Photo Favor Needed - Colt Buttstock
Posted 22 April 2004 - 10:52 AM
Posted 22 April 2004 - 02:30 PM
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.
Posted 22 April 2004 - 03:43 PM
Posted 22 April 2004 - 06:08 PM
|I wish I had a photo to post but I do not believe either was original to the gun.|
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.
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.
Posted 22 April 2004 - 06:16 PM
Posted 22 April 2004 - 07:31 PM
Posted 22 April 2004 - 08:49 PM
Posted 22 April 2004 - 09:47 PM