Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Braintease...savage Commercial 1928 Lend/lease?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Balder

Balder

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 04 January 2004 - 03:42 PM

PhilOhio,

Thompsons are interesting pieces of engineering and gun/military history, chances are we'll never know the full story. I have spent some time researching my 1928, but there's still a lot of elusive details.

However, I find it doubtful that the US military would use some individual's initials for acceptance. My theory is still that GEG was AOC's civilian acceptance stamp for Savage Thompsons, regardless of the end user; to them it did not matter who would actually end up with the gun. Savage was merely making the guns, sales were left with Auto-Ordnance Corporation.

What kind of acceptance stamps were put on guns produced for the US military forces? I have a Colt M1911A1 made in 1945 and a 1944 M1 carbine made by GM Inland Div.; I would really like to know if any of the stamps on these guns are actually US acceptance stamps. The Germans and the British were big on acceptance stamps, I didn't realize that the USA was as well.

Regards,

Balder
  • 0

#22 Balder

Balder

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 04 January 2004 - 05:44 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Jan 4 2004, 02:34 PM)
but they were probably being made to the existing strict military standard, and the initials were intended to certify that.

PhilOhio,

Could you please enlighten me about this "strict military standard"? I never realized that the US government put down any standards apart from the factory's own.

Balder
  • 0

#23 bug

bug

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1468 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:SE PA
  • Interests:Hunting, fishing, shooting, reloading, metalworking, woodworking, photography.

Posted 04 January 2004 - 06:21 PM

M1 Garands, M1/M2 Carbines were indeed made to strict standards. The various inspector stamps were placed on the stocks of finished guns. The boxed/unboxed initials were different for each manufacturer but the initials were of the military inspectored assigned to the plant.

Here is S16,86X that was originally sold by AOC to a PD. The only proof is George's

Attached Files


  • 0

#24 Balder

Balder

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 04 January 2004 - 06:35 PM

Bug,

This is really interesting! Until now, I've been under the impression that the whole series of S-15041 - S-26000 (approx) went to the Brits - this seems not to be the case. Are you sure there's no British acceptance stamp on your gun? Seems we need to do a thorough research on the early Savages.

As for US acceptence markings and standards, I'm still lost in the fog.


Thanks for the information!

Regards,

Balder
  • 0

#25 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 January 2004 - 07:30 AM

PhilOhio,

Sorry for not responding sooner, I was busy clearing snow from my driveway. Anyway, the reference to George E. Goll (GEG) being the civillian inspector for Auto-Ordnance at the Savage plant starts on page 73 of "American Thunder." A further reference to GEG being the civillian inpector at Savage is in the chapter devoted to the M1 series guns.

I understand this to mean that GEG was an Auto-Ordnance employee assigned to the Savage plant to inspect the guns on behalf of Auto-Ordnance.

Of further interest to you would be the section starting at the second paragraph on page 80 continuing through page 82. This section discusses the 1928 AC guns like the one you own and speculates why they don't have military inspector proof marks on them like their 1928 A1 counterparts.

The book mentions that Auto-Ordnance's plant in Bridgeport, Ct made the last 1928 model in 1942. So if your gun was sold to the police department in 1943 it was either an existing surplus gun on hand at AO or was made from existing surplus parts which might explain the lack of military proofs.

Hope this helps.

Balder,

If you can get a copy of Frank Iannamico's book "American Thunder", it explains all the US military inpection marks for Thompsons.
  • 0

#26 craig101

craig101

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 127 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 11:16 AM

i am going to test fire this gun this afternoon. i am only bringing 1 or 2 boxes of ammo. i really don't need to test fire it, but the dealer insists on showing me she works. i just want to put a down payment in his palms, so i can claim this baby!

will take pics and get them up asap.

thanks for everything guys!

Craig
  • 0

#27 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 05 January 2004 - 03:34 PM

PhilOhio,

Regarding George E. Goll's presence at the Savage plant; he was an Auto-Ordnance employee and since Auto-Ordnance was actually the company producing the guns, if not actually making them, they must have wanted a representative of the company on sight to approve the finished product. I don't have the information in front of me presently, but Auto-Ordnance had representatives at the Colt plant during the first production run of guns.

When large orders of guns came from Britain they were filled by the guns being produced at the time which were the Savage guns, prior to production at the Auto-Ordnance plant in Brifdeport, CT. Since George Goll was their inspector at the plant, his initials appear on the guns. Large orders were sent to Britain ordered directly from Auto-Ordnance prior to Lend-Lease, but certainly not all of the 1928 Models made by Savage prior to the military 1928A1 Model being standardized.

George Goll's inspection mark should appear on practically all Savage guns regardless of whether they were destined for military or civillian channels. Besides, while they were manufacturing them they wouldn't know where they were going to end up until the orders came in.

  • 0

#28 craig101

craig101

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 127 posts

Posted 05 January 2004 - 10:49 PM

i shot the gun tonight. it shoots good. no stoppages. i took pics but they didn't come out! damn!!!!

anyhow, it has 12 patent dates. i did remember to look at that.

i shook on a deal to buy it tonight. he has the amnesty papers for it too. thats pretty neat.
  • 0

#29 Balder

Balder

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 06 January 2004 - 05:28 AM

PhilOhio,

As I have previously mentioned, my theory is that Goll was sent as an inspector to the Savage plant, not to Colt. I have never heard of Goll inspecting Colt; most of these seem to have been inspected by John H. Barett and stamped with an encircled JHB.

Baøder
  • 0

#30 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2004 - 11:00 AM

Balder,
Yah, the only inspector for the Colt TSMG was JHB, as his initials appear on approx %85 of Colt TSMGs'. Some of the higher serial numbers were never stamped. I guess JHB had a nervous breakdown by the end of production run in June of 1922.

  • 0

#31 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2402 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 06 January 2004 - 11:52 AM

I didn't mean to suggest the Goll was present at the Colt plant during production of the Colt guns. I do recall reading, I believe in Cox's or Hill's books, that someone from Auto-Ordnance was on sight during the production of the guns. It stands to reason that someone from the company producing the guns would be present during portions of the manufacturing, inspection or shipping process.

Sorry for any confusion I may have caused by my vague post.
  • 0

#32 Balder

Balder

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 291 posts
  • Location:Norway

Posted 06 January 2004 - 12:06 PM

gijive,

I didn't find your posting(s) confusing at all, on the contrary. Good job!

Balder
  • 0