Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nac-45 Pictures


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#21 RichFitz

RichFitz

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts

Posted 11 July 2004 - 12:05 AM

QUOTE
As far as your M1 having different internal features than a production M1, it would seem that since your Dough Richardson M1 production designed bolt works fine in the receiver, there can't be any significant alterations.


Actually I was just looking for something that could id the receiver as a prototype or NAC build. A mark or special milling of some kind.

Also can anyone answer the questions posed earlier-

1. Does anyone know if NAC had a history of making the key hole slot charging handle?
2. Were any commercial guns built with a key hole charging slot by any manufacture? So far the only other sighting is the M1 Prototype in American Thunder.

As an incentive to the Colt guys to speak up -here is NAC45's big brother and he wants to know...

user posted image







  • 0

#22 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 11 July 2004 - 09:44 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Jul 11 2004, 08:39 AM)
...and what a great photo. You got the lighting, focus, depth of field...everything just right. Nice work. Camera?

I wholeheartedly agree, what a great pic. Put it on my wallpaper. Oh, the gun's mighty purdy too. tongue.gif
  • 0

#23 philasteen

philasteen

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1118 posts

Posted 11 July 2004 - 03:49 PM

RichFitz, a FOIA request for the original Form 2 or equivalent registration of the gun might help reveal new info.
  • 0

#24 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2004 - 08:48 PM

There is one thing we can all agree on - NAC Thompsons bring out a lot of conversation and speculation. That is because these Thompsons have not been researched to the same degree as the Cleveland prototypes, the Colts and World War II Thompsons. Rich, thanks for the original Form 4 information. It is exactly as I thought it would be. I believe you may have to go to Numrich Arms to get the rest of the story on NAC 45. A Freedom of Information (FIOA) request may also produce some information.

I still believe it is a prototype receiver based on the location of the "bolt retracting handle disassembly hole." I found another picture of a prototype M1 on Page 49 of Thomas Nelson's "The World's Submachine Guns." I noticed no one has any information on Numrich Arms Corporation making M1 or M1A1 Thompsons prior to the introduction of the West Hurley model in 1985. I don't think Numrich Arms Corporation made a few receivers in the early 1960's that happened to be just like the prototypes made by Savage Arms. The only speculation is how complete was the M1 receiver that later became NAC 45 when it was found by Numrich Arms in 1951. I think the receiver was complete except for the "M1A1 and N.A.C. - 45" markings. All the other markings appear to be roll stamped on the receiver. The M1A1 and N.A.C. - 45 markings are the normal bad Numrich Arms stamping as found on all NAC Thompsons. My opinion on this could change if I could see the markings on a prototype M1 Thompson. None of the prototype pictures are clear enough to make out the markings or to see if the prototypes are even serial numbered. I think the word "Calibre" supports my position this is a prototype M1 receiver. Colt, Savage and Auto-Ordnance used the word "Calibre" until the M1 Thompson went into production. It could have been a prototype receiver that was never used, it could have been a receiver used in interchangeability tests, it could have been a receiver used in destruction tests, etc. We just don't know. We also don't know how many of these receivers were found by Numrich Arms in 1951.

The answer to the Numrich Arms Corporation serial numbers is quite simple. When the crates were opened and complete machine guns (at least the prototypes) and complete or near complete receivers were discovered, George probably called the IRS and said he had just purchased a bunch of machine guns and needed to register them. The IRS may have even sent some one out to West Hurley given the number of guns George was reporting and the tax dollars in question. In any event, the IRS had no problem in registering the guns and assessing the tax. One part of the registration process was completing the required forms. And one thing that is required is a serial number. I would guess that someone came up with the bright idea to number the guns/receivers that did not have serial numbers with the prefix NAC and begin with number one. This was not rocket science; this all happened in 1951 when no one cared about Thompsons and the price of one was cheap. One thing is for sure; the receivers were not going to be registered without a serial number! I don't think any of the prototypes/Model 1919 were given the NAC markings - these guns were probably just registered with the number on the receiver (and later given to West Point Museum). It is the unserialed guns/receivers that were given the NAC serial numbers - by hand. Anyone here that has hand stamped numbers and letters on metal can attest that doing it perfectly like a roll-stamp is quite difficult, if not impossible. I would guess that all the guns and receivers found were lined up on a table. I would also guess one of George's employees just went down the line of receivers doing the best job he (or maybe she) could. It appears the Colt receivers were first based on what is known about NAC 1, NAC 2, NAC 3 and NAC 5. AZDoug has NAC 15 and believes it to be an unmarked Colt receiver; I think he is right. NAC 17 is definitely a Savage receiver. Now we have NAC 45 - which is an M1 receiver. I would guess some of the board members have a NAC Thompson (or two) that has not been reported and would add something to all this. I don't think Numrich Arms Corporation ever added the Colt or Savage name to any receiver it produced from scratch. I would like to see a known Thompson manufactured from scratch by Numrich Arms Corporation prior to the introduction of the West Hurley models. Does anyone out there have one?

Again, Rich - great Thompson. George Numrich was pretty knowledgeable about guns. I doubt he defaced a true historic gun for a couple of hundred bucks given how he donated all the Thompson prototypes to West Point. It is quite possible the picture of the M1 prototype in Frank and Thomas Nelson's book may be one George gave to West Point. I think NAC 45 was an unassembled receiver that was not serial numbered when hand marked N.A.C.- 45 to register the receiver with the IRS in 1951. Please keep us informed on the results of your research.

Frank – Do you have any close-up pictures of the M1 Thompson prototype shown in your great book?



  • 0

#25 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 July 2004 - 09:39 PM

TD,
Until Frank can shed light on the prototype M1 receiver markings and identification number, it is speculation just how Rich’s engraved TSMG, and the other similar examples he says are of the same configuration, came into being.

But, it is not true that Savage/AO continued with the “Calibre” designation on any other prototype that came after the 1928 A1 model. As stated earlier, the October 1941 Savage 9mm TSMG stamped “S-1“ had the "Caliber" spelling and it was made five months before the first of any M1 was completed. The ambidextrous experimental M1 TSMG also used the spelling "Caliber.” That is a pretty good indication that the old spelling was abandoned in favor of the new by the time of the February/March appearance of ANY type M1.

We know from a board member that the Maguire boxes contained Savage/AO roll dies/stampings since he recently uncovered some WWII period stamps from the West Hurley “factory.” So Numrich did have the ability to use the 1928 A1 markings on Rich’s M1 if he chose to do so. If Rich’s M1 was a complete prototype receiver with all the markings, just like the one that resides in the West Point Museum, why would Numrich, who knew exactly what the significance of this gun was, morph it (as well as the others) into M1A1 presentation models?

  • 0

#26 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2882 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 July 2004 - 06:34 AM

Arthur,
I think it is speculation to think that the receiver of Rich's Thompson was not a prototype M1 receiver prior to assembly into a complete gun by Numrich Arms Corporation. I base this on the known purchase in 1951 by Numrich Arms Corporation of all the assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. and the location of the bolt retracting handle disassembly hole. The markings do not really factor into my opinion at this point because I do not know what the markings are on a known original prototype. I also find it interesting that no one to date has any information that Numrich Arms Corporation produced any M1 type receivers prior to the introduction of the West Hurley M1 Thompson. Of course, in this particular case, I would want to see evidence of a M1 receiver produced by Numrich Arms Corporation prior to July 1963. Speculation is thinking Numrich Arms made up a few M1 receivers based on the prototype design. It is well known that in the 1950's and 1960's machine gun dealers had problems selling the "gangster guns" - and that was the main market for the Thompson. I just can't fathom why Numrich Arms would spend time, energy and money producing a M1 receiver from scratch when no market existed and plenty of production M1 Thompsons were available for purchase. However, I can see how they would take the time to assemble and make marketable a previously registered receiver they had in stock since 1951. We just have a different way of thinking about George Numrich and the NAC Thompsons. But that is good because so much is still unknown.

You’re right about the 1928 9mm Savage prototype and the word Caliber. I agree a change in the markings was taking place at Savage during this time period. As to the ambidextrous M1 Thompson, that is just an early production Thompson (Serial No. 307) that was converted so I don't think the markings on it are relevant for this discussion.

I like your remark about other similar examples - something that Rich has referred to earlier. Anyone out there ever seen an M1 Thompson like Rich's? Perhaps, without the engraving...or is this a one of a kind Thompson. A lot of Thompson experts look at this board. The lack of comments speaks volumes to me.


  • 0

#27 RichFitz

RichFitz

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 July 2004 - 12:15 PM

Thanks for all the input guys. To quote Sherlock Homes- "once you have eliminated the impossiable, whatever remains however improbable, must be the truth.

QUOTE
I like your remark about other similar examples - something that Rich has referred to earlier. Anyone out there ever seen an M1 Thompson like Rich's?


Actually the person who said they saw an NAC engraved and polished wood like this was about 4 years ago on the old thompson boards that were replaced by these ones (anyone know how to go back to the old locked boards?)

If I recall correctly the version he saw was actually a 1928 with vertical foregrip but the engraving and wood looked the same. He was the only one to respond that he had see a gun like it and he explained the sales sample story. I have no first hand knowledge if this story is true but sounds reasonable enough.

Again workers at NAC who did the transfer had no information on the gun's history when it was sold in 1963. The owner asked several times though (he had a romantic though it might have been made for some El Presidente who was deposed before the order was sent )

Edited by RichFitz, 12 July 2004 - 12:16 PM.

  • 0

#28 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 12 July 2004 - 12:17 PM

Old Thompson Board

  • 0

#29 RichFitz

RichFitz

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts

Posted 12 July 2004 - 01:49 PM

The old thompson board is not "old" enough -it only goes back to 2003. It must have been the one before that- Post was titled something like "has anyone ever seen a thompson like this"

  • 0

#30 RichFitz

RichFitz

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts

Posted 07 October 2004 - 10:35 PM

UPDATE: Got back my results from the Freedom of information act. They had every bit of paperwork on my Colt Thompson including the original entry into the registry but the for NAC-45 just the last two form 4s which I already had.

All I can say is the NFA registry must be really messed up, I am no further forward but I wanted to let anyone who was interested how it went

Edited by RichFitz, 07 October 2004 - 10:36 PM.

  • 0