maverick4440 Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 (edited) Does anyone know what color parkerizing was used on military Thompsons? I have seen several which had the grey type parkerizing and two with dull black parkerizing and one with the greenish parkerizing over the years. I understand the green is actually black that has changed color due to being stored in grease. Which color would be correct for a military Thompson? I suspect the grey colored ones were re-parked as they looked a little too nice. I have a 27-A3 that is getting a serious overhaul and I am planning to duracoat it after it is finished since it is aluminum and I can match about any color with Duracoat. I'd like to do it in a military patkerized finish. Edited June 10, 2009 by maverick4440 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 An "original" parkerized finish is always a controversial subject because everyone has their own idea of what that is. Complicating the issue is that the government specifcations for phosphating (Parkerizing years ago was a proprietary process of the Parker Rust Proof Company) make no mention of any specific color, only that the final color should be "grey to black". I have never seen any military specification that says the color should be green, or have a greenish tint. A chemical engineer I worked with many years ago told me that the original phosphate coatings were iron-manganese based, which gives you a smooth slate grey (but not charcoal black) finish. The zinc phosphate coatings (according to him) were not developed until the 1950's. Zinc phosphate is a lighter grey, but at about the same time they also developed a process whereby the coating could be colored a true flat charcoal black. One down side of the zinc coatings is that the crystals which compose the coating will grow bigger and thicker unlike the iron-manganese coating which stays smooth because the reaction ceases when the parts is coated. On top of all this these are different guns with different colors due to different steels and different treatments after phosphating. Cosmolene and linseed oil will, over time give the finiish a green tint, but this is coincidental not intended. If you unwrap a MINT cosmolened part and thoroughly clean and degrease it it will be slate grey, not green. So for me, the correct WWII finish would be the smooth slate grey, not the light grey or flat black zinc. Also, you can only parkerize/phosphate steel or iron - not aluminum, so maybe you should just durocoat the whole thing... My $0.02 Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maverick4440 Posted June 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 An "original" parkerized finish is always a controversial subject because everyone has their own idea of what that is. Complicating the issue is that the government specifcations for phosphating (Parkerizing years ago was a proprietary process of the Parker Rust Proof Company) make no mention of any specific color, only that the final color should be "grey to black". I have never seen any military specification that says the color should be green, or have a greenish tint. A chemical engineer I worked with many years ago told me that the original phosphate coatings were iron-manganese based, which gives you a smooth slate grey (but not charcoal black) finish. The zinc phosphate coatings (according to him) were not developed until the 1950's. Zinc phosphate is a lighter grey, but at about the same time they also developed a process whereby the coating could be colored a true flat charcoal black. One down side of the zinc coatings is that the crystals which compose the coating will grow bigger and thicker unlike the iron-manganese coating which stays smooth because the reaction ceases when the parts is coated. On top of all this these are different guns with different colors due to different steels and different treatments after phosphating. Cosmolene and linseed oil will, over time give the finiish a green tint, but this is coincidental not intended. If you unwrap a MINT cosmolened part and thoroughly clean and degrease it it will be slate grey, not green. So for me, the correct WWII finish would be the smooth slate grey, not the light grey or flat black zinc. Also, you can only parkerize/phosphate steel or iron - not aluminum, so maybe you should just durocoat the whole thing... My $0.02 Bob Yes, I do plan on duracoating the whole gun, If it wotks half as good on aluminum as it does on streel it should do the job nicely. I just want to get the color right. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted June 10, 2009 Report Share Posted June 10, 2009 Also worth remembering is the fact that all TSMGs left the factory blued, not parked. They were Parkerized later,(if at all) during arsenal rebuild. An original finish that may appear to be black park may well be a blued finish over sand blasted metal. You can take you pick of finishes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
October1971 Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Also worth remembering is the fact that all TSMGs left the factory blued, not parked. They were Parkerized later,(if at all) during arsenal rebuild. An original finish that may appear to be black park may well be a blued finish over sand blasted metal. You can take you pick of finishes! Just curious and trying to learn and add to the knowledge base on Thompsons. Are you saying that M1 and M1A1 Thompsons left Savage and Auto-Ordnance with blued receivers? Do you have some reference material on this subject that you'd be willing to share. I've always assumed that the M1s left the factory with blued barrels but parkerized receivers. In my 38 years as a Class 3 dealer/collector I would think that somewhere, some how, someone would have put away one of the guns that didn't get parkerized later. I've never seen such a speciman. Thanks for any input you can supply on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1921A Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) Also worth remembering is the fact that all TSMGs left the factory blued, not parked. They were Parkerized later,(if at all) during arsenal rebuild. An original finish that may appear to be black park may well be a blued finish over sand blasted metal. You can take you pick of finishes! Just curious and trying to learn and add to the knowledge base on Thompsons. Are you saying that M1 and M1A1 Thompsons left Savage and Auto-Ordnance with blued receivers? Do you have some reference material on this subject that you'd be willing to share. I've always assumed that the M1s left the factory with blued barrels but parkerized receivers. In my 38 years as a Class 3 dealer/collector I would think that somewhere, some how, someone would have put away one of the guns that didn't get parkerized later. I've never seen such a speciman. Thanks for any input you can supply on this topic. Bill Aberdeen has M1, M1A1 and M1928 Thompsons new in the wrap. All are DuLite blue receivers with blue barrels. I have an original finish M1A1 given to a local PD by the Navy in the early 1960s. It has the dull blue receiver and bright blue barrel. I believe the original drawings specify Dulite. I would add that original military guns, both M1 and 1928 models, exhibit very visible milling marks on the outside surface of the receiver and trigger housing. If anyone is interested, I can post pics of both models in unrestored original condition for comparative purposes. Greg Fox Edited June 25, 2009 by 1921A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 (edited) All TSMGs produced under government contract left the factories blued. If it's parked, it got arsenal rebuilt or refinished at some point. Check any reference on the subject, starting with Frank's. This is kind of amusing: you'll forever see ads for parked TSMGs saying "Looks unissued". Hardly. Should say, "looks refinished". Duracoat was not around in 1942. It's pretty easy to spot a high condition gun with the original finish. As each part was finished before assembly (and by the subcontractor that made it), each blued piece has a slightly different color, sheen, polish or lack of it. So, a gun that otherwise looks good but has all componants neatly matched for finish is easy to spot as a reblue. Somebody did too good a job! Receivers of WWII produced guns were blued over sand blasted steel, and appear very dull, looking like black park. That's caused a lot of confusion! The receiver of my 99% WWII Savage produced M1928A1 show this to advantage, looking almost purple in strong light. Edited June 25, 2009 by TSMGguy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob@rat-tat-tat Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Hello, all. As others have mentioned above, military Thompsons left the factory with a BLUED (DuLite) finish. This was done over bead blasting, so that the end result was a "flat black" appearance on the upper and lower receiver. Small parts and the the barrel weren't bead blasted, so they turned out to be "semi-gloss" black. If you've ever seen a WH M1 in it's original finish, then you've seen what an original M1/M1A1/1928A1 would have looked like. I have an M1A1 and an early war Savage 1928 that both still have their ORIGINAL finish. Here is a photo of my M1A1 with it's ORIGINAL DuLite finish intact: http://i452.photobucket.com/albums/qq248/r...M1A1cropped.jpg My 1928 looks the same. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 Years ago I processed over 800 torched Thompsons for the purposes of rewelding them into working shooting guns. The receiver pieces were all organized and sorted into sets that would reweld properly, because there were BIG differences on the machining on the inside of the receivers, and also on the corner rounds on the outside, etc. Most of these receivers had been parkerized and looked like they had been shot-peened (not sandblasted or beaded) before refinishing. There were maybe 50-75 M1A1 receiver pieces that had a blue finish - not sandblasted or flat. Not high polished either but just blued as they came of the machines. I know thats not what the books say, but there it is. If I would have known 30+ years ago this would have been a topic I would have taken photos (pre-digital era) but who knew... Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchcommando Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I'v wondered about this for some time. I'v heard the claims that the TSMG left the factory with a blued finish, not parkerized. So how come all the lend lease thompsons that went to Russia, seem to have slate grey receivers? My own parts kit 1928a1, which is otherwise brand new, no wear anywhere on the gun, has a slate grey nose piece on the barrel, but a blued lower receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casper Posted June 25, 2009 Report Share Posted June 25, 2009 I'm with Reconbob on this one. I've seen alot COMPLETE lend lease thompsons lately (almost brand new), and I also think that they just got blued after machining, The receivers do look more dull than the barrels and small parts,but on a 1928a1 I had in my hands a few weeks ago,there was absolute NO sign of beadblasting, the M1 looked a bit duller than the 1928A1,but I think they dipped it in chlorhydric acid (not certain that this is the correct english name)to prepare the metal for bluing and this also makes the metal look a little bit like it was blasted softly,it does make it look duller I also had an arsenal rebuilded M1a1 (green park)in my hands and this one was certainly blasted prior to parkerizing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob@rat-tat-tat Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 Casper, The original finishes on my Savage M1A1 and '28 are flat black and is not "rough" to the touch, but smooth... From my experience working in the aircraft industry, I know that the same effect can be achieved today by using a "soft media" such as very fine plastic beads, crushed corn-cob, baking soda, or crushed walnut shells. I don't know what blasting media was used by Savage or AOC on original, factory finishes. Blasting with the proper soft media will only clean the surface of steel and won't remove ANY metal. In the cleaning of jet engine turbine blades, where "bead blasting" can cause stress cracking, crushed walnut shells are sometimes used. My observation is that the guns must have been blasted with something, rather that dipped in some sort of "acid". If they were dipped, the inside of the receiver would have the same "flat black" appearance as the outside. Like original WWII L drums, the exteriors of the receivers on my two guns are flat black, while the remaining finish on the inside appears to be more "shiny". I'd love to learn how they applied the original finish to WWII Thompsons, and WHY bluing (DuLite) was the "finish of choice". I find it "odd" that Thompsons were "blued" when Parkerizing was already in use and proven to be a superior finish for miltary use. I LOVE the look of the gray-green Parkerized finish on an original condition Springfield '03-A3. In an earlier post, there was a link to a lengthy article on original mil. spec. "Parkerized" finishes. I believe it was from the NRA, and it mentioned how the "gray-green" color was achieved. Anyone remember this link? I accidentally achieved a gray-green finish on an M1 carbine "beater" that I had parkerized, by coating the still warm parts in Cosmoline and putting them away in storage for a (long) while. I don't know if this is the "real" way to achieve the desired color or not, but it happened. Regards, Bob N. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
casper Posted June 28, 2009 Report Share Posted June 28, 2009 you do have a point here Robert, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted June 29, 2009 Report Share Posted June 29, 2009 As mentioned previously, to parkerize parts you have to sandblast them first, otherwise the finish will not "take". This takes time, and the parts have to be protected from rusting between the time they are blasted and the time they are parkerized. There is no prep required for bluing other than the parts being clean. So to be able to machine a part, and then blue it is much faster than parkerizing. The time savings in the middle of a war would certainly be a factor, especially if the factory was already set up for bluing. "Du-Lite" is the name of a refinishing product, just like "Parkerizing" was the name of phosphate coating by the Parker Rustproof Company. There are many different chemicals and products available (then and now) to apply black oxide (bluing) finishes... Bob 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