Urgent Help Requested W/ Serial Number Issue
Posted 05 May 2004 - 09:46 AM
Does anybody have a clue to what this gun is? I'll try and post a picture later today. I'd appreciate any help/advice possible as I'm puking my cookies right now.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 09:51 AM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 10:15 AM
I am in the process of buying this gun. The gun has a serial # S xxxxxx NAC. The NAC is stamped very lightly following the savage serial number.
I have been told Numrich Arms put these together from parts they had and registered the guns.
I also would be interested in comments...
Posted 05 May 2004 - 10:28 AM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:11 AM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:19 AM
Nothing to puke about. If the receiver and grip frame serial numbers match it probably was an original gun and not made from leftover parts.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:23 AM
Well, you are of course correct, but I guess the confusion might lie with the word "assembled." Some might have been complete while others required additional componets to complete. The presence of a British proof does not necessarily mean that the gun ever left the U.S. though.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:38 AM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 11:57 AM
I'll get to see the gun tomorrow. It is my understanding that the "US Model" has not been ground off and that the gun wears the appropriate US military inspector marks. I don't know if there are any British proof marks.
My local dealer, Steave Wayman, spoke to Nick Tilota about the gun. Like yall, Nick confirmed that came through Numrich. Now this gun has matching upper and lower serial numbers. If the gun left the Savage factory as a complete gun, entered the US ordnance system, was acquired by Numrich after the war and refurbished prior to sale to police deprtment or something, then I'm fine with gun. And isn't that the most likely story. Nick apparently implied to my dealer that Numrich "assembled" these guns but I still don't think he means "assembled" in the same sense as what they did with the Colt receiver and parts. In either case, Nick didn't feel the gun's value was compromised in any way. Steave agreed.
I'll post a picture tomorrow.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 04:11 PM
|The presence of a British proof does not necessarily mean that the gun ever left the U.S. though. |
I read that statement somewhere too, perhaps in Hill's book, but I think thats a crock of shit. One question: WHY would the US or anyone in the US stamp british proof marks on a gun (with british roll stamps, I might add)in this country that was never over there. The british stamped the guns when they were done using them and PRIOR to shipping them back. So I question the validity of the statement that there are guns that are british proofed that never left the US. I bet one of our Thompson experts saw a gun that was brit proofed and assumed it never left the country or was told it never left the country, but couldn't really prove it.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:18 PM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:36 PM
Yah. It is probably the fanciful tales cooked up by Ian Hogg, W.H.E. Smith, R. Cox, etc. Just because a Brit-proofed TSMG never saw the hold of a liberty ship, troop ship, or the bloomin Queen Mary, doesn't mean that the tiny character marks added on this side of the pond diminish the perceived romanticism of the gun.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:41 PM
AF, If they have brit proofs, they were in british hands. End of story.
Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:44 PM
Posted 05 May 2004 - 08:53 PM
Okay guys...concentrate on the next to last picture. What's this guns story?