Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

What Makes A M1928 An A1?


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 10:26 AM

Trying to find rhyme or reason when dealing with U.S. military procurement regs and their prosaic approach to hardware nomenclature is a pursuit for those who find it rewarding to challenge Occam's Razor.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 31 July 2010 - 12:52 PM.

  • 0

#22 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 04:35 PM

So, then, all the history of US military nomenclature does not apply to the Thompson? Why is this gun such an exception?

BTW, the "A1", "A2", etc, nomenclature still is in use (check out the Abrahms). It was even true for the M1 Thompson (that is, the M1A1 had definitive differences with the M1).

Simplistic answers work for the simple-minded. If you don't know, that's OK (shoot, I don't know, and don't claim to know, which is why I posted my queries here, hoping to find some true RKIs who could assist.) Please don't waste the time of folks trying to figure out some history with simplistic shrugs.

It seems Kyle's original question has stumped this panel of august experts.


  • 0

#23 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 06 March 2004 - 04:50 PM

QUOTE (Hurridale @ Mar 6 2004, 04:35 PM)
So, then, all the history of US military nomenclature does not apply to the Thompson? Why is this gun such an exception?

BTW, the "A1", "A2", etc, nomenclature still is in use (check out the Abrahms). It was even true for the M1 Thompson (that is, the M1A1 had definitive differences with the M1).

Simplistic answers work for the simple-minded. If you don't know, that's OK (shoot, I don't know, and don't claim to know, which is why I posted my queries here, hoping to find some true RKIs who could assist.) Please don't waste the time of folks trying to figure out some history with simplistic shrugs.

It seems Kyle's original question has stumped this panel of august experts.

i gave you the answer,article 29 page,46 chapter 22 line 48 bylaw 62 subparagrapher filer 16 above line 28 subsection 3d,

it will be known as of this date:april 1,1943 all 1928 thompson's will be stamped,per designate 1928A1....and in the manner of procurement,whether to be gov.office,municipality,u.s.army,marine,coast guard,or police agency,or prison facility.federal or state government.



thats the way it is ,i like it..ron
  • 0

#24 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 05:24 PM

Ron,

Thanks for the reference. Unfortunately, your April 1, '43 date does not explain the 1940 "U.S. 1928 A1" nomenclature.

Could you please state which document you are referencing?

Maybe it's an April's Fool joke to you, but some folks are more interested in history than promoting their own arrogance.

Why is there such arrogance over a legitimate question? This board, and this historic firearm, deserve better.
  • 0

#25 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 06 March 2004 - 05:41 PM

Hurridale,

Are you being serious about the question stumping the Board? In my opinion the question has been answered. It is called a 1928A1 because that is what the military decided to call it. If you are looking for some definitive date, person, feature change or documentation on the rationale for using the A1 suffix, it isn't going to happen.

When the changed the design of the gun in 1942, why didn't they follow the original designation of using the year of the change and call it a Model 1942 or Model 1942A or Model 1942A1 or Model 1942M1 or Model 1942M1A or Model 1942M1A1? I don't know, it's because they didn't plain and simple, they decided to call it an M1.

I really don't see what is so difficult to understand about this issue.
  • 0

#26 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 06:14 PM

GI Jive,

Yes, I am serious about this question stumping this august board of self-proclaimed RKIs. So far the only explanation I've been able to glean from all these replies is, "Because they said so". Hardly an "explanation" at all.

FYI, the reason why the M1 was not called the "M1928A2" or similar is because sometime between 1928 and the adoption of the M1, the military changed its nomenclature from the year of adoption to a serial designation (I don't recall the exact date, and am willing to admit my ignorance, unlike so-called "RKIs" on this board). I've read that the Thompson was the last small arm designated with the year of adoption as part of its nomenclature. (Hence the "1911", "1861 Springfield", "1898 Krag-Jorgenson", "1903 Springfield", etc).

Yes, I AM looking for "some definitive date, person, feature change or documentation on the rationale for using the A1 suffix". That is the nature of historical research!

If you don't know, then FINE! I'm happy with your ignorance! Just please don't state that because you don't KNOW of a reason, then there WAS no reason! Those are two different things.
  • 0

#27 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 06:26 PM

Hurridale,
Just a hunch, but I bet Will Rodgers never met you. If you don't like the A1 designation on your Thompson because you can't explain its significance to your complete satisfaction, then I suggest grinding it off.

  • 0

#28 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 06:30 PM

Arthur,

Will Rogers suggested grinding numbers off Thompsons? When did he do that?

If you are referring, dear Arthur, to Will's comment about "I never met a man I didn't like", and you are taking the chance to say you don't like me, well then, based on other comments on this board, I consider myself in good company.

So, what IS the difference between a Model of 1928 and a US 1928A1? I'm still looking, Sir Arthur the Omniscient.

Edited by Hurridale, 06 March 2004 - 07:06 PM.

  • 0

#29 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 06 March 2004 - 07:07 PM

Hurridale,

Okay, I don't know why they called it an A1.

I know what a Model 1928A1 is, who made them, when they were made, what features distinguish them from other models, how they operate, how to tell if it's original, and their country of origin. I just don't know why they used that pesky military A1 designation. I don't know why they used that Model of 1928 designation either, since the gun was essentially the same as a Model of 1921. biggrin.gif
  • 0

#30 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 07:23 PM

GI Jive,

Thanks! If I ever get to the bottom of this nomenclature mess, I will post whatever I find (hopefully Kyle will do the same, if he's still with this discussion).

I feel comfortable offering to you that the 1928 designation was used because the modified 1921 was adopted for military use in 1928 (the 1911 was designed before 1911 -- but that's when the military adopted it). From what I understand of military nomenclature of the time, even if the Marines had adopted unmodified 1921s in 1928, as far as the military was concerned, they would be called "1928".

Somewhere, there's an explanation for this. Please understand that I really do not care what that explanation is! I'd just like to know WHY the same piece of ordnance went from being a "1928" to a "1928A1" (the "US" part I think I understand).

Hell, I don't care if it turns out to be a typo by some forgotten clerk in some long-abandoned procurement office! I'm just trying to figure out the WHY!

If someone tried to sell me an original WWI 1911A1, I'd call bullshit. Why does there seem to be a problem with getting clarity about the Thompson?

I still have a question about the finish. Were ALL US 1928A1s sand-blasted prior to finishing? Are any just blued, as per the Savage Commercials?

Edited by Hurridale, 06 March 2004 - 07:27 PM.

  • 0

#31 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 09:26 PM

Thanks, Phil. You are most probably right about such info never showing up. I figured if the info was out there at all, here would be a good place to check.

I still have faith that it will show up. Maybe it's parked in that same warehouse where they've got the Ark of the Covenant from "Raiders of the Lost Ark."
  • 0

#32 kyle

kyle

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 06 March 2004 - 09:34 PM

QUOTE (Hurridale @ Mar 6 2004, 07:23 PM)
...I will post whatever I find (hopefully Kyle will do the same, if he's still with this discussion).


Yeah, I'm still here- just hiding in the bomb shelter with all the nukes being lobbed back and forth.

Geez guys, next time let discuss something a little less controversial, like abortion or gun control.

Seriously, I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions. Like I stated in my original post, there was an identifiable modification which prompted the change from the M1 to the M1A1. I wasn't aware of a similar situation with the 1928/1928A1s and I guess it remains somewhat of a grey issue.

remeber folks, we're all friends here!

  • 0

#33 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 March 2004 - 10:10 PM

No worries, Kyle -- I'm glad you asked a question I've long pondered.

As for controversy, I think we can all agree on one thing: all these Savages were every bit as good as, if not better than, the original Colts wink.gif
  • 0

#34 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2004 - 12:33 AM

Hurridale,
Hope springs eternal.

  • 0

#35 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 07 March 2004 - 12:35 AM

yes april fool april 01.1943 you caught the date........what was a p-40 warhawk before it was a p-40???a aircobra???

i am glad the board finally came to a consensus.............humor is the best policy.................


and when i find that document.i will mail it to nick for posting.....................wink


you all take care now.........rON
  • 0

#36 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2004 - 09:12 AM

Ron,

I don't know if the Aircobra morphed into the P-40, but have heard pilots talk about the P-40 becoming the P-400.

That was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail...
  • 0

#37 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2415 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 07 March 2004 - 10:56 AM

Kyle and Hurridale,

Please try to quit thinking about this like a 1911 pistol becoming the 1911A1 pistol due to certain changes in features. The 1911 pistol had already been officially aopted as a standard procurement item for the US military when it was so named. Therefore, when modifications were made between the wars, it was changed to 1911A1.

Remember, the Thompson was a civillian made weapon, it's research and development weren't funded by the military and the makers of the gun unsuccessfully tried to have the military adopt it for years. Yes, small numbers of Thompsons found there way into the military through various channels. The U.S. Post Office purchased the guns that were supplied to the Marines for use in Nicaragua. The U.S. Navy purchased a few hundred in the late twenties prompting Auto-Ordnance Corporation to try marketing the gun as a 1928 Navy Model. These purchases were small and were a "limited procurement" item. The US military services hadn't officially adopted the weapon, so it obviously (at least to all the Thompson researchers I have read, anyway) wasn't given an official military designation in the table of standard issue items.

When it was officially adopted as a standard procurement item for general issue to the military services, the basic 1928 Model, with Cutts compensator, horizontal foregrip and sling swivels, was given the official military designation of 1928A1. The exact date date, piece of paper, or who signed it will probably never be found as PhilOhio so eloquently pointed out. Even if the paper is found, I seriously doubt if the explanation for the terminology used will be listed.

By the way, the 1928A1 Model was patterned after the Colt made 1921 Model that Auto Ordnance Corporation marketed as the US Navy Model of 1928. It wasn't patterned after the Savage made 1928 Model. Savage just happened to be the Auto Ordnance Corp. sub-contractor that was making the gun when the military officially adopted it.


  • 0

#38 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:05 AM

Thanks, GI Jive.
  • 0

#39 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3479 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 07 March 2004 - 11:33 AM

QUOTE (Hurridale @ Mar 7 2004, 09:12 AM)
Ron,

I don't know if the Aircobra morphed into the P-40, but have heard pilots talk about the P-40 becoming the P-400.

That was a P-40 with a Zero on its tail...

and it's sad to know probably the only flying zero around is in calif.museum,and not many p-40's still left............and aircobra's is anybodie's.guess.............

how times change...............ron
  • 0

#40 Bob

Bob

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 699 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wa. and AZ.

Posted 07 March 2004 - 03:03 PM

Hey, you guys talking about aircraft....

That I know a little about, the Curtiss P-40 started out as the Hawk 75 or P-36 then turbo'ed as the P-37 then became the Hawk 81 or XP-40 in 1938. The P40D was also sold to the UK and became known as the Kittyhawk I. The USAAC bought the same version but called it the Warhawk as well as subsequent versions up to the P-40N model. End of series.

The Bell P-39 Aircobra was a totally seperate design that failed in it's fighter role but was outstanding in the ground attack role, and was the first with tricycle gear in 1939. Model produced up to the P-39Q then in 1944 became the P-63 King Cobra after basically being built as a new aircraft design. USSR got most of the production ground attack role.

biggrin.gif
  • 0