Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Photo Favor Needed - Colt Buttstock


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1 philasteen

philasteen

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1118 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 10:52 AM

Can someone help me settle a debate with someone and post a photo of a 1921/28 original Colt buttstock? In particular, a close-up of the anchor mark and the number would be most helpful. Much obliged.
  • 0

#2 The Moor

The Moor

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 111 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:30 PM

Is the debate over an actual stock with a peculiar marking? If so could you post a picture of the anchor mark that is being debated? Also, what number are you referring to?

The reason that I ask is because I recently had a similar discussion with a C3 dealer from whom I had purchased an original 1921 Colt stock set. The dealer informed me that someone had fitted a sling swivel to the stock but that it was done professionally. There was a three day inspection/return priviledge but I have not received my refund yet. Yes, I sent the stock set back and will attempt to explain why.

All parts were all very nice with only minor dings. They smelled of fresh oil.

The pistol grip was identical in shape to the grip on my M1 and M1928A1 and not at all shaped like the grip on my 1921AC. There were no markings on the pistol grip but there was what appeared to be some type of dark spot where you normally find the letter marking on the WWII grips.

The foregrip was really nice and looked in almost new condition. The wood was real grainy and rough. My Colt foregrip is smooth to the touch.

The stock attachment metal had the nickeled latch and the correct latch button. A number had been stamped on the underside of the attachment metal that matched the number stamped on the end of the butt (under the metal buttplate) and on the metal buttplate itself. The font of the numbers on the underside of the stock attachment and in the wood of the stock were not the same as the font of the numbers stamped into the metal of the buttplate. The metal buttplate had about 60% of the blue finish remaining (the wood of the stock was about 99.5% with the rought grainy surface as the foregrip) and had the R stamping on the underside of it as well. The top screw for the buttplate was not original Colt. The supposed anchor marking at the toe of the stock was not an anchor marking at all. There was a complete circle where the anchor hooks are supposed to be and the shaft of the anchor was similar to the original markings but was slightly longer.

I immediately called the dealer and told him of my findings. He insisted that he had removed this wood set from a Colt Thompson in the mid 1980s and knew that it was all original. I dissagreed and offerred him a lesser amount than I had sent him as the only Colt parts that I could identify were the nickeled latch and button on the attachment metal and the metal buttplate. He declined and said that he would gladly honor the 3 day inspection. I sent the set back the next day (8 days ago) and have yet to receive the expected refund although he says it is "on the way".

Just wondering if your debate might be over a similar "anchor marking". Maybe even the same stock or set.
  • 0

#3 philasteen

philasteen

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1118 posts

Posted 22 April 2004 - 03:43 PM

Moor that's an interesting story with a couple of helpful tips for me. The debate I am in is over two stocks each on a Colt Thompson in a certain arms museum. Neither appeared to have the anchor or number stamped on them. I wish I had a photo to post but I do not believe either was original to the gun. I'd like the photo to resolve the debate with a friend of mine who believes they were original. Unfortunately I only own an M1A1 (for now) so I can't use my own to settle the debate.
  • 0

#4 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 April 2004 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE
I wish I had a photo to post but I do not believe either was original to the gun.



Phil,
There is no way to prove whether a buttstock is original issue to a Colt TSMG, one can only determine that it is the correct type for a Colt TSMG. There are some examples of Remington/Colt stocks that do not have the anchor stamp. This explanation would be the same for those Colt TSMG's that do not have the "JHB" stamp marking. Naturally, the presence of the anchor is peace of mind considering what Colt TSMG parts are worth these days.

The Moor,
It is pretty dfifficult to simulate 80-years of age on Colt wood. If the grips look like they were made yesterday, they probably were.

  • 0

#5 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 22 April 2004 - 06:16 PM

Here are some photos of the marks you are looking for. Arthur is correct, however, that not every buttstock had the visible anchor. Many were sanded off over the years when refinished. The numbers you are looking for also would not be visible unless you removed the butt plate.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image




  • 0

#6 nobra81

nobra81

    Long Time Member

  • Board Donor
  • 87 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mississippi
  • Interests:Thompson's-------- all class 3

Posted 22 April 2004 - 07:31 PM

I know that at least some of the savage 1928a1s also had the numbers on the buttstock. Because mine does. So you can have #'s on the buttstock and not have colt wood.


Steve
  • 0

#7 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 22 April 2004 - 08:49 PM

Yup! My 1928 has numbers on the buttplate and buttstock.

Jr
  • 0

#8 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2421 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 22 April 2004 - 09:47 PM

You guys are correct. All the early WWII buttstocks were also numbered. In addition, unlike the Colt buttstocks, the slide attachment metal was also numbered. The stamp font size is generally smaller than that on the Colt buttstocks, however. Most metal parts don't match on the buttstocks any longer due to rebuild programs during WWII. I had an early Savage all matching numbered buttstock that I sold a couple of years ago. I should have held on to it:-)
  • 0