pdf

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

 

[TD.]

David,

Very interesting! It certainly adds new information to the discussion. This is a great thread on a very interesting subject.

 

What jumped out at me in the news picture posted by David was the actual compensator on the Thompson gun held by Postmaster New. Compare the compensator in the newspaper picture to compensator on General Thompson's personal Thompson gun as shown on pages 157 & 158 in The Ultimate Thompson Book. The news article is dated November 1, 1926 so there is little doubt the compensator on the Thompson gun held by Postmaster New was a prototype compensator.

 

Join The American Thompson Association and attend the All Thompson Show & Shoot this year and see General Thompson's personal Thompson gun on display.

 

All good stuff!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I want to add an illustration that a member here forwarded to me this evening that further supports the conclusion that the USPS purchased Thompsons in 1926.

Dave,

We can do better than an illustration. Pictured from left, Asst Postmaster-General Irving Glover, Col RM Cutts, US Marines and inventor with his son, Lt Cutts in Washington D. C., October 26, 1926. This certainly proves that top level bureaucrats at USPS did indeed posed with, if not purchased, Colt TSMGs.

 

"The Cutts compensator, a new invention for the Thompson sub machine gun, keeps the bullets aimed at the target rather than spattering around from the recoil, Washington DC, October 26, 1926. It will be used against mail robbers in the future."

[gijive]

All,

 

I believe Postmaster New is the guy holding the Thompson in this picture. Richard M. Cutts is the guy pointing to the compensator.

 

 

 

I found a better picture explaining who's who?

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2019 by gijive

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

All,

 

I believe Postmaster New is the guy holding the Thompson in this picture. Richard Malcom Cutts is the guy pointing to the compensator.

Chuck,

True that. Or as Tracie Hill refers to him in TUTB p.159, Harry S. Neir. Col. Richard Malcolm Cutts, at the time assigned to the Navy Department, Office of Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C. provided this long barrel 1921 Colt TSMG (erroneously identified by Tracie Hill as #2059 on p.159) for this USPS publicity photo. Wouldn't an AOC sales representative showing up for the photo shoot be a better indicator of a looming sale between the USPS and AOC?

[lpedersen]

The Thompson on display at the Mob Museum in Las Vegas was a USMC Post office gun serial number 4586

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

The Thompson on display at the Mob Museum in Las Vegas was a USMC Post office gun serial number 4586

 

But part of the #1204 contract to purchase 250 Colts by the USMC in 1926. #4586 was used for USPS Mail Guard duty. The question in this thread is if the USPS actually purchased their own Colt TSMGs from AOC.

[gijive]

 

All,

 

I believe Postmaster New is the guy holding the Thompson in this picture. Richard Malcom Cutts is the guy pointing to the compensator.

Chuck,

True that. Or as Tracie Hill refers to him in TUTB p.159, Harry S. Neir. Col. Richard Malcolm Cutts, at the time assigned to the Navy Department, Office of Chief of Naval Operations, Washington, D.C. provided this long barrel 1921 Colt TSMG (erroneously identified by Tracie Hill as #2059 on p.159) for this USPS publicity photo. Wouldn't an AOC sales representative showing up for the photo shoot be a better indicator of a looming sale between the USPS and AOC?

Arthur,

 

Marcellus Thompson is on the right demonstrating the Model 1919 to the NYPD. It appears that Marcellus may be the guy on the far right in the earlier photo of Cutts with Harry New.

 

 

[dalbert]

 

All,

 

I believe Postmaster New is the guy holding the Thompson in this picture. Richard Malcom Cutts is the guy pointing to the compensator.

Chuck,

 

Wouldn't an AOC sales representative showing up for the photo shoot be a better indicator of a looming sale between the USPS and AOC?

 

It appears that Marcellus may be the guy on the far right in the earlier photo of Cutts with Harry New.

 

That is Marcellus Thompson in the photo. Head AOC sales representative.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

 

 

 

That is Marcellus Thompson in the photo. Head AOC sales representative.

This what happens when one relies on cutlines for identification purposes. Underwood Archives/Getty Images claims the folks in the photo are identified left to right as:

 

Asst Postmaster-General Irving Glover

Col RM Cutts, US Marines and inventor

with his son, Lt Cutts,

Col Thompson, designer of the machine gun

 

New is not mentioned but identified as Col. Cutts while Col. Cutts is identified as Richard M. Cutts III (Lt. Cutts son) and Marcellus is identified as John T. Thompson. Anyone have a photo of Richard M Cutts III? So the photo I posted with Marcellus Thompson present at the demonstration is helping your contention that the USPS purchased TSMGs from AOC? I feel like Millennial AOC.