What About This Colt Do You See?

[AZDoug]

Is that dot behind the NO a period, or a tiny pit left over from when the original SN was welded over before smoothing and restamping? I would be courious as to what year the gun was originally registered?

 

Doug

[Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner]

I wrote the guy and asked him for any more info. He just responded that a guy name Gordon recommended he pull the barrel and see what the original serial number was as the history could be interesting. He didn't indicate that he would though.

 

[gijive]

If the receiver was a leftover from the Numrich sale, as Arthur previously suggested, it may not have a serial number under the barrel. It wouldn't have been marked under the barrel if there was never a serial number asigned to the side of the receiver. I think Arthur has it right, I would be surprised if the receiver's original number was welded over and restamped.

 

Anything is possible, though, it will be interesting to see if the seller follows up on the secret number angle.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

PhilOhio,

Apparently you do lean toward the notion that the receiver is a legitimate Colt since you believe there might be a serial number inside the grip bar mount. But indeed it would still be a legitimate Colt receiver without a serial number in that area, or on the left of the receiver, in that the "over run" receivers never had any serial number stamped on them. There doesn't seem to be any indication of a Colt stamped serial number being obliterated.

 

Again, it wouldn't make sense to do such a professional job of making the factory serial number disappear and then do such an amateurish job of "re-stamping" some fictitious number. The mystifying process of removing a stamping or roll mark on a receiver without leaving any sign of alteration would sure have been a coveted process that Auto-Ordnance would loved to have used when they resorted to milling out the areas on the receiver and frame to accommodate the new marks for their "Model of 1927 Thompson Semi-Automatic Carbine."

 

Of course if you believe that the original external serial number could vanish without any tell tale sign, then the perpetrator could just as easily, if not more easily, obliterate the grip bar mount area serial number.

 

For those of you who seem incredulous to what TD, G.I Jive and I postulate, do you also doubt the origin of the "NAC" prefix Colt TSMG's receivers?

[TNKen]

Re-weld??????

 

Might explain the mis-matched parts and restamps. Who does the Form 3/4 say is the manufacturer?

 

Ken

[LSU Tiger]

A Colt 1928A1 ? That would make it one of the few guns that the Army got in the 1930's under the limited standard adoption. Wouldn't these guns be 1921's "off of the rack" modified to 1928A1 standard? So, it would have the "1" over stamped with an "8", and "A1" added? Right??? Everything looks too good... to be true.

[gijive]

QUOTE (LSU Tiger @ Mar 11 2005, 06:05 PM)

A Colt 1928A1 ?  That would make it one of the few guns that the Army got in the 1930's under the limited standard adoption.  Wouldn't these guns be 1921's "off of the rack" modified to 1928A1 standard?Â

LSU Tiger,

 

Yes, there were Colt gun procured by the Army and then stamped with the U.S. and A1 designations. There would be no reason, though, to restamp the serial number on the receiver. The Army would have just used the original serial number of the modified 1921 Model. The U.S. and A1 stampings may have been put on by whomever registered the gun and refinished it. The "8" overstamp was probably done at the same time also. It doesn't appear to be the same as the Overstamps I have seen, although, it's hard to tell because the gun has been refinished.

 

The serial number of the gun pictured is not the proper font style used on the Colt guns. In addition there was no period after the "NO" designation. The gun has been restamped. Arthur earlier pointed out that the correct serial number (minus the B suffix) is listed in Gordon Herigstad's Colt serial number book and is spoken for.

 

I still believe this will turn out to be a leftover Numrich era receiver that was registered prior to 1968 and stamped with a new number. I hope we get to find out.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

But let me pose another question, then. If the numbers are original to a Colt gun, why would Colt do such an amateurish job of stamping numbers on any gun allowed to leave their factory?

 

 

 

PhilOhio,

The only thing hinkey on this receiver is the non Colt and non WWII added "U.S" "8" "A1" possibly the "NO" definitely the "." and the "13159B" serial number. The only difference between this "Over-run" Colt TSMG and the "NAC" ones is that some unknown entity decided to stamp the above nomenclature on the receiver instead of Numrich's own business initials and his serial numbers that he pulled out of the air. The "NAC" Colt guns never had Colt stamped serial numbers to begin with and they were never factory blued since they were not finished.

 

Is is not way more likely that this is merely one of the Colt unfinished receivers from the Maguire crate that escaped Numrich's own attempt at stamping his initials? If, as you state, the process of deftly removing serial numbers is , "not particularly exotic or difficult," why wouldn't Auto-Ord have used this simple Simon and economical method of removing the offending nomenclature from their 1927 models instead of milling out those areas? Surely a non detectable method of re-labeling existing receivers would have gone a long way to impress potential buyers that this version of the Colt TSMG was indeed "New" and not an obvious use of existing 1921 full auto receivers with the additional marking areas left in the white.

 

Naturally without examining this example in the "flesh" there can be no definitive conclusion. But on the descending list of probabilities, your hypothesis would place 4th on the following likely scenarios:

 

1) Michael Jackson used to having his own way, wanted to opt out of his court appearance obligations and to simultaneously delay the proceedings and get sympathy for his pain.

2) Michael Jackson coincidentally aggravated a chronic back injury on the most important day of his trial.

3 Messereau came up with this plan to show the world how difficult his client is to represent.

4) Michael Jackson slipped on one of Bubbles old banana peels wrenching his back.

[Ron A]

PhilOhio - does this mean that this gun can only be shot in PJ"s ? by someone wearing lipstick?

[TD.]

It is really funny how a post involving a Thompson like this generates so much interest. If this were Colt Thompson NO 12345 it would garner maybe 10 posts and 300 hits. However, find a Colt Thompson receiver that does not fit in with the Colt production Thompson parameters and you will have several pages of posts with 900 hits and counting. Oh, how the Colt purists howl. Unfortunately, we all forget that the Colt Thompson was a mass produced item that was not made as a collector’s item. Yes, it was made during a time when real craftsman who had pride in their efforts manned the production line. However, the reality then and now is in a manufacturing environment you have the paid for product that goes out the front door and the left over excess that must be dealt with when production is concluded. Generally, spare parts are always required and this accounts for some of the planned production overruns. What happens to the rest of the product is always food for discussion with collectors because it usually does not fit into any neat package. This is what makes the Colt Thompson variations a fascinating study in and of themselves. The early NAC Thompsons are probably the biggest lot of these variations – with Colt, Savage, Auto-Ordnance and unmarked receivers. The NAC pedigree makes these Thompsons somewhat easy to categorize. But then comes the other variations like what we have here.

 

Obviously, I am one of those who enjoy the Colt variations. These Thompsons are quite fascinating to those who interests scans the entire Colt era…and are considered “mutts” to those whose limited interests stops at NO 15040.

 

With that in mind, I could not resist a call to the seller for some additional details on this particular Thompson. Yes, I am an interested buyer but as I said earlier, respect is on thing, value is quite another. Frank @ Frank’s Gun Shop was a pleasure to speak with. It is his opinion this was at one time a military Thompson that “walked off the base.” He did examine the Thompson for me and stated he could find no military type markings other than the US and A1 markings. He told me he purchased this Thompson from Bob Landies at Ohio Ordnance in 1995 or 1996. Bob told Frank he purchased this Thompson and a Lewis gun in a package deal. It is an amnesty registered Thompson that has C&R status. It does have a Lyman rear sight, the lower frame is not serial numbered and the paddle levers are not checkered. Frank mentioned that someone named “Gordon” recently called him and asked questions about his Thompson. Gordon mentioned he had written a book on Thompsons. It was Gordon’s opinion that Frank would have to remove the barrel to see the real serial number for this Thompson. Frank is not interested in removing the barrel. I get the impression Frank is very happy with his Colt Thompson “as is” and is not interested in all the possible nuisances that go along with the Colt Thompsons. In that regard, Frank is pretty firm on the price because he really likes this Colt Thompson.

 

I know this additional information does not answer all the questions one could ask about this Thompson variation but it does provide more information to mull over. Since it is an amnesty registered Thompson, the possibility this receiver came from the crates of the old Auto-Ordnance Division is remote. I have no reason to suspect that George Numrich did not paper every gun and receiver he found when inventorying his purchase. It certainly could be a lunch box special. I would guess a few Colt receivers (and a lot more Savage & AO receivers) found their way out the back door when the Thompson was in production. Or it could be, as Frank believes, a military Colt Thompson that some one changed the serial number on after it left the inventory controls of the US Government. A comparison of the U.S. and A1 markings on NO. 13159B and a “real” U.S. Model of 1928 A1 Colt Thompson as shown on Page 108 of Tracie’s books indicates the U.S. and A1 markings are quite similar. Look especially at the font style of the number 1 in the “A1” markings. If Frank’s theory is true, this particular Thompson has a one in 540 chance of being Colt Thompson NO 15040. This leads me to ask only one question to the Colt purists, “Are you feeling lucky today?” http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

 

[gijive]

QUOTE (TD. @ Mar 12 2005, 11:42 AM)

It does have a Lyman rear sight, the lower frame is not serial numbered and the paddle levers are not checkered.

TD,

 

Interesting post. The fact that the lower frame is not serial numbered makes me think the gun didn't "walk off the base" as the seller describes. The miltary guns should have serial numbered frames, even if they were rebuilt. Also, the customary practice was to change the serial number of the frame when rebuilding the gun, not grind and reweld the receiver to produce a new number. I don't see any reason why the military would grind off the serial number on the receiver and restamp it. The serial number should be the original Colt numbered one if it was really an early military purchase.

 

Another scenario might be that the gun was stolen at some point in it's career and the serial number obliterated and restamped prior to the amnesty registration. The only true way to know would be to check the number under the grip frame, if one actually exists.

 

In addition, examination of the gun in person might produce evidence that the adjustable Lyman sight is a military variation as opposed to a sight from a Colt gun. There are very subtle variations on the earlier Lymans as opposed to the mass produced WWII guns.

 

The plot thickens.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Look, guys, just about every marking on this gun has been faked or modified. One cursory look tells you that. So while many of you have made fine and scholarly comments about the meaning and relevance of markings of this type, all of this is not valid if the markings are fake. The whole gun, or what I can see of it in the pictures, is a joke.

PhilOhio

 

PhilOhio,

You did indeed infer that this TSMG was amnesty registered, but in your same post you also said the above. So what changed your opinion that this gun is no longer a "joke" and is indeed a real life Colt TSMG as was profered at the begininng of this thread?"

 

TD,

The fact that this was registered during the 1968 Amnesty period would not preclude it from being an "over-run" Colt. Many PD's also registered their TSMG's at that time as well. Does that mean that their TSMG's were stolen? There is no rhyme or reason as to what Numrich did with what was discovered inside the Maguire crates. Remember the peculiar engraved Numrich M1 with the rear bolt notch that a board member posted? If that was a legitimate WWII prototype, why did Numrich obliterate the original numbers and roll marks with his own, thereby rendering the receiver useless as a real prototype model?

 

But if pilferage is among the scenarios as to how this TSMG was Amnesty registered, then surely a Numrich employee could just as easily have absconded with this non-numbered receiver and added his own serial number. But if this example did indeed have one of the original 15000 serial numbers, and then properly marked by the U.S. Government authorities back in the 1930's, why would someone go to the effort of obliterating the "original" number, adding a made up one with suffix when the whole purpose of the 1968 Amnesty was to just get any NFA item registered no questions asked? Were not most of these Amnesty guns either vet bring backs of WWII Allied/Axis weapons including any automatic weapon they were issued themselves? If this was serial number 15040, why wouldn't Frank take a peek inside the grip mount and confirm it since that would make this example worth much more than the $22K figure? He sure couldn't hurt the current finish or the Savage barrel by doing so. In fact, one poster on this board sometime back showed a photo of a TSMG that was indeed liberated from a base arsenal and it was Amnesty registered with the original serial number. Also, why would the feds double stamp in an offset manner the "U.S." and why does the "8" overstamp look so dissimilar to the other Colt non "Navy" marked overstamps?

 

Let's imagine that back in the 1960's, a military stamped Colt TSMG might have had more cache than a plain Colt U.S. Navy , 1928, or 1921 model. or, the additional "U.S." "A1" stamps could have been added anytime after the registration back in 1968 to account for the missing Colt frame and Colt externals and internals.

 

Did you ask Frank how this TSMG is listed on the ATF papers?

[TD.]

gijive –I agree that there is no reason for the US military to change the serial number on this Thompson. I believe it was/is common practice to just add an “X” to a serial number when a duplicate is discovered. If I am not mistaken, the US military stopped marking the lower frames with a serial number toward the end the WW II production run so that could explain an unmarked lower frame on this Thompson (See Thompson Collector News, Vol. 148, Page 9). The stolen scenario works best for me and explains the U.S. and A1 markings along with the obliterated serial number. I have experience hand stamping numbers and letters on guns; it is quite easy to cause a double stamp if you are not paying attention – especially if it just one gun of many that have no particular interest to you, i.e., rebuild program. Yes, Hawkeye Joe, I believe the “U.S.” is all one stamp. gijive, I really like your thoughts on the rear sight. This is something I did not know. Given the 1922 patent dates, this is a very late Colt Thompson receiver. Are there subtle differences in the Lyman sights on the early Colt guns versus the late Colt guns? The reason I ask is because Frank has written in American Thunder I (Page 217) that Lyman had several barrels of rear sights left over from the initial production run for Colt.

 

PhilOhio - Without more, I too am convinced the real answer may only be known with the removal of the barrel. “Maybe they'll find a way to grind it out and "correct" it, to match the external number on the receiver.” AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH…. (but an excellent point)

 

[gijive]

QUOTE (TD. @ Mar 12 2005, 01:17 PM)

IIf I am not mistaken, the US military stopped marking the lower frames with a serial number toward the end the WW II production run so that could explain an unmarked lower frame on this Thompson (See Thompson Collector News, Vol. 148, Page 9) gijive, I really like your thoughts on the rear sight. This is something I did not know.  Given the 1922 patent dates, this is a very late Colt Thompson receiver. Are there subtle differences in the Lyman sights on the early Colt guns versus the late Colt guns? The reason I ask is because Frank has written in American Thunder I (Page 217) that Lyman had several barrels of rear sights left over from the initial production run for Colt.

TD,

 

I recall that article about the lower frames not being numbered also, but most WWII rebuilds that are seen usually have mismatched frames or the number crossed out and the receiver number stamped to match.

 

Regarding the sight differences, early Colt guns I have observed have a a windage knob that is flat. The WWII Lyman sights I have observed have a slight indentation on the windage knob. Check your gun to see what I mean.

 

The sight base on the Colts is usually a little smoother and the Lyman printing on the spring housing is usually a little crisper and more polished. Yes, lots of sights were left over, so I don't know if the later Colt guns had sights more similar to the WWII variety. I haven't observed that many late numbered Colt guns.

 

The secret number is the key to determining where this Colt receiver came from, but apparently the seller isn't interested (Hmmmmm?) so I guess the new buyer will be the one to solve the riddle.

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

G.I Jive,

A difference between a Colt Lyman site and a G.I Lyman site is the depth of the notch and the "U.S.A." is spaced further apart on the Colt Lyman. Some Colt windage knobs also have the indent as do the WWII ones. Of course the Lyman Colt sites have the same bluing as the rest of the TSMG while the G.I. Lyman's are black, parked, differently blued, etc.

 

Whomever the buyer of this TSMG turns out to be, they should be adamant about checking the number inside the grip mount before the purchase. Frank should not have any trepidation or hesitancy in allowing the "ready to pay cash" buyer to check this out. Frank's 'I don't feel like it" excuse should be a deal breaker for any serious collector.

 

But now that the doubting Thomases seem to acknowledge that this example is indeed of Colt manufacture, the only missing piece of the puzzle that ever existed from the beginning is whether there ever was a factory serial number on this receiver. If there is one under the grip mount, then obviously there was one on the receiver, but that still doesn't guarantee that this was a "stolen" firearm anymore than any other Amnesty registered NFA item. But if there isn't a serial number, and there is no evidence of tampering, then it sure isn't one of the Government Colt TSMG's. If there is a serial number, it would be in the over 14500 range, and maybe in the 15000 range. That would make it much more valuable. Why would Frank leave it to the next owner to discover this possibly high serial number which would make it way more valuable than the $22K he is asking?

[gijive]

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Mar 12 2005, 03:51 PM)

A difference between a Colt Lyman site and a G.I Lyman site is the depth of the notch and the "U.S.A." is spaced further apart on the Colt Lyman. Some  Colt windage knobs also have the indent as do the WWII ones.  Of course the Lyman Colt sites have the same bluing as the rest of the TSMG while the G.I. Lyman's are black, parked, differently blued, etc.

Arthur,

 

Thanks for the additional information on the Lyman differences. Your other points are excellent, as well.

[TD.]

gijive – Excellent point. I agree on the serial number comment regarding the lower frame. From what I have seen, it appears all 1928 lower frames have a serial number.

 

gijive & Arthur – Great information on the rear sight. I am going to save that for future reference. I suggest everyone else do the same. Thank-you.

 

Arthur, where to start…

 

The fact that this was registered during the 1968 Amnesty period would not preclude it from being an "over-run" Colt. Agree

 

Many PD's also registered their TSMG's at that time as well. Does that mean that their TSMG's were stolen? I really don’t know; I doubt anyone but BATF could provide statistics on that. However, since PD’s really don’t have to register their older and seized weapons, I suspect that only the PD’s with an officer or two that understood the significance of a Form 5 for future marketability reasons took advantage of this last chance offer. Unfortunately, it did not seem to be the majority of PD’s.

 

There is no rhyme or reason as to what Numrich did with what was discovered inside the Maguire crates. Perhaps not to you or me, but I suspect ole George knew what he was doing.

 

Remember the peculiar engraved Numrich M1 with the rear bolt notch that a board member posted? If that was a legitimate WWII prototype, why did Numrich obliterate the original numbers and roll marks with his own, thereby rendering the receiver useless as a real prototype model? If I remember correctly, there was nothing to indicate this receiver had any markings on it when George and company pulled it from the crates.

 

But if pilferage is among the scenarios as to how this TSMG was Amnesty registered, then surely a Numrich employee could just as easily have absconded with this non-numbered receiver and added his own serial number. True, however, I suspect many more Thompsons walked out of the US military than may have left out the back door of Numrich Arms Corporation. Are there any documented cases of machine guns leaving out the back door of NAC that you know of? Are there any rumors of this type of activity at NAC?

 

But if this example did indeed have one of the original 15000 serial numbers, and then properly marked by the U.S. Government authorities back in the 1930's, why would someone go to the effort of obliterating the "original" number, adding a made up one with suffix when the whole purpose of the 1968 Amnesty was to just get any NFA item registered no questions asked? Were not most of these Amnesty guns either vet bring backs of WWII Allied/Axis weapons including any automatic weapon they were issued themselves? If this is indeed what happened, I suspect the serial number was removed long before the amnesty was announced – probably within days of it leaving the government. The reasons for this are obvious.

 

If this was serial number 15040, why wouldn't Frank take a peek inside the grip mount and confirm it since that would make this example worth much more than the $22K figure? He sure couldn't hurt the current finish or the Savage barrel by doing so. In fact, one poster on this board sometime back showed a photo of a TSMG that was indeed liberated from a base arsenal and it was Amnesty registered with the original serial number. My impression of Frank from one telephone conversation is that he does not understand all the history relating to the Colt Thompson and is puzzled by all the attention to a serial number when the receiver clearly says “Colt Patent Firearms MFG Co.”

 

Also, why would the feds double stamp in an offset manner the "U.S." and why does the "8" overstamp look so dissimilar to the other Colt non "Navy" marked overstamps? Operator error comes to mind.

 

Let's imagine that back in the 1960's, a military stamped Colt TSMG might have had more cache than a plain Colt U.S. Navy , 1928, or 1921 model. or, the additional "U.S." "A1" stamps could have been added anytime after the registration back in 1968 to account for the missing Colt frame and Colt externals and internals. My imagination tells me that back in the 1960’s a Thompson Submachine Gun was an inexpensive firearm that was a hassle to own because of all the government paperwork.

 

Did you ask Frank how this TSMG is listed on the ATF papers? He stated it was a C&R gun.

 

Whomever the buyer of this TSMG turns out to be, they should be adamant about checking the number inside the grip mount before the purchase. Frank should not have any trepidation or hesitancy in allowing the "ready to pay cash" buyer to check this out. Frank's 'I don't feel like it" excuse should be a deal breaker for any serious collector. Agree to some extent. It was I that spoke to Frank, not you. I never used the word “excuse” or any of your quotes in my post. Do not try to change the meaning of my post with what you may want to report. I suggest you re-read my post and quote accordingly.

 

But now that the doubting Thomases seem to acknowledge that this example is indeed of Colt manufacture, the only missing piece of the puzzle that ever existed from the beginning is whether there ever was a factory serial number on this receiver. If there is one under the grip mount, then obviously there was one on the receiver, but that still doesn't guarantee that this was a "stolen" firearm anymore than any other Amnesty registered NFA item. Agree. However, if this was a reject Colt receiver, an assembly number could be under the grip mount without a serial number being roll stamped on the receiver depending on when the rejection took place. It is all in the details. By the way, you stated earlier that the Colt receivers George obtained were not Colt blue. I don’t remember ever seeing reported what the finish was, if any, on the receivers George purchased. I am sure you are right but please refresh my memory on this small detail.

 

But if there isn't a serial number, and there is no evidence of tampering, then it sure isn't one of the Government Colt TSMG's. If there is a serial number, it would be in the over 14500 range, and maybe in the 15000 range. That would make it much more valuable. Agree

 

Why would Frank leave it to the next owner to discover this possibly high serial number which would make it way more valuable than the $22K he is asking? I really do not know Frank’s motives in selling this Thompson. However, I do get the feeling that it will not bother him one bit if it does not sell. In additon, I really don’t think the discovery of an assembly number would increase the value of this Thompson past 22K unless it was a serial number in the 15000 range. But given the lack of Colt parts on this Thompson as I suspect, along with the reblue and the serial number and US marking problems, it may not be much of a boost. In my opinion, this Colt Thompson variation is way overpriced.

 

This has really turned into a great post with a lot of information thanks to the great members on this board. I think these variations always bring out the best in us.

 

 

[Z3BigDaddy]

Holy cripes!!! I'm blind!!! §8-O

[Norm]

AF, TD, Phil, and others:

 

What are the chances that Colt started to make this receiver and then determined that it was not up their specs (cosmetically)?

 

Look at the letters in the "Colt address" area. Some letters are very deep and some are very faint. I could understand that buffing the receiver to much could make the letters fade away, but what about the "C" in Colt's, the "S" in Arms, the complete word "MFG", and the "S" in U.S.A. ?

 

Maybe the person who was roll stamping the receivers condemned it and put it in the "reject bin" before it ever had a serial number put on it. Maybe it sat there for years until the Navy and Army wanted them and then they used every usable receiver they could scrounge up?

 

It would make sense that if Colt decided to not use the receiver then they would not put a serial number on it.

 

Norm

 

[nobra81]

I wonder if the gun has the jhb marking on the right side of the receiver. 85% percent of the colts had this marking.

 

Steve

[TD.]

Norm - I think it is plausible that this could be a reject Colt receiver for cosmetic or other reasons. There is really no way to rule out that possibility with the information we now have on hand. However, my thoughts right now are otherwise because of the serial number and serial number markings. I would think the fonts on the serial number letters "N" and "B" would not have serifs if applied by Savage or AO based on pictures of serial numbers I have seen on the WWII Thompsons. In addition, I think if this was an unserial numbered Colt "reject" receiver that was later used by Savage or AO, the serial number would be in the range of numbers assigned to Savage or AO. (Now if it was a reject Colt receiver and was serial numbered by Colt prior to rejection, it may very well go out the door with the Colt serial number - however, the serial number on this Thompson does not appear to have been applied by Colt.)

 

Nobra81 - I asked Frank about the JHB or GEG markings along with any other markings on the receiver. He told me that he did not see any. Of course, given the polish job this receiver was given - see Norm's post above and the picture of the patent dates, I think it very plausible all the small markings like this could have been removed.

 

These are both excellent questions and observations. I sure would like to see if a number is under the grip frame.

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD,

Thank you for addressing all of my points individually.

 

 

"I think somebody swiped it from the government long prior to 1968 and changed the external serial number simply so it would not match the number on the "stolen" list. He had no way to anticipate any future amnesty opportunity. But it happened, and he seized the opportunity." Phil

 

 

Phil,

If a person were in possession of a "stolen" smg, would they go to way more trouble of delicately removing the existing serial number without leaving a trace rather than to just gouge it out or use acid as in the traditional and preferred method employed by criminals who have used firearms in multiple homicides? If registration of the firearm was never his intent, and he didn't anticipate any thing like a government amnesty, it would seem logical that he would have employed the latter method of serial number obliteration, not the former.

 

Would this perpetrator of serial number tampering also obliterate the original Colt "NO" if all he was after was a perfect looking alteration? This stamped "NO" is no where near the placement that Colt stamped it. The person who added the "13159B" number also added the "NO" and the period. Would the U.S. government have obliterated the Colt "NO?" The "NO" was never placed on this receiver by Colt because there was never a serial number there to follow it, just like the "NAC" examples. Like TD and G.I. Jive have pointed out, the Colt TSMG's the Government purchased in the 1930's had serial numbers already and they merely added their "U.S." and "A1" stampings. If the Government, or Maguire had known about the "over-run" non-serial numbered receivers in the crate back in 1940, then there wouldn't be any receivers for Numrich to stamp his "NAC" initials on in the 1960's since all these receivers would have been assembled and sold for the war effort.

 

Which stampings do you consider not right? The "C" in Colt, the "S" in ARMS, the "S" in U.S.A. and the "MFG" that Norm described as seeming discrepancies to other Colt receivers are no doubt a combination of the photography and numerous refinishes this receiver has been subjected to. Even if we narrow the comparison down to just the Numrich "NAC" stamped models, other than Numrich's own added stamps, the roll marks on this TSMG are identical to the "NAC" examples (such as NAC 5) in every way. The lack of the "JHB" mark, while it may have been polished out, is more in keeping with the absence of the "JHB" mark on the higher serial numbers, or the "over-run" end production which were what Numrich found in the crate. These "over-run" receivers all had the 1922 patent dates. A picture of the top of the this receiver with the Thompson logo would also help.

 

Colt was making these firearms for Auto-Ord and so Auto-Ord may have been less finicky than Colt when it came to what was rejected or accepted for cosmetic reasons. Since JHB was an Auto-Ord inspector and not one of Colt's, if he didn't show up for work on a particular day during the seventeen months of production, the receiver was still passed for assembly regardless of his inspector's mark. Colt didn't consider it necessary to have one of their own inspectors fill in for JHB if his back went out on a given day.

 

But it is very easy for Frank to take the bolt, spring, actuator and buffer/pilot out of the receiver and look down into the receiver for the Colt inspector markings such as the initials "D," "C," "Z," "F," "U," "O," and "P." These marks would be there whether the Colt receiver was issued a serial number or not.

[Norm]

QUOTE

Which stampings do you consider not right? The "C" in Colt, the "S" in ARMS, the "S" in U.S.A. and the "MFG" that Norm described as seeming discrepancies to other Colt receivers are no doubt a combination of the photography and numerous refinishes this receiver has been subjected to.

 

These letters are obviously stamped deeper than the others. I see no problems with the photos, and I don't see how refinshing could make them become deeper.

 

I am just saying that it looks sloppy (at least for a Colt Thompson.)

 

Norm

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Norm,

It isn't that the letters you mentioned, as well as the "L" in COLT'S and the "R" in Arms, are deeper, it is that the others are shallower, as if polished down from the refinishing jobs. Look at the "E" in CARTRIDGE, it is so faint, it almost looks rubbed out. If one where to white out these letters, the pattern would appear more obvious. I don't see how a roll die would leave letters at different impressions? If you compare the lettering to any other Colt TSMG, you will find similar nuances as the result of normal 80+ year-old wear, or heavy refinishing.

[TD.]

Phil,

I did send Frank an e-mail last night discussing the various possibilities concerning the history of his Thompson. During our earlier discussion, he asked for, and I provided a picture of NAC 5 (both sides) so he could see a Thompson built on a Colt receiver that was not a Colt Production Thompson. He told me he had never heard of a Thompson like NAC 5. If he responds with any additional information, I will certainly share so everybody will have an opportunity to comment. I did ask for additional photographs of the lower frame, barrel, compensator and Lyman sight should he be interested in an opinion on those parts. I have no doubt Frank would field strip the Thompson and look for the Colt Inspector Markings Arthur referred too (excellent idea).

 

I too think we have exhausted all the possibilities without any new information. Any prospective buyer would be well served to read this Thread. This Thompson would certainly be an interesting one to research, especially if the person who sold it to Bob Landies was still alive and could be located. I tried to instill that thought in my e-mail because I am not going to start a research project on someone else's Tommy Gun. The removal of the barrel could resolve the mystery if a Colt production number was stamped on the receiver. To me, that is the best place to start. If a number were present, this information would actually make this Thompson more saleable. Basically, what Frank is offering for sale (as near as I can tell) is a Colt receiver that may or may not be a production receiver assembled with mostly military parts. I think it is still possible to get a complete Colt Production Thompson with original finish for 22K if one has the money in their pocket and an ear to the ground.