L Drum Question

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

 

Here are the pics of my Stanley drum. As I indicated in my previous post on this thread, my markings are not different from the pics of the other members' Stanley drums in the referenced August 2011 thread "Not Mine.....". As to the Stanley front faceplate tooling pics, I will leave it to you to provide those to support your position about what Stanley produced.

 

Stanley drum front.JPGStanley front faceplate.JPG

 

Roger.

 

Thank you very much for providing photos of your Stanley "NO" L Drum. Now we can bring this discrepancy to an end. You are correct. Your Stanley front cover (see photo) is indeed identical to other board members Stanley "NO" front cover. Unfortunately, it is not identical to what Tracie Hill says is a Stanley "NO" front cover (see photo- the "C" in "CAL" is directly under the "H" in "SUBMACHINE"). This is why I questioned how Hill came up with one version of the Stanley L Drum and four versions of the WPS L drum. Considering that TD and others have endorsed you as a go-to authority on TSMG drums, I feel confident Tracie Hill will eventually acknowledge the error.

[OCM]

Well, Dutch, that's three inside marked Stanley L drums that I know of. Mine came with a Thompson purchased in 1935.

Fun, but not a big deal to me. Never used it anyway. Sits in a dark safe with the others.

 

OCM

[jim c 351]

Arthur,

What happened to our discussion????

TD has been MIA since the 20th and Roger is in hiding.

Jim C

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Well, Dutch, that's three inside marked Stanley L drums that I know of. Mine came with a Thompson purchased in 1935.

Fun, but not a big deal to me. Never used it anyway. Sits in a dark safe with the others.

 

OCM

 

There is an inspection(?) number inside the front (#12) and back (#26) cover by the rotor hole in my John's Machine numbered L drum. Must not be significant as this minutia is not covered in TSMG books.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

What happened to our discussion????

TD has been MIA since the 20th and Roger is in hiding.

Jim C

 

The discussion is alive. The mistaken identity was laid to rest unceremoniously in Potter's Field.

[rpbcps]

Orion/Andy,

 

You drum is definitely a first version Worcester Pressed Steel pre-WWII drum, circa 1928. The faceplate markings and silvered rotor confirm that. An excellent condition drum typically goes for ~$1,000, but in the condition of yours, I would guess yours is closer to $700. That said, yours is the most common drum encountered with Colt guns other than the numbered L-drums.

 

Richard,

 

The pics of your drum are not clear, but based on features I can make out, your drum is a second version Worcester Pressed Steel pre-WWII drum, circa 1929-30. The second version shifted to a blued rotor and modified the markings on the rear faceplate. Yours appears to be in nice shape, and the price you paid is good based on prices we see on this side of the pond.

 

All,

 

My Stanley drum and first version Worcester drum do indeed have the same front faceplate. My Stanley drum markings are identical to those shown in actual pics in the referenced thread above. I do not agree that the Stanley drums simply used left-over back faceplates from John's, because I don't know of any information that we have that supports that theory. Stanley did change the front faceplate, so I suspect it is more likely that they simply used the existing dies to make their own rear faceplate. Tracie has documentation about the tooling being moved both to Stanley and then to Worcester, but I don't know anything about left over parts being moved.

 

Regards,

Roger

Roger,

Thank you for that clarification, it is appreciated and I agree, unfortunately photography is not a skill I possess.

 

Happy New Year to all

 

Richard

[OCM]

I'll be damned, both the inside front and inside back by the rotor hole have stamped MATCHING numbers. Had never taken the rotor out till Dutch mentioned this- This is what I believed to be a Stanley drum.

Interesting find for me today. I've never used this particular L drum. Inside is pristine, except for the bullet marks in the lanes.

However, the outside appears to match the First generation Worcester L drum, there is no " NO" , but these stamped matching numbers inside.

Now I'm back to- still confused. When this drum was made, whoever the hell made it, stamped inspection or whatever numbers in it on both inside parts.

 

OCM

[TSMG28]

Jim,

 

I have not been in hiding. I have been otherwise occupied.

 

To answer your questions about Doug's drum book, I have the utmost respect for Doug's research, knowledge, and what he has shared with the Thompson community. I have copies of all of his books and have learned much from him during a number of discussions over the years. He notes in his third edition of his drum book that new information comes to light over time that changes our understanding. I couldn't agree more. However, I do not agree with his breakdown of the various models.

 

I can neither prove nor disprove his statement about leftover slides being used up as the "Colt" drums transitioned to the Worcester drums, but as I mentioned before, that does not seem logical to me. He provides no supporting documentation for his statements. He also clearly states that the New York drums were made by two manufacturers, Colt and Worcester Pressed Steel. Stanley is not even mentioned, nor is John's Machine.

 

I will continue to go with documentation that Tracie has about the drum manufacture and manufacturers during the pre-war period. Yes, the Stanley drums have the NO. stamped on the back faceplate/slide. The NO. was ground off the tooling for the first run of drums by Worcester. That would make your drum as you describe it a first gen Worcester in my opinion. If you prefer Doug's opinion, that is certainly your right.

 

Respectfully,

Roger

[TD.]

Let me see if I understand all this. To recap, the disagreement described in this thread that has been ongoing for many years is whether or not the drum Roger describes as a first generation Worchester Pressed Steel Co. drum is actually a second variation or generation drum manufactured by Stanley Works Co. There is no dispute about where this drum falls in the production lineage or if it is a true Colt era drum. The nickel rotor is actually what makes this drum special and very desirable for Colt owners; it is the last Colt era drum to feature a nickel rotor. What am I missing?

[buzz]

What drums and stick mags would have shipped out to England with the first Thompson 28s that Savage made?

[jim c 351]

Roger,

Thanks for your reply. I knew you weren't in hiding but I thought I'd inject a little humor in these trying times.

 

If I might summarize your expert opinion in 85 words or less.

 

#1 In order to be identified as a Stanley drum the letters NO must be stamped on the rear plate. This is the only style Stanley used.

 

#2 Stanley never ground off the letters NO and neither did they make a new rear face plates.

 

#3 Worchester and only Worchester ground off the letters NO and made new face plates.

 

#4 Things such as Nichol plated rotors, shafts with radiuses, the "C" in CAL falling between the "CH" in submachine gun, matter not in the least.

I think I understand your opinion on this subject.

Thanks much.

Jim C

 

[darrylta]

I have what may be an oddity, (3) WWII Crosby L drums with nickel plated rotors.

I know this variation is not super rare, but thought I'd bring it up for comment?

The rotors appear to be original to the drums. Yes the drums were painted black.

Darryl

Edited January 4, 2017 by darrylta

[rpbcps]

What drums and stick mags would have shipped out to England with the first Thompson 28s that Savage made?

 

Buzz,

I was of the understanding that Crosby Co. supplied the initial orders for Drum and Stick magazines, which were part of the consignments delivered to Britain in 1940/41. I recommend the book " Great Britain - The Tommy Gun Story", to learn more information on this subject.

 

 

I have what be an oddity, (3) WWII Crosby L drums with nickel plated rotors.

I know this variation is not super rare, but thought I'd bring it up for comment?

The rotors appear to be original to the drums.

Darryl

 

 

Darryl,

I have two of those, one still covered in grease. I thought nickel plated rotors, fitted to Crosby drums was standard, as I had a third Crosby drum, again with nickel plated rotor, that I sold.

 

Stay safe

Richard

[rpbcps]

What drums and stick mags would have shipped out to England with the first Thompson 28s that Savage made?

 

Buzz,

I was of the understanding that Crosby Co. supplied the initial orders for Drum and Stick magazines, which were part of the consignments delivered to Britain in 1940/41. I recommend the book " Great Britain - The Tommy Gun Story", to learn more information on this subject.

 

 

I have what be an oddity, (3) WWII Crosby L drums with nickel plated rotors.

I know this variation is not super rare, but thought I'd bring it up for comment?

The rotors appear to be original to the drums.

Darryl

 

 

Darryl,

I have two of those, one still covered in grease. I thought nickel plated rotors, fitted to Crosby drums was standard, as I had a third Crosby drum, again with nickel plated rotor, that I sold.

 

Stay safe

Richard

[TSMG28]

There are two different versions of the Crosby drum that I have and have observed. The most common one is painted black on the outside and has a silver rotor. The other has a dull blued outside finish with a blued rotor. The finish on the blued drums is very similar to that on the Crosby XXX mags, not surprisingly.

 

I don't recall whether Tom's book covers the subject, but I suspect that the black painted finish was requested by the British, as I have observed extensive use of black paint on their small arms.

 

Roger

Edited January 3, 2017 by TSMG28

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

1927 :Stanley Tool made L drums for 1 year

How many 750-1000?

1928: WPS made their first L drums

Didn't start production for several months and changed rear plate in 1929

How many produced? More or less than Stanley "No." L drums

Fenn Manufacturing (same people who fixed Cutts Compensators to Colt barrels) assembled the Stanley L Drums

Now that we all can agree that the front cover L drum that Tracie Hill calls a Stanley "No." L drum front cover pictured in TUTB is not in fact a Stanely "No." front cover we can proceed to the second part of the identification of pre 1928 production L drum manufacturers.
The front and rear plates of the Stanley "No." L drum and the WPS 1st pattern L drum are identical down to the font, spacing, information and rotor finish. The only change is the absence of the "No." on the rear cover.

Did the folks at Stanley for an entire year never question why the "No" was needed when there were no drum numbers to be added after the "No."? Could it be why "No." L drums infrequently show up today is that Stanley in fact did omit the "No." from the stamping die at some point into their production run, thereby producing fewer L drums minus the easily removed "No." from the die before stamping the plate?

How is it more of these WPS 1st pattern L drums show up today than the "No" L drums when WPS production of these so marked L drums was shorter than Stanley's time?

The 1929 WPS 2nd pattern L drum is the first L drum to have a rear cover that is not identical to the Stanley L drum (minus the "N0." mark) with different spacing that would require a new die.

The Stanley "No" L drum and the WPS 1st & 2nd pattern L drums have identical front covers.

Unless Tracie Hill has information (that is not found in TUTB) that back in 1928, Worcester Pressed Steel made a new rear plate die without the "No." for their initial run of L drums, logic would dictate that Stanley already produced L drums omitting the "No" from the rear plates. How difficult is it to leave off two letters and a period that are on a line by itself at the end of a die?

[jim c 351]

Arthur,

Nice rebuttal.

You might be a little generous when you guessed Stanley production at 750 to 1000.

Once the machines are set up I would think Stanley should be able to spit out 1000 drums a week or more.

That would explain why Stanley drums with the "NO" on the rear plate, are so commonly found today.

Jim C

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

Nice rebuttal.

You might be a little generous when you guessed Stanley production at 750 to 1000.

Once the machines are set up I would think Stanley should be able to spit out 1000 drums a week or more.

That would explain why Stanley drums with the "NO" on the rear plate, are so commonly found today.

Jim C

@ Jim,

 

John's Machine turned out 5,000 C Drums over their six years of production. Don't know if that was the extent of production capabilities or because there wasn't a demand for them as figured by AOC. A reliable source for production numbers on the Stanley L Drums would certainly be helpful.

[TD.]

I don't believe that drums marked with "NO." on the rear plate are commonly found. However, I will agree that when found, these drums are very expensive.

 

 

[jim c 351]

Tom,

I was just being facetious when I said Stanley drums with the letters NO are commonly found.

Truth is, there seems to be more John's Machine drums floating around than Stanley NO drums.

Just trying to make the point that Stanley probably made drums without the NO stamp.

I would have thought you would have been on to my warped sense of humor by now.

Jim C

[TD.]

Jim,

Understand completely. I worry more about the newbies taking seriously some of the comments on the Board, hence my reply.

 

I am not someone that studies the Thompson drums. Roger and Tracie have that area of the Thompson community well under control. Those that attend the TATA and/or TCA Shows know it would be almost impossible to duplicate their respective drum collections. I have always found this discussion interesting. Given what has been written about Stanley's short tenure with Auto-Ordnance it seems implausible to me they would have manufactured two variations of the L drum. Stanley was a subcontractor who built a product for Auto-Ordnance (I assume) for a fee. I don't believe they would care about the "NO." stamped on a face plate, much less question the need for these letters. The reason is simple. It does not add one second to production time or increase costs. Given the rarity of these drums in the marketplace it appears more likely Stanley had numerous problems manufacturing quality products that could be assembled into working drums. What I would like to see in this discussion is the interjection of some new information that supports the position that Stanley manufactured two variations of the drums. Tracie and Roger have found, evaluated and written about all the information being discussed today. If you and Arthur disagree with their findings and analysis, find something that supports a new position. Conjecture based on known information makes for interesting discussion but really doesn't move the ball forward.

 

All good stuff!!!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I am not someone that studies the Thompson drums. Roger and Tracie have that area of the Thompson community well under control.

 

Given what has been written about Stanley's short tenure with Auto-Ordnance it seems implausible to me they would have manufactured two variations of the L drum. Stanley was a subcontractor who built a product for Auto-Ordnance (I assume) for a fee. I don't believe they would care about the "NO." stamped on a face plate, much less question the need for these letters.

 

As to your first point, why didn't Roger inform Tracie that his Stanley "NO." front cover photo in TUTB was the wrong cover? What is your definition of "under control?" The intractable Global Warming scientists have the environmentalists community "well under control" as well. They do not tolerate dissent even when it comes with scientific fact.

 

In all probability Stanley was using left over John's Machine rear covers (as they are identical to Stanley rear covers) that were never mated to a front cover so a serial number was never added to the L drum. Fenn was responsible for taking the individual components from Stanley and putting them together to make the L drum. To call omitting the "N0." from a die as "manufacturing two variations" is pretending it took some Herculean effort that would disrupt production. The absence of the "No." on a Stanley L Drum is no more of a 2nd manufactured version than a Colt TSMG without the "JHB" stamp.

 

If AOC was stressed about Stanley handling the production and monitored their procedures, what would be out of line telling them that the "No." was no longer necessary on the rear cover and to delete it?

 

WPS tenure making the 1st pattern L drum was even shorter than Stanley's. Again, why do we see more of them today than Stanley "No," stamped rear plate L drums?

 

 

All we have is "conjecture" that stipulates WPS made a new die omitting the "No." from the rear plate. Why would they do that and then make another new die that changed the rear face plate a year later? There is obviously cross-over components from John's to Stanley to WPS. The tooling went from one to the other.

 

The fact that Stanley "No." L Drums command higher prices than WPS L drums makes even more sense when they make up less than half of the total Stanley L Drum production.

 

Do owners of Stanley "No." L drums report poor quality of craftsmanship or function? If not, where do you get the notion that Stanley had "numerous problems manufacturing quality products" other than from Tracie Hill's editorializing in TUTB?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[TD.]

All great points and an interesting discussion. Perhaps you are correct. Write up your analysis and make it available in a retrievable format for the Thompson community. I'll buy a copy. More important, your work may generate new information that will support your position. Or not. But all new information is valuable and will aide in telling the history of Auto-Ordnance Corporation and the Thompson gun.

[laurencen]

just throw it out to remove the letters NO would require a few mins with a stone to remove them off the die as they are stamped, to add later would be a cost, in the tool and die trade we often remove letters or add letters to a new revision on components, our way to identify batches

 

possibly the ones with NO on had a few tweaks and this may be why it was removed

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

just throw it out to remove the letters NO would require a few mins with a stone to remove them off the die as they are stamped, to add later would be a cost, in the tool and die trade we often remove letters or add letters to a new revision on components, our way to identify batches

 

possibly the ones with NO on had a few tweaks and this may be why it was removed

 

Probably a cinch for a company called Stanley Tool & Die.