17 replies to this topic

[deerslayer]

I did have a post earlier about the slight differences between a Savage and my WW2 unknown maker butt stock attachment assembly but I'll redue the photo of that here and add another photo.
The savage is noted with the S, the other is the WW2 produced one I bought from Sarco.

I finally got a buttstock attachment assembly from Damon in hand at the same time as a colt.


The colt one is on the right.

Both of these are very very close. Overall length, width, distance from the screw or bolts holes all the same. There is the slightest of differences on the slot where the frame slides in. It is cut .02 inches higher on Damon’s than on the colt, and its .02 inches wider inside. All other measurements are the same. I checked the fit of both on a original colt stock and they both fit the same.
Wanted to add this to the font of knowledge floating around out there.

Nice work Damon.
Dan

[PK.]

Dan,

What leads you to believe that the unmarked slide you got from SARCO is WWII produced, let alone GI (which is implied only)? The variances, missing features and lack of marking would tend to argue otherwise.

Did you mean to say that the difference between Damon’s slide and the Colt was .02 or .002? At .02 it would be hard to say ”they both fit the same”.

No flame, just curious.

[deerslayer]

I was just guessing that the assembly that I bought from Sarco was some sort of WW 2 production. If anybody can recognize the maker, it would be nice to know. Its not a pot metal one so what is left?

The fit I was refering to was the fit inside the butt stock (wood to metal). I don't have a plethora of receivers to try sliding the things on to so can't really comment there.
Dan

[LIONHART]

Sometime ago, I purchased a complete '28 Stock from Sarco. And the Slide was unmarked, but RED! It was not pleasing, and the Buttplate was an inch too short! Bad situation. I ended up returning said Stock. Sarco, I must confess, was very speedy in sending a refund. I suspected that it may have been a WH Slide, as I owned several that were Red, and a few WH Magazine Catches that were also Red in color. But at the same time, I've owned Blued Unmarked WH Slides, that had no traces of any color change. Dan, could it be a WH produced part??? How is the overall quality? As a side note: I only purchased one Slide from Sarco, and I won't ever again. The other Slides mentioned above, I obtained from the "Old" Auto-Ordnance, West Hurley. I never had any color differences with WW2 or Colt Production Slides that I've owned. Not now, or in the past.

[PK.]

Red normally indicates a steel casting alloy with to much silicon. If I had that slide in hand Dan, I could tell much more by “reading” it. It is doubtful that it is GI, however.

[deerslayer]

Here is an end view with the colt on the left and Damon's on the right. The .02 differences I mentioned are illustrated.



PK,One of these days I'll have to send you my slide, it would satisfy a little of my curiosity to know who made it.
Dan

[TommyGunner]

Thanks for pointing that out Dan.

Hmmm...we built this off of a Colt slide provided by Merle. There was some changes made to take some wiggle out of the stock, (everyone tells me the originals fit loosely) but I do not see how those differences you pointed out could make the slide fit tighter to the frame. Could you possibly provide measurements of the width of the channel? Also have you droped it on a frame to see if it fits tightly? Would any one else be willing to provide these dimentions for their Colt slide to further compare? Thanks again for the good input!

Damon

[PK.]

In lue of a print, prior to making my prototype I measured a Colt and a 6 other military slides, then compared the numbers to the frame drawings to arrive at some figures that I felt would be representative and would give a proper fit on all guns. That prototype has fit nicely every TSMG that has come through the shop since and is closely represented by the numbers shown in the Colt photo.

Reverse engineering requires a lot of samples. Colt is not the last word, these were all made to a tolerance to insure interchangeability. Doping out the tolerance without the drawing is the challenge.

[deerslayer]

Damon,
I think you'be done pretty good work. Just wanted to share it with everyone.
Dan

[SecondAmend]

Frame channel and lug dimensions would be nice to see what the "sensitivity analysis" and the potential for stackup tolerance issues of slide to frame fit may be. As was stated, a statistically significant sample size is desirable for both slides and frames.

[Waffen Und Bier]

Side channels on my military 1928 stock slide with British markings aren't as "tall" as the one on my '21 Colt stock.

[Earle]

My West Hurley 28 slide was red in color and non-magnetic....Damon's replacement is a beautiful piece of work and fit right on my buttstock and frame. Changed the whole feel of the gun when the stock wobble was gone!

Earle

[SamG]

Hello... I haven't visited this board in some time(well I've lurked a couple times) just been busy I guess. Can someone fill me in on "Damon's" buttstock slide? Looks good. Did a search for Damon and didn't find him.
Thanks, I plan to get back to my old habit of checking in 16 times a day(well maybe 12)

PS After posting I see I am a "new member" I used to be an RKI !

[Motorcar]

Go to "TommyGunner.com" for his slides and other fun stuff

[Grey Crow]

The stock slide I got from Damon, fits like a glove compared to the alloy one that came with the 28 stock from GunParts. After installing Damon's slide it was more like a bolted on stock no wobble at all. I did need to alter the slide adapter and open up the channel on the stock slide a hair.

The superior quality of Damon's (TommyGunner.com) is far, far greater than the alloy.

[TommyGunner]

Thanks Grey Crow, Earle, Deerslayer and Motorcar, thanks for the good words I am glad you are happy with your slides.

PK...I agree that the broader a reference base the better. There is obviously a bit of difference between slides even by the same manufactuer...tooling wearing out as you go...etc. When we built the slides we did reference more than just one when we made them. IMHO there is no one difinitive dimention that will fit all frames...(Doug Richardson confirmed this in a phone conversation a while back) for the ones that do not, we will cheerfully hand fit for free. To date only one earlier slide has come back for fitting and we modified the dimentions to accomodate that variation. Since then our slides have been placed on many, many 21/28 frames (many are happily owned by respected members of this board) and have had neither a complaint, fitting or return. (only Grey Crow added some good wisdom regarding fitting to the wider frame on a semi requires slight fitting of the channel) As a mater of fact all who own so far have said the wiggle was removed completely. And this was good! better than we even shot for! I wish you had one to look at...would make a beleiver out of you. I appreciate your valuable imput and have a great respect for your opinion.

Damon

[PK.]

Damon, I fear you have misunderstood my post. You had asked for input concerning dimensions and I only sought to provide you with my experience in collecting and trying same, and espouse on some principles of reverse engineering.

No intent to demean you or your product was intended, please be assured. If anyone else took my comments to be negative commentary, then I apologize to you also.

I have not seen any of your products and would never offer opinion either way until I had, and then only with a reason. In an earlier post I espoused that you were new and time would tell if you were able to produce a product of value. There is nothing judgmental in that statement. I wished then for your success and I do now.

'Nuff said.

[TommyGunner]

PK,

None taken what so ever! Sorry for any confusion I may have caused. Was great to finally speak with you on the phone.

Be good,
Damon