24 replies to this topic

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Perhaps you guys are familiar with Robert Silvers, who is a frequent poster on the NFA Board, and seems to be on a Class III buying spree. His latest acquisition is depicted below. Take a squint at this "U.S. Property" #4666 Thompson shown below?

Here is one opinion from the NFA Board:

QUOTE

The gun is reworked, the receiver looks like it was ground off and remarked, OR it could be a new made receiver - regardless of what the paperwork says. Bob Naess and myself have tried to explain this to you several times.

http://www.photomosa...ew/159_5918.JPG
http://www.photomosa...ew/159_5919.JPG
http://www.photomosa...ew/159_5920.JPG

[hawksnest]

Looks like someone took a Philadelphia Ordnance 80% receiver and finished it out. My .02.

[giantpanda4]

Don't think it is a Phila Ord. I have a '28 80% of theirs, and it has their logo and name all over it.
Maybe the M1s are different.

[ThompsonCrazy]

Arthur,
Do you know if this is marked S or AOC?
The stampings on the left of the receiver appear to be of AOC by the way that the letters in the rows line up above each other. As far as I know there were little if any AOC M1's.
Does anyone have a picture of a Savage M1 Left and Right side receiver markings?
When I look in Frank's book the Savage M1 markings are different from the AOC markings. Particularly the way that the letters fall under each previous row. I can reference pages when I get home from work.
The US Property marking is correct for a Savage but again the left side receiver markings look funny. Too perfect for roll marks but rather laser engraved. The serial markings on M1/M1A1's are usually stamped staggered and sloppy. IMHO.

Am I crazy or is there a difference?

Please anyone with an early Savage M1 Post a photo of the Left/Right receiver markings. Please Please Please

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TC,
I think the frame is an AO, and the receiver is, or is attempting to be, Savage, with the "U.S. Property" on two lines. But where are the proof marks that would accompany the rebuilds?

[colt21a]

looks like it was cut,milled and machined and finished yesterday,along with the stamping, engraving ...

and nice touch left old wood on it...................so it really looks honest,yeah!!!!

but he's a rich guy having fun.........so who cares what he buy's............micro/soft money........let him have fun.......and at least he's buying thompson's so he has class and good taste...........take care,ron/colt21a

[AZDoug]

What would also be interesting to check is:

1) put a caliper on the receiver width, and compare to a print or another receiver.. That would tell if the receiver was ground down.

2) the markings look suspiciouly like CNC roto-engraving rather than roll stamp, but it is hard to tell from a JPEG. Compare to the Fire/safe markings on the lower.

Doug

[Mike45]

If AO made any/many M1's they would have had a s/n way higher than this one.

[AZDoug]

It may even be pantograph roto-engraving.

Check out how the L in CALIBER is tilted slightly towards the A and away from the I. Like the master wasn't set up just perfect.

No roll stamp is going to have defects like that.

Doug

[Fencer]

Well the rear third of TSMG 523401 is a paper weight at my work desk.

Couple things that stand out are,

1. The serial number is not all level. None of the 6 numbers are on the same level, nor truly vertical.
2. The THOMPSON SUBMACHINE GUN is a completely different font that that on the pictures above.
The width of the letters are considerablly smaller on my demilled receiver.

Look, I know next to nothing about TSMGs but that receiver looks like it just came out of someone's
shop. I assume this thing has a paper trail from 1968?

[rsilvers]

Hi, this is my gun. I bought it from a dealer who sold it to me as "A Savage-built Amnesty Registered Rewatt rebuild with all new USGI parts." I did not see a photo of it before buying as I was tired of losing guns that I hesitated on, and the price was good. He said "Will sell to dealers only" but he made an exception for me because he knew someone I bought an M16 from in his town.

So no one misrepresented it to me, from what I can tell. It was not that expensive -- the same price as a West Hurley -- so I did not spend much time investigating it before buying it. It was certainly refinished recently (like in the last 10 years I suppose) and I knew that and did not mind.

But I did make that post on Subguns because I have been reading "American Thunder" and am getting more and more interested in ths history of this all. Nearly all of my guns are things like HK sears which have no history of significance but this is more interesting to spend time on.

I am filing a Freedom of Information Act to get the original papers, etc.

I am not dissapointed in the gun if it was rebuilt with all new parts because that is what I expected when I bought it. I will be dissapointed if it is a clone receiver made by some modern company.

The paperwork lists "Auto Ordinance, Bridgeport CT" as the maker.

I understand the stock, rear sight, and selectors are incorrect from when it left the factory and were probably added in the recent rebuild, although I also know the very same parts were added to other guns during arsenal rebuilds.

I will check for proofmarks and I will check the lower serial number tomorrow, and I will bring calipers to measure the receiver. At the very least the receiver was beadblasted.

My dealer has his personal Savage M1 which I can compare it to side by side.

I don't plan to ever sell this gun (assuming it was only rewatted, rebuild, and refinished).

Oh -- as for the engraving -- I looked at the photos on American Thunder and what I saw was lots of variation in markings, but the early Savage M1 images were totally within the scope of my M1 (to my eyes and I did study typography). Page 93, 104, 107, 108. I saw many images in the book that put me at ease with the engraving on my gun, even though it did not have the roller-stamped look of many of the other photos. In any case, I will take better photos tomorrow.

My low serial number seems to imply maybe the 3rd day of production in Utica?

[The1930sRust]

Rsilvers, welcome!

Fascinating. Are you going to shoot it?

[rsilvers]

Of course but it is still at my dealer awaiting second transfer.

But clearly this is meant to be a (hopefully original) shooter and not a museum piece.

[AZDoug]

Well, if it is a reweld, and the torch cuts went thru the markings, the markings would have had to be totally welded over and re engraved to look decent.

The only thing you have to worry about, is ATF has been know to x-ray *re-welded* or rewatted receivers to see if in fact, they were rewelds, and not new production.

Most 1950's dewats were simply dewatted by welding, brazing or soldering a plug in the barrel chamber, and maybe tack welding the barrel to the receiver. It was rare for the job to actually be done to dewat specs.

Possibilities: it is an original receiver that was rewatted, and they had to refinish the whole thing, including new (deepened) engraving. That is sort of OK except for remarking the S/N.

Or, it was a dewat, that was so FU'd, somebody just trashed the old receiver, and substituted a new receiver in it's place. That would be bad.

If you really want to cover your ass, have somebody go and look inside the receiver, that knows what they are looking at. Reweld repair will be obvious inside the receiver, as they can't duplicate maching marks.

Good luck.

I am certainly not turning my nose up at a rewat or reweld (Hell, I own a NAC, I will obviously put up with any old trash)

I would just be concerned that it may be a new production receiver, and if so, it is contraband, even if there are papers to go along with it.

Doug

(edited for spelling)

Edited by AZDoug, 06 February 2004 - 06:02 PM.

[full auto 45]

Almost looks like someone made a new reciever to replace a trashed one or to mate with papers. Used all old parts. The rivets look like nails sticking up. But hey, if the reciever numbers match the paper work, that's all you have to have.
Welcome to the board RSilvers. Hope to see the gun in person someday at the Thompson show. Don't let some that might put it down badly offend you. Hell there's lots of West Hurley owners here! Including myself.

[rsilvers]

Thanks.

The rivits look that way because they were put in upside down -- likely because, I am told, it is hard for someone to install rivits the correct way and make them be smooth on top.

If someone tells me they can install rivits perfectly I will have it redone (and replace the sight with an L-model).

[PK.]

Photos are photos, but the rivets don’t necessarily appear bad. I have seen them flat top, concave and convex. At least they aren’t “hammered”.

I do them flat or convex.

[USMC-2-USN]

darklight imagery

Here is my LHS receiver with serial number and the thompson SMG marks for comparison

[Barry]

Rslivers,
In looking at the pictures of your gun and comparing it to the pictures on page 116 and 117 of "American Thunder", other than not seeing inspector marks, the corners of the receiver seem very sharp in the area of the mag well and upper edge. What this means I don't know. This is just a friendly observation.
Barry

[USMC-2-USN]

Darklightimagery

Here is the machining marks on top of the receiver and what the rivets should look like

i am also disturbed about the lack of imspector stamps on the gun and lack of machining marks. This gun is consitent with a Lend-lease gun yet has no brit marks either...also lack of rebuild armory marks??

Could be a re-weld in the ejection port area?