Jump to content

Savage 1921 Thompson


Recommended Posts

Doesn't Tracie Hill own a Savage 1928 that has a 1 overstamp of the 8? I seem to remember a TCA newletter article on it.

 

I believe Tracie has a picture of one in his book. Whether he owns it or not, I don't recall. This gun was most certainly a "one of". Savage did not make a 1921 production model. I'm certain that is what Dave was referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So there it is, on page 311. A "reverse" overstamp, so to speak. I stand corrected.

 

Devil Dog 1110,

 

If this is what your friend has, it would be an extremely rare Thompson. I still think you are probably referring to a 1928 Savage...what is known most popularly as a "Commercial Savage." Please let us know more details about what your friend has.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

He wasn't referring to a Commercial model.

He was helping me with the purchase of a Colt Navy when it came up in our conversation.

I have emailed him for more information and will pass on what I find out.

 

Thanks

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere I have a picture or two of Tracies Savage 1921. If I can find it I'll post it. I seem to recall Tracie saying that Savage would build a 1921 version on request during that time, so probably a few were made.

Dan

 

Dan, there a multiple pictures of a Savage 1921 "overstamp" in the TCN Vol. 15 article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly is an interesting Thompson. The TCA newsletter and Thompson: The American Legend (page 178) have a picture of the model and serial number nomenclature. It is serial number S-150282. I have never seen a Savage Commercial Thompson with a serial number that high. Actually, I have never seen a real Savage Commercial Thompson above the 27,000 serial number range but some may exist; we are learning new information about the Thompson gun each year. Unfortunately, the right side of the receiver is not pictured but it would most likely have a Bridgeport, Connecticut address. Has anyone ever seen a Savage Commercial Thompson with a Bridgeport address?

 

Those with access to the TCA newsletter or American Legend can see the number "1921" in the MODEL OF 1921 marking has serifs and the numbering is uneven. I only have a limited picture library of Savage Thompsons with high serial numbers but from what I can find the serifs on the "1928" number in the nomenclature marking did not begin until the 300,000 serial number range. Others with better picture libraries may have different information but for now this certainly lends itself to a lot of speculation. I doubt Tracie has any more information as nothing new has been published since this unusual Savage Thompson first appeared in the 1992 TCA newsletter.

 

This is a good example where Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) information may prove valuable to help establish the provenance of S-150282. There should be a 1941 dated Form 5 in the early history of this Thompson if it was sold commercially by Auto-Ordnance to a law enforcement organization during World War II. It should also state Model of 1921 on the then IRS form. These two items are not normally redacted. Any date much later or amnesty registration would certainly be suspect. Perhaps the owner of S-150282 has all the necessary paperwork to establish the provenance. I certainly hope so.

 

It is an interesting variation but one that needs to investigated throughly before passing judgment on its authenticity. In the TCA newsletter Tracie uses the words "appears to be" and "my guess" when describing S-150282. Those words most likely are still valid today.

Edited by TD.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur, A Savage "transitional" Thompson! Receivers started by Colt and finished by Savage? Please cite your authority on these statements.

 

 

On the same page 311 of TUTB is a Colt receiver with Savage frame serial # S-334684 that wound up in the Danish Military Museum in Copenhagen that Savage finished assembling and may have stamped the serial #7886 on the receiver. Why Savage would knowingly stamp a serial number that they surely knew Colt had already used on a Colt receiver in 1921 (and sold to an Idaho, PD) is a mystery. But it does indicate that Savage had no qualms using Colt made receivers, not just Colt made parts, to satisfy orders. Since Savage was not allowed by Maguire/AOC to identify their manufactured TSMG other than to use the prefix "S" to the serial number, completing a TSMG using a Colt made receiver sans even their "S" prefix seemed appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Savage frames & Colt receivers interchangable, and visa versa ? Never thought of that. So, I could slip a Savage frame on a 28N or 21 Colt ?

 

 

OCM

 

 

( for grins: a claimed picture of Dutch Schultz buying the boys a beer )

002 (3).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

There is really no true and accurate history of NO. 7886 as shown on page 311 of TUTB. Gordon did a story about this Thompson in an earlier TCA newsletter. Gordon and Tracie feel comfortable with their explanation as to the history of this Thompson. And it is not to be taken lightly given the many years each has in the Thompson community. However, it is not definitive.

 

I contacted the museum several years ago. While I don't have the communication in front of me, what I remember is there is no information on the past history of this Thompson available. It is kept in storage at the museum. I did obtain a few additional pictures and found out it is not a late receiver (1922 patent dates). Performing original research does have its benefits as I found another Thompson with the exact same nomenclature markings overseas with a serial number very close to 7886. I have not had time to investigate further. Suffice to say I am currently not on-board with the idea of Savage using Colt receivers during their production of the Thompson gun. I agree Savage used some of the Colt era parts in the first year of manufacture, many manufactured years after the Colt Thompsons rolled off the assembly line. However, I am not convinced any Colt receivers completed by Savage went out the door.

 

Savage and Colt receivers and frames are interchangeable.

 

Excellent discussion. All good stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since there were Colt receivers in the box that Numrich ended up with, I find it very strange that Savage did not make use of these receivers in WW2.

It would make perfect sense for Savage to have used every Colt part before making anything , thereby denying Numrich the NAC stamped receivers.

Jim C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree Savage used some of the Colt era parts in the first year of manufacture, many manufactured years after the Colt Thompsons rolled off the assembly line. However, I am not convinced any Colt receivers completed by Savage went out the door.

 

Why not? Did your 9/09 SAR article "The Third Savage Thompson" have any new information regarding Savage finishing or not finishing Colt receivers? Since many in the Thompson community missed this article that is not highlighted on the SAR cover, perhaps now would be a good time to pony up any relevant info that proves Savage never used a left over Colt receiver during their war time production. While Numrich bought crates with non-registered Colt 1922 patent date receivers, among other receivers, Savage's Utica plant was in production of the TSMG before AOC's Bridgeport plant. Savage surely got hold of 1921 patent date receivers sans serial numbers as well as the 1922 patent date receivers that Maguire bought from Marcellus Thompson.

 

That this receiver may not have 1922 patent dates is really immaterial to whether Savage assembled and sold Colt TSMG #7886 with Savage model and serial number stampings using an already used Colt serial number. It's not as if this serial number has any greater significance other than it comes after #7885 and before #7887. The only other possibility is that the Danes assembled this TSMG themselves using a Colt un-numbered receiver and Savage frame and parts and they stamped the number on it using look alike Savage stampings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not convinced that Savage used a few left over Colt receivers and sent them out the door, most likely to the British military? Because no one has produced an example where that provenance is without doubt. Actually, no one has produced an example with any provenance! I do believe Savage had possession of all the left over Colt era parts, including the receivers that Numrich Arms later acquired. And if Savage had completed one Colt era receiver, they most likely would have done them all. Your theory is just as good as Gordon's and Tracie's, but it is just a theory. My theory is the craftsman at Savage Arms would not sell anything with the Colt name on it. Hopefully, original research will answer this question one day.

 

A good discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why am I not convinced that Savage used a few left over Colt receivers and sent them out the door, most likely to the British military? Because no one has produced an example where that provenance is without doubt. Actually, no one has produced an example with any provenance! I do believe Savage had possession of all the left over Colt era parts, including the receivers that Numrich Arms later acquired. And if Savage had completed one Colt era receiver, they most likely would have done them all. Your theory is just as good as Gordon's and Tracie's, but it is just a theory. My theory is the craftsman at Savage Arms would not sell anything with the Colt name on it. Hopefully, original research will answer this question one day.

 

A good discussion.

 

 

Good point on the "Savage craftsman." Something else to ponder; according to the AOC/Colt contract the deal called for 10% spare parts, tools, fixtures etc. I wonder if the spare parts actually included 1500 extra receivers and if so, were they numbered and marked? What happened to them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My theory is the craftsman at Savage Arms would not sell anything with the Colt name on it. Hopefully, original research will answer this question one day.

 

Several years ago you were of the mindset that Savage did indeed finish Colt recovers for sale to fulfill AOC orders. What changed your mind that the craftsman at Savage Arms were not indifferent to whatever manufacturer name was stamped on the receiver? These same. Savage craftsman who agreed to a stamped "S" in place of their name and logo on the Savage/AOC Thompson, also had no qualms about the AOC name being stamped on the receiver. How many soldiers/sailors/marines during WWII had a clue as to what the "S" before the serial number stood for?

Why would Savage have had to finish every single one of the Colt receivers in the crates if they finished any of them? If this was something you believe they would rather not do, why wouldn't they just use what was available to satisfy an order before they were ready to produce their own? After all, they were contracted by AOC. If Maguire told Savage to assemble a TSMG using an available Colt receiver (which already had the AOC name on it), do you think Savage would revolt and blow off their lucrative contract?

 

While we know AOC contracted with Colt to make 15,000 TSMGs, we do not know how many receivers were taken off the production line and set aside. We have zero reason to believe that the few Colt TSMG receivers found in the crates by Numrich represent all of these receivers taken out of the production line.

 

 

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b56/Polythemus/1916-17LewisGunbySavagelogo.png

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

You are welcome to your opinions and theories about this topic. But that is all they are - your opinions and theories. Performing original research has allowed me the luxury of documenting areas of Thompson history that were previously unknown. It also uncovers information that is incomplete and not published. There are many more stories to tell. When I find a Thompson with a Colt receiver that can be shown to have been manufactured/assembled/completed by Savage Arms in the 1940's and was sold by AOC, I will be inclined to credit your thoughts. And try to expand on the issue. Note my thoughts on what a FOIA request would reveal on S-150282. This is but one of the time consuming tasks necessary to document a Thompson variation outside the norm. Until then, it is just talk.

 

I like the Savage Quality trademark. Very nice!

 

1921A,

I don't know for certain but I doubt AOC purchased 1500 extra receivers from Colt to use as spares. By the time the last Colt rolled off the assembly line in 1922 AOC knew the Thompson gun was not going to be a quick sell. AOC had plenty of guns to sell for 18 years. I remember reading somewhere that Gordon documented AOC sold the US Marines spare parts in the 1920's and had to strip down complete guns for parts to make the sale. A review of the Colt receivers found by George Numrich would tend to indicate the spare receivers were not serial numbered. Excellent point and a good topic for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, I just purchased Colt Model 21-- NAC-4 which has far more Colt parts in it than my NAC-9. The finish is the

same as the NAC-9 but in much better shape. It appears to have been not fired much judging by the wear.

Also it was a JC Earl gun bought from him in Dec of 1998 according to the Form 3.

-Darryl

Edited by darrylta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to check my records to be sure but I believe all the early NAC Thompsons with the late Colt receivers were at one time owned by J. Curtis Earl. There was no standardization of parts on any of the NAC guns, just like on the West Hurley Thompsons. It would be impossible to determine exactly what parts were on any NAC Thompson when originally sold by Numrich Arms. Then you have 20 plus years of use by the Virginia State Police and another 20 plus years with J. Curtis Earl. Finding any Colt parts is a real plus! Congrats on obtaining NAC 4. That is one NAC I have not seen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...