35 replies to this topic

[John Jr]

Here is my opinion (and I don't know everything so remember that).

The Safety and rocker are the pin style and should be the paddles ( no problem there, $80 from sarco and thats fixed).

Barrel has been replaced and that has to be the best compensator I have ever seen, plus the comp pin looks in the white, so I figure the bbl has been replaced along with the compensator. Looks mighty good and this is not any problem either.

I don't think the NAC thing is a problem, it adds character to the gun and almost some history. Do the lower and upper match?

Again, NICE GUN!

Take care

Jr

[Gunner]

Beautiful, Kyle!

[kyle]

Upper and Lower have matching SNs. Steave Wayman also believed the barrel had been replaced because it has a slightly different shading.

I undersand all these guns were rebuilt. In fact, I'm happy it was rebuilt 'cause hopefully it means the gun might have seen some action. What I don't want is a throw together bunch of off-spec spare parts that someone cobbled together 20 years after WW2 ended. I don't think that's what I have here but I frankly don't know my ass from a hole in ground in this regard.

Thanks again for posting the pics.

[TD.]

Kyle,
I believe John, Jr. is right on point. It is hard to tell from the pictures but it very well may be a re-barrel (white pin - good eye). I do wonder if the rear sight may have been upgraded from the L type to the Lyman Adjustable given the serial number. This is just a thought, I have nothing to substantiate an upgrade took place. Remember, these guns were built to fight a war, not to collect. I believe parts were installed throughout the production run as available. I do not know enough about how the rivets should look to give an opinion if I were actually looking at it. The military and acceptance markings give it character. The NAC markings have been well documented - nothing new here. I can't make out all of the markings, but I don't see anything that would cause me to worry. The Model and Serial Number markings look good. I believe the upper and lower match so this is a good sign this gun saw very little action or was involved in an arsenal rebuild program.
Any other experts want to chime in. Let's make this a learning experience for everyone.
Thanks for sharing the pictures Kyle.
I think you did ok.
Tom

[kyle]

Thanks for your comments Tom. Actually the leaf sight is correct for this serial number. The switch to the plain L sight did not occur until ~ SN 400,000 in Feb/Mar-1942.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

Here is my opinion (and I don't know everything so remember that)

John Jr,
There are some things just too painfully obvious to have to add the above disclaimer. For instance, your grandiloquent and contumelious statement:

QUOTE

[B]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.  If they have brit proofs, they were in british hands. End of story.

is sadly contradicted by no other than Frank Iannamico, as well as Smith, Cox and Hogg. The following is from "American Thunder:.

QUOTE

Guns that were made under contract for the British military were subjected to inspection and were often stamped with prolific British military marks. It is believed that British inspectors were assigned to the Savage factory in Utica, New York to inspect and stamp the Thompson guns that were being made for them under contract. British military acceptance marks were a a crown over a letter/number combination that indicated who inspected the weapon, and additional letters indicating where the inspection took place.

So not all proofed Thompson's were done at Birmingham or Enfield England. Therefore, it is not only possible, but highly probable, that not all Brit proof-marked TSMG's crossed the pond. I know Frank's book has nice pictures, but the copy is worth reading also.

[LSU Tiger]

Aurthur makes a good point. Like the "US Property" No. 4 Mk I Enfield rifles. Not all went to the UK. Nice late '28A1. I do agree that the rear sight was changed, but this could well have been done during a rebuild.

Edited by LSU Tiger, 05 May 2004 - 10:26 PM.

[John Jr]

"It is believed" That all it is too. I don't buy it, not for one second, that british inspectors sat around in the savage factory stamping guns. Again WHY would they have done this? What since would this make? I am pretty sure that Hill states in his book that there are Colt guns that have the british proofs that never left the country, I don't buy that either. Refer to page 220. Doesn't make any since, never will. No proof means someones opinion of what might have happened. British proof marks will always remain a mystery for this reason.

Cya Kronos

John Jr

[John Jr]

Sight is correct for SN range. Besides they would not have "retrofitted" a late 28 with a Lyman Adjustable, they would have just placed an L on it. I seriously doubt that this gun was rebuilt by the military. With the later SN and by the time the gun would have needed rebuilding there was no care given to matching lowers and uppers. I would rather not venture outside of Thompsons on the british thing, cause then we get into "NOT ENGLISH MAKE."

Anyway

Be proud of your gun Kyle!

Jr

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

John Jr,
I am sure you were your high school's most incredulous student when it came to accepting facts that didn't square with your tunnel vision. But low and behold, you have flip flopped in less than 2 hours, like the contemporary JFK, from "If they have Brit proofs, they were in British hands. End of story." to "British proof marks will always remain a mystery for this reason. "....... It's a story?...... It's a mystery? ......No...... It's supercilious JJ and his version of truth, justice and the American way.

Would your world end tomorrow if you discovered that your Thompson never left the U.S. during WWII?

[John Jr]

QUOTE

Would your world end tomorrow if you discovered that your Thompson never left the U.S. during WWII?

Mine is the real deal. No worries there.

By the way AF, why don't you try to contribute something to the board rather than sitting behind your computer and hiding like a little school girl. Help out a board member instead of getting banned like you have 3 times before. Stop going to other message boards and posting west hurleys are junk guns and not Thompsons. You need some social skills in the worst way. I have asked you time and time again to join our chat sessions. I have asked you via email to call me on the phone if you needed help in getting into the chat sessions. You never replied. You hide behind a board name, won't tell anyone anything about out and act like an asshole. You are not an asset to this board and you never have been. I know exactly where you are and all about your prized Navy gun, I know who you bought it from, where, when and what you paid for it. Doesn't that give you a nice warm fuzzy.

[gijive]

Kyle,

Nice looking gun! The gun appears to be just what was stated earlier. It was imported after WWII by Numrich and marked as such. The stamping under the serial number might be importer marks. They were required to marked in some fashion by the concern importing the gun. Do the stampings under the serial number say N.A.O. or N.A.C.?

The gun appears to have been rebuilt at some point by a US arsenal, Numrich, the dealer or a prior owner. This is evident by the replacement of the flat paddle-style selector switches with the later M1/M1A1 type. A Savage gun with that serial number range would have the earlier style smooth selectors. The gun has a nice finish and nice wood. It's a keeper!

[kyle]

Saw my gun today. This was almost certainly a British gun. What I thought was a "B" is most likely the British crown marking. This would also fit with the theory that Numrich imported this gun from overses- thus the NAC suffix.

There are no US Inspector marks on the gun. There MAY be a flaming bomb stamp but it really looks more like an "8" than the actual ordnance mark. Without any "RLB" initials visible anywhere, I just don't believe it is an ordnace mark.

The gun has what looks to be a brand new barrel. It is a distinctly different shading than the rest of the gun, which has a brown shading to its color. The bolt, Blish lock, and actuator are all Savage but the actuator knob is smooth. I think it should be knurled. The bolt may be unused based on the condition of the bolt face and extractor. The wood is in excellent condiditon. The forend is stamped "M" for Modine.

All in all, it is a very nice example of '28A1 Lend-Lease Thompson. That frankly was not what I thought I was buying and I am pretty disappointed. Not because the gun isn't in excellent condition but because I had an entirely different picture of what I was buying.

Seller has offerred to refund money but after looking so long for any gun, I just don't have the heart to go through all that again.

Thanks again to everyone for your help in understanding the history of this gun.

[TSMGguy]

Kyle,

Congratulations on a great gun! Mine is virtually identical to yours, Sn. 339xxxNAC. I believe it to be an absolutely original mid production run M1928A1. It differs from yours only (that I can see) in that it has a bright bolt and plain, paddle style pivot and safety. All original WWII USGI parts. Serials match. It is very accurate, shooting precisely to the point where the sights are set. Rest easy, you're getting a great gun! Note the frosted blue on your receiver, and the subtle differences in the bluing and finish on the rest of the parts. Had it been refinished, all parts would have an identical appearance. BTW, one identical to yours was on subguns.com last year at $25,000, NIB.

Arthur has the story exactly right. The NAC marking has been thrashed on this board until it hurts. Run a search for the whole story.

Again, congratulations!

[Walter63a]

Kyle, that's a great Thompson! Unfortunately, here in New Yorkistan we are prevented, by law, from owning these beauties! I can only envy your acquisition, until I escape from totalitarian rule, and the 'gulag state.' Regards, Walter

[kyle]

QUOTE (colt21a @ May 6 2004, 09:28 PM)

kyle are you burney from florida??

No... I'm Kyle from Texas.