Deavis Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 (edited) This is for sale in my state. Other than the unmarked compensator, does anything jump out about this gun? Edited October 17, 2016 by Deavis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shadycon Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Pictures 2 & 10, Hammer marks??? Looks like a crude way to change ser. #!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 It looks heavily buffed and refinished. The serial number area of the frame is interesting - but not in a good way. Not only is the compensator incorrect, I would guess the barrel has been changed too. I would view it as shooter grade only and would want a very good price before I would be interested. There are or will be much better guns on the market in the future. Patience is the key. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Value? On a Form 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThompsonCrazy Posted October 17, 2016 Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 Based on the etching of the upper receivers surface I would guess it was left in the parkerizing solution too long/incorrect mix. I think the upper receiver is the best thing it's got going for it if registered. Earlier M1 serial, non protected sight, if it went through a govt rebuild then the refinish would be normal and so it cooks a little too long or the solution is a little off. As long as she shoots! Tell us more! TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 17, 2016 That's all I really got! Bore seems decent and it shoots - I test fired it. Front sight is loose. Bolt is an M1 and not an M1A1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG08 Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Guess it depends on the price. $15K, good deal. 20K not so good ..... Others have mentioned the "issues". Barrel and comp not correct, refinished, in partial case not well. only real thing it has going for it is it is not remarked A1. Would have to say ok shooter, but really depends on the asking price. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 $16K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJX Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Based on the etching of the upper receivers surface I would guess it was left in the parkerizing solution too long/incorrect mix. I think the upper receiver is the best thing it's got going for it if registered. Earlier M1 serial, non protected sight, if it went through a govt rebuild then the refinish would be normal and so it cooks a little too long or the solution is a little off. As long as she shoots! Tell us more! TCIf it was a govt rebuild, would they have replaced the sight with the protected version? I have seen that done, but dont know if it was always done as a matter of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wwiifirearms Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 At $16k I like it a lot better than a WH and they seem to go higher than $16k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 If it's not a reweld, and it's not been "fixed" in any way by an amateur gunsmith, I would take it for $16k. You should get a proper M1 barrel installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 18, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Any chance it was re-arsenalled and they installed a 1928a1 barrel in it? I recall a prick mark and index line at the 12 o'clock receiver to barrel mating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azboater Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 (edited) Could Be a PTO or ETO addition, but I doubt it.This the only Theatre photo I have ever seen with an M1 or M1A1 Thompson with a modification, a 1928A1 Barrel (Okinawa) In PTO Edited October 18, 2016 by azboater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Ask the seller to show you a copy of his Form 4. That will tell you who or where he purchased it from and how long he has owned it. Then ask if he has a copy of the previous owners ATF or IRS Form. That will tell you where the previous owner obtained it. This additional information may help with your decision. Remove the horizontal fore grip (one simple screw) and inspect the end of the receiver for previous signs of welding (dewatting). Then inspect the chamber area for same. To me it is an ugly gun. However, in todays market 16K for US M1 that has not been welded is a good price. I would then consider having PK deepen the original markings, properly refinish, replace the frame with one not serial numbered and replace the barrel. None of that needs to be done immediately. You can enjoy shooting first for a year or two. Any accessories included in the price? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 If the receiver isn't welded I would have no problems paying $16K in today market. Concerning the barrel, its out of the norm what we would deem correct for this model but the possibility remains it could have been installed at a rework facility. I wouldn't be in a hurry to change the barrel out, for me it would be just a different variation and a piece of history. Personally I would leave it and enjoys the heck out of owning and shooting it. My 2 cents. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpanda4 Posted October 18, 2016 Report Share Posted October 18, 2016 Looking at the receiver pics - looks to be sandblasted a lot. Why? If there was pitting, you would see areas of pitting, but this looks uniform. I think someone might have been trying to hide something... welding?? Be sure to take a look inside the receiver to see if it was welded back together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 19, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 (edited) I saw no evidence of reweld, that I could ascertain, and I looked from the inside out. The last Form 4 was in the 1980s. Edited October 19, 2016 by Deavis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 It's hard to say what happened to the gun. A barrel swap and an aggressive park job is something that could have happened during the military service of the gun. Or maybe it was a quote gunsmith unquote doing some typical clueless bubba work on the gun. My M1A1 is RIA stamped and was arsenal refinished, has the classic pantina-ed grey park. You can still see the original tool marks in the metal very clearly. My impression is that my gun received a light dunking in a park tank with the minimal prep. Certainly not an atomic sandblasting. Garands were rebuilt in huge arsenal rebuilding programs and they show up with every possible combination of parts. A lot of Garands were rebuilt in the early 1960s to have no original parts except the receiver, they were remade into a brand new gun with SA parts and then mothballed. So why wouldn't RIA do that to a Thompson? Or why wouldn't a field armorer make one good Thompson out of three busted up ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpanda4 Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Deavis, I agree there doesn't appear to be any evidence of welding between the barrel and the front of the receiver. But usually if there is welding in that area, the welding would indicate a Dewat / Rewat gun. The entire receiver would have stayed intact and there been (probably) a tack weld inside the chamber for attaching the barrel to the action. But the receiver would not have been cut and welded back together. This is what my suspicions are without seeing the inside of the receiver. The inside of the receiver should show tool marks, they should be continuous and original. It is hard to get a finish on the inside and outside both of a welded gun that looks like it has no evidence of ever been welded back together. Take a look and a bunch of pics (I use pics because they are far better than my eyes!) to ascertain whether the gun was welded back from three or so parts. Only reason I am suspicious is because of the overblasting on the outside. The inside will not be blasted and should tell any story if ther is one to tell. I hope there is no story... If it is not welded, just a bad blast and park job, you probably would do fine at $16K. And shoot the heck out of it. If you do not want it - send out a link here and several people might want to take a shot at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 I am suspicious of the gun because the heavily pitted or shot-preened finish at theback of the receiver does not match the smooth finish at the front where the barrel screwsin - it's not even close. So how do you get such completely different finishes on the samegun? First thing that comes to mind is different receiver pieces welded together. If the receiverWas left in a parkerizing tank too long this pitting would be universal on all surfaces. OK, Iguess the gun could have been 1/2 underwater but I don't think so. I can't tell from thepictures where the transition from pitted to smooth is but if it's a straight line as opposed toRandom or fading I can think of no explanation other than reweld. The paperwork won't help here because many amnesty registered rewelds list themanufacturer as Auto Ordnance. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buzz Posted October 19, 2016 Report Share Posted October 19, 2016 Maybe the "gunsmith" went hog wild with the blasting on the rear half of the receiver because it was heavily pitted there and he didn't blast the front as much because it had no pitting. But definitely the buyer needs to determine if it's a reweld or not, there are plenty of rewelds out there. Rewelds are problematic. Lots of alignment errors and bad welds full of inclusion and porosity. Rewelds are one of the cases where the bad ones de-value the good ones, because people never know what they're getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 22, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 What about the barrel markings? S for Savage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalbert Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 Even if it is a well done reweld, $16K is probably a good price these days. I haven't heard of any Thompson going for less than that recently. Just my opinion. David Albertdalbert@sturmgewehr.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black River Militaria CII Posted October 22, 2016 Report Share Posted October 22, 2016 (edited) From what the pics reveal to me, it appears that the receiver was pitted from rusting in a prolonged uniform exposure to moisture, and then at some point, was blasted and parked. The pitting texture is too coarse for results from blasting or for "overparking". There is nothing evident on the surface suggesting welded seams anywhere. A weld seam between two pitted parts cannot be disguised due to the requirements of finishing out the seam to remove overweld, leaving a very distinct texture vastly different than the parent metal. Having seen a lot of rusted MGs and welded lots of compromised MG metal, there is nothing there saying "weld".As previous poster suggested a full restoration of the gun which might include resurface of the metal and remarking, new barrel, etc, etc can produce an excellent looking receiver which will be attractive to buyers who like pristine looking firearms. Lots of them in the MG market now who don't care about the originality of the gun. Sadly, I have done complete restorations of various MGs that look really good, but then bring lots more money than an 80-90% completely original gun. Shouldn't be that way but it is. Not a collector world that I recognize any more..... Edited October 22, 2016 by Black River Militaria CII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deavis Posted October 24, 2016 Author Report Share Posted October 24, 2016 I have looked at it inside and out and can see no re-weld evidence other than pitting/finish issue on the outside. I have seen other guns with weird wear/ corrosion in the past, like being partially wrapped in a cloth in a basement or trunk for years, etc. I bought it. It's my first TSMG and first machine gun. And it will fit right in to the rest of the re-arsenalled/rebuilt herd: 1917 rifle/03/03A3/garand/carbine/1911/victory/etc. I will likely replace the barrel and lower as time/$ permits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now