A Tale Of Two Slides
Posted 29 August 2003 - 10:27 PM
I have an original colt stock in hand right now and two butt stock slides. One slide come with a stock I bought from Sarco and doesn't have any markings of any kind (we'll call this the WW2 one). The other has a "S" and a serial number on the bottom (we'll call this the Savage one).
They are slighly different sizes.
The Savage will fit nicely into the colt stock. The WW2 will not. This will become evident when you look at the measurments. While the Savage does fit into place, it is taller than the channel in the wood and it sits up outside of the stock. This would not influence its ability to slide onto the frame, but it would be noticable.
Anyway, here are some measurments.
The Savage is marked with an "S" by it in each picture.
I didn't mark it but the savage is shorter by .03 inches from the back of the slide to the bottom part that is inletted into the stock. This is why the WW2 wont fit the colt wood.
Other noticable differences include its ability to slide onto a Numrich frame I have. The Savage won't go. At .76 inches its just a little too tight. The WW2 one slides on just fine.
The Savage also has a bevel on the front of the slide rails that the WW2 does not.
I wish I had taken the time to make measurments a while back when I had a colt slide and Damons both in hand. They both fit a colt stock (not the one I have the loan of now) perfectly, but I didn't measure them up against my WW2 slide and didn't have the savage slide in hand then.
If you have too much time on your hands and want to fondle your tsmg a little, I'd be interested in knowing how some of your slides measure up.
While all this might not mean a whole lot to many of you, it does reinforce my notion that I absolutely have to have the slide in hand that I'm making the stock for.
Butt plates are a whole nother story. Many next time.
Posted 30 August 2003 - 12:34 AM
Posted 30 August 2003 - 06:38 AM
I had similar results trying to slide a 1928A1 stock onto 1921 frames. It got even more interesting when I tried the 1928 WH !! Some were tight while others wouldn't fit at all. If I recall correctly the 21 stocks would fit both the A1 and the WH frames but not visa versa. Lower frames and and receivers of differant models also presented a problem matching up...some did....some didn't.
Sounds like you and I had way too much time on our hands recently but enjoyed every minute of it !!
Posted 30 August 2003 - 08:46 AM
It's pretty easy too cut the stock to your buttplate.
Just screw it on to the stock and start fileling the wood to meet the plate.
It's quite theraputic and looks great when your done.
Oh yeah, Deerslayer, This is great research info! Excellent illustrations and all of that.
It would be a noble project if folks would measure thier slides when they get a chance and perhaps we could get a database of manufacturers and frames that interchange/ or at least maximum tolerance limitations on different pieces.
This could become part of a wider online database right here on the forum
to do with the different Thompson parts and related items... I mean basically it is an endangered species,
it would be great to start recording the little things that get some of us excited.
Posted 30 August 2003 - 09:10 AM
Posted 30 August 2003 - 09:27 AM
Yeah, I think it would function on all kinds of levels.
Just the fact that Damon could talor his slides by frame if he needed too is one.
But the possibilities are great with the power of this forum.
It's kind of like a "Census" taking program where we each would record the little idiosyncracies
of our particular items and log them into thier respective areas on the database. I mean that's using the power of the internet, realtime data at your fingertips.
I'm sure Frank and Nick would love this!!
Posted 30 August 2003 - 10:33 AM
And, as Zamm pointed out, I agree the wood was almost universally matched to particular hardware. I recently had two buttocks, identical to the eye. One took a buttplate like a glove, but no slide plate. The other vice versa! I guess back then the ability to cut and shape a piece of wood with consistency was limited. I bet much of it was finished by hand, no? I'd even expect to find glaring differences (or wide tolerance) in even the metal parts.
Posted 30 August 2003 - 10:53 AM
meet the buttplate! I bought the buttplate from Phil A. new in the wrapper & really wanted to use it (I have a PK reworked WH M1 Thompson that shoots better than my S&W 9mm pistol!) .
I haven't had any failure to feed since PK worked on it last winter! Thanks to this board is how I met him!
Posted 30 August 2003 - 10:54 AM
|I recently had two buttocks, identical to the eye. One took a buttplate like a glove, but no slide plate. The other vice versa!|
Chris, I'm glad you have two "buttocks"!
Most of us should be so lucky!!
Seriously, I have the same thing going on with two stocks and hardware. One would take the slide but not any of three buttplates I had, the other would take any of the buttplates but no slide.
I settled on shaping the stock to the buttplate and was quite happy with the custom finnished outcome.
PS Must, yeah you will be quite happy with the results.
Posted 30 August 2003 - 01:23 PM
I don't think the ability to cut and shape wood with consistency was limited in the 1940's. I have owned several buttstocks over the years and the curve at the rear where the butt plates are fitted usually differs from manufacturer to manufactuer. I believe the buttplates were hand fitted to the individual stocks, that's why the early ones were serial numbered.
The later unnumbered butt plates still need to be fitted in some cases depending the on the stock manufacturer. I believe the difference in tolerances is due to wartime production, i.e. get as many out as possible, as opposed to any lack of skill or technical expertise of the period. Woodworking has been around for centuries and in my opinion the quality and craftsmanship of older gunstocks is much better than the stuff made today.
The differences in slide atachments also varies from manufactuer to manufactuer. The only trouble I have ever had is that the stock itself sometimes varies in the cut where the slide fits. The wood sometimes is highr than the rails of the slide. I have seen some stock slides shimmed under the metal to raise the rails. I usually just lightly sand the wood to reduce the height of the area around the meltal slide and bring the wood down to the level of the slide rails.
I haven't had a slide that didn't fit. It is usually the wood that rubs against the underside of the grip frame making adjustments necessary.