Detachable Grip Mount
Posted 17 August 2005 - 10:54 AM
Prior to 1986, I was planning to put the 1921 gun back into production as the model "B" which would have incorporated a number of changes that I felt the 21 needed. A new type grip mount was one of those changes. I did, in fact, redesign the grip mount so that it could be removed without the barrel being first removed and that prototype grip mount is on my bench.
Maybe some day I can get back to some of those obscure endeavors.
I have always disliked the TSMG grip mount design, but it does work. There are actually 3 types of production grip mounts: 1) the type for vertical front grips which is a one piece unit with a bend that causes it to bear forcefully against a barrel fin for rigidity, 2) the same but without the bend for use with horizontal forearms and, 3) the 3-piece M1 style. The M1 style was basically a failure necessitating a barrel/forearm strap fix. The 1-piece straight style really did not have to bear against the barrel at all since the forearm pulls it away from the barrel. So the problem is how to attain the rigidity necessary only for the vertical foregrip without interfering with barrel removal.
My design uses a straight hardened bar screwed to the receiver which does not touch the barrel. Maybe someone else has another solution?
Posted 17 August 2005 - 03:50 PM
Can you clear up some confusion about complete buttstocks you had for sale in your catalog some 10 years ago? One of them was recently for sale on ebay. Here is your ad:
"Colt 1928 Navy Buttstocks: All matching numbers, complete with all metal in as new reconditioned condition. Serial numbers available: 1825, 2890, 3095, 3988, 4109, 5132, 6178, 7668, 8484, 8572, 9393, 9998"
You also advertised Savage complete buttstocks ""early style,identical to Colt," in your catalog.
1) Did these Navy stocks have Enfield offset swivels with the smaller than WWII type base?
2) Did they have the Colt/Remington anchor markings?
3) Did they have slide latches with numbers matching the stock and buttplate or were the latches non-numbered ?
4) What was/were the difference(s) between the "early" style Savage stocks and the Colt Navy ones?
5) Did you mark any of the hardware with your own "R" signature?
Any information you could add would be appreciated.
Posted 18 August 2005 - 07:14 PM
I was somewhat imprecise in my original description of the stocks. Further research has clarified my own understanding of the Colt buttstocks which is:
Colt made (through subcontracting with Remington) the 1921 buttstocks which were all virtually identical. Those buttstocks are the typical 1921 configuration having no sling swivel. Not all were marked with the anchor or if they were, the anchor disappeared on many, perhaps in the process of sanding during final fitting with the metal. There is also the question of the finish on the latch bar. I have seen nickel and black. I do not feel comfortable in making any positive statement regarding that. I always try to avoid jumping to conclusions based on a few (or even many) observations without documentation. In 1922, the 1921 buttstock was modified by the addition of a Springfield type sling swivel for use on what I call the Model of 1922 Thompson Submachine Rifle. (Since no documentation has been found from AO giving a name for that model, I named it.) In 1923, the Model of 1923 Extra Heavy Barrel Thompson Submachine Rifle was introduced. It had a new style buttstock fitted that was a straight back (no drop) style. It was also fitted with a Springfield style sling swivel. From then on, if a 1921 TSMG were ordered with a sling, the gun was fitted with a 1922 or 1923 buttstock (I guess AO wanted to get rid of them somehow) and a 1923 horizontal forearm or a vertical foregrip and a barrel band with swivel. In 1927, a new style horizontal forearm was introduced. For some reason, it was fitted with an Enfield style offset swivel and the same swivel was added to the buttstock. I believe this happened simply because Remington was making Enfields (P17) at the time and so used the same parts. I can think of no other reason for using that swivel. The 1928 Navy (overstamp) used the same swivels and so did the 1928A1 (Colt), which is the same as the 1928 Navy except for the markings. However, in 1935, a redesign of the Thompson was made. The changes included going back to the Springfield style swivel, thicker barrel fins, a pinned on gripmount and a change in the lock ramp angle inside the receiver. I have no evidence that the new receiver or gripmount was ever made but, obviously, the barrel and swivel changes were made. I don’t know if any 1928A! (Colt) guns were made with the new style barrel and swivel although other 1928 Colt guns are found with the changes, probably as a result of factory rebarrelling and buttstock replacement.
The buttstocks I offer are 1921 with the addition of the Springfield style swivels. They are all matching numbers (wood, buttplate and attachment). If they had anchor marks on them before they were reconditioned, I don’t remember. I have had them for over 25 years and are part of my old stash of TSMG stuff that I have been selling off. (I am not a collector. I am an engineer who tries to keep the gun alive by manufacturing as much of it as I am capable of or the Government allows.) I do not mark anything other that items I manufacture.
So, to be absolute correct to the best of my ability, the buttstocks I offer are either Model 1922 or Model 1935.
How does the 1928 Savage stock differ? It is not quite as nice as the Colt and is not numbered.
I hope that answers your question.
Posted 18 August 2005 - 11:21 PM
|However, in 1935, a redesign of the Thompson was made. The changes included going back to the Springfield style swivel, thicker barrel fins, a pinned on gripmount and a change in the lock ramp angle inside the receiver. I have no evidence that the new receiver or gripmount was ever made but, obviously, the barrel and swivel changes were made. I don’t know if any 1928A! (Colt) guns were made with the new style barrel and swivel although other 1928 Colt guns are found with the changes, probably as a result of factory rebarrelling and buttstock replacement.|
Thanks for the response. The above info is a new wrinkle in the pantheon of Colt TSMG lore. I was aware of the February 1935 Otto Wild/George Goll drawings for the black walnut Navy 1928 horizontal fore grip and WWII type machined swivel, but not about any other modifications .
As far as these three-way matching numbered stocks, one of yours that was advertised on ebay shows a completely different latch button indentation than those seen on the other known Colt/Remington 1921/28 buttstocks. Also the swivel that is shown on this ebay stock (one of your catalog specific numbered ones) looks like the standard WWII Yale & Town Manufacturing Company swivels and not even the similar Springfield type.
If you add this to the numbered matching latches, in the blue, along with the different font for the buttstock numbers as compared to known Colt 1921/28 stocks, it seems these were indeed not produced for or during the original manufacturing of the 1921/28 Colt TSMG, but as you hypothesis for some 1935 never realized concept TSMG.
I'm not sure why Auto-Ord would need to have Remington make additional (similar but not the same) complete buttstocks in 1935 for the unchanged frame design on this TSMG when the batch they delivered in 1921 was sufficient for replacement needs. I mean Maguire even used surplus Colt/Remington stocks on the Savage Commercials.
It seems that you cornered the market on these in betweener 1921-1940 TSMG stocks. You once had twelve of them listed for sale. What was your source for them? The idea that they were indeed replacement stocks (perhaps for some impending WWII order) makes the most sense since they seem less in common with their 1921/28 brothers and more in common with the early Savage WWII productions.
Posted 19 August 2005 - 07:25 AM
Do you know if when the Colt stocks were numbered, were they stamped in or numbered with ink?
Posted 19 August 2005 - 09:59 PM
you have lost me a bit or maybe i did not make myself clear. as far as i know, the stocks i have are simply original 1921 with the addition of the springfield style swivel. i can not comment on the one on e-bay w/o seeing it or at least a good picture, but there is nothing unusual about the appearance of the ones i have or had. It has been so long ago that i acquired most of my tsmg stash, i do not remember where they came from.
colt stocks were numbered by deep stamping
Posted 19 August 2005 - 10:25 PM
The ebay Colt Navy stock ad is the following link:
antoniah2's stock is #3988 which is one listed in your #44 catalog:
"Colt 1928 Navy Buttstocks: All matching numbers, complete with all metal in as new reconditioned condition. Serial numbers available: 1825, 2890, 3095, 3988, 4109, 5132, 6178, 7668, 8484, 8572, 9393, 9998. $300.00"
If you look at the slide thumb indentation around the button it is an oval shape and not tear drop as found on 1921/28 Colt/Remington stocks.
I realize that you believe your "Colt Navy" or "1922" stocks to be of 1921 Remington production, but the addition of the different size stamped numbers on the wood and the numbered slide hardware, and the oval shaped slide thumb indentation are not found on known 1921 Remington stocks with anchor or even on stocks with buttplate numbers in the same ranges.
I was curious as to how to account for these differences and surmised that these stocks were of 1930's(?) vintage?
Can you examine the "Colt Navy" stocks you have left over in inventory and compare them to this ebay one?
Posted 20 August 2005 - 01:54 PM
i just don't see what you are referring to. the e-bay pix that i was able to see do not show the top side of the attachment piece. you have got me curious and so when i get back to calif i will compare the stocks with those on my colt guns. i am leaving belize (central america) in about an hour so I will once again not have madalon to show me how to work her computer. i will be reachable only by phone at 310-457-6400 and will no longer be monitoring the board.
Posted 20 August 2005 - 03:29 PM
Here is an article about these stocks that I wrote when I was still selling TSMG stuff, written about 2001, I think. See below. (By the way, I'm Chris Martin).
SPECIAL SECRET INNER CIRCLE MYSTERY BUTTSTOCKS
I don’t typically deal in Colt TSMG parts; the prices are too high, the market is too thin, and there are beginning to be some faked parts and accessories out there. In addition, the subtlety of Colt collecting means that the slightest variation in parts makes a real difference in prices. Unfortunately, all the physical evidence “facts” are not explained in the literature and maybe the assumed “facts” aren’t always the true “facts”, so, trouble…
That was a prelude as to what can happen with Colt parts if a controversy surrounds marking variations. I have four buttstocks that I have identified as “Colts” in good faith because I believed that’s what they are. Two of these numbered buttstocks (numbers from 1000+ to 8000+) match their numbered butt plates and match their numbered latch assemblies…just exactly like the Colt/Remington buttstocks. There are NO marks on the metal except the numbers, no “S” or whatever, just plain like Colts. But, the wood doesn’t have the Remington anchor mark and the stocks have military cast sling swivels, and further, there are maker’s marks on the buttstocks, a practice normally associated with military guns, like the “M” we frequently seen on military wood (note made 08-21-05: the one remaining stock that I have does NOT have a "maker's mark"). I proposed to one expert that these stocks owed their existence to Remington’s subcontracting out some of their Colt wood order. That theory was called “crap” (how charming). No alternative theory or FACT was presented. Is this a mysterious secret buttstock variation that only special people are allowed to know about? Well, I’m rich then! a special secret stock!
Another expert very nicely told me that they weren’t Colts because Colts didn’t have military sling swivels…but what about the thousands of guns exported to the British with sling swivels? He proposed then that they must be Savage Commercials but offered no explanation as to why they were numbered with the exact same series of numbers that Colt had already used…and, if they were “Commercial”, i.e. for the police, why would they have military sling swivels? So, no new facts or new internally consistent theories.
I have also theorized that a broken Colt buttstock would be replaced by Auto Ordnance using the salvaged numbered metal and a replacement piece of wood that they then serial number matched. But wait, wouldn’t that mean that they really were “Colt” buttstocks after all, having been installed by Auto Ordnance themselves onto Colt guns? But, the antithesis is that being a small time parts guy, how would I wind up with four of them…factory replaced broken police gun buttstocks MUST be rare. Or, maybe when Colt made US military buttstocks were broken the wood was replaced and renumbered to match the Colt metal, using with the exact same style of numbers (the British military renumbered with the gun’s serial number). This isn’t a bad theory at all but is also totally unproven (and never written about as far as I can tell). It’s my favorite at the moment (note added 08-21-05: still is).
My conclusion is that these mystery buttstocks that I can’t sell are…hell, I don’t know…I guess that they’re enormously valuable special secret stocks that only the inner circle is allowed to know about. (I cut the price anyway.) I would dearly welcome any cogent counter theory that would replace theories with facts so that I could sell these damn things. They are beautiful, old, with wonderful metal. Well, onto this month’s list…
Posted 20 August 2005 - 07:25 PM
a small group of men would be determined to find out what he made and for who!!
and get to the bottom of the cast swivel.the machined swivel.the blued and the parked.the dulite finish.and the bone blue.the charcoal rib's and the boiled... and it would drive them nut's... if he put a simple r 0r z or f code or stamp...
or used a simple small c or big C on a bolt...and a few brits proof's in 1935 would even make more controversy...
and that arthur would chime in along with doug to get to the bottom of it all...
it all has been answered by his son...in his latest release in leatherbound hardcover. numbered ed.serie's..
" Really thou collector's, I don't give a toot"
or>i just wanted to mess with your mind's<
at local border's or barn& stable...$239.70 plus shipping and handling and wrapping in wax paper.
in two year's maybe ten or twenty who care's...
gas is up.we are dying in iraq.and the local populace is FAT...........the new battle call shall be
"SAVE THE BUTTSTOCK'S"
and then we wonder why we have all these other problem's wink!!
oh i had a buttstock once..and the fat aunt arrived one day..and have never seen it since..
Posted 21 August 2005 - 12:12 PM
Posted 21 August 2005 - 03:31 PM
You have inspired me to change my "signature" line.
Posted 21 August 2005 - 06:13 PM
|QUOTE (Merry Ploughboy @ Aug 21 2005, 03:31 PM)|
You have inspired me to change my "signature" line.
i like,i like it, pure magic....with a little voodoo thrown in...take care,ron
Posted 21 August 2005 - 09:08 PM
Talking out of school about such sacrosanct subjects, I feel like Jimmy Brown in that movie.
Posted 21 August 2005 - 11:06 PM
anyways to all a good night....art have fun with the stuff..
Posted 22 August 2005 - 12:48 AM
Yeah, Marvin had that 1928 with vertical grip and XXXrd mag hanging behind his desk throughout the movie and you knew it was only a matter of time before he was gonna have to take Tommy down and help out Ole Richard Burton.
Posted 22 August 2005 - 07:56 PM
and not a thompson to be seen....take care,ron
Posted 22 August 2005 - 08:06 PM
The one troubling key element of "The Wild Geese" was if you put together a team of mercenaries along with long time trusted officers among them expert pilot, Roger Moore, make sure that pilot is the one flying the C-130 that rendezvouses in Swaziland (Rhodesia in the film) and not a couple of guys under the employ of the equally mercenary Stewart Granger. Of course there wouldn't be a film if that happened, but that key flaw in the plan was as glaring as DR mis identifying his buttstocks as Colt Navy ones. Just to get it back on subject.
Posted 23 August 2005 - 12:14 PM
Doug is back in California and has forwarded this message regarding the buttstock issue raised by Arthur Fliegenheimer
As promised, I have examined buttstocks on 1921 guns as well as all those that I offer as colt 1928s and others in order to determine if there are differences in the recessed area around the release button. There are variances that extend from a trough like long groove to a somewhat "D" shape. However, I attribute the variances to the extent of the finish sanding rather than to any variance in design.
Posted 23 August 2005 - 03:28 PM
|As promised, I have examined buttstocks on 1921 guns as well as all those that I offer as colt 1928s and others in order to determine if there are differences in the recessed area around the release button. There are variances that extend from a trough like long groove to a somewhat "D" shape. However, I attribute the variances to the extent of the finish sanding rather than to any variance in design.|
The top two photos are stocks on/from Colt Navy's with the second buttstock being an actual "U.S. Navy" buttstock, and the bottom photo is #3988 buttstock from your catalog. Forget the wood for a moment, and just compare the actual slides on these. I have multiple photos of Colt 21/28 slides on this link and the only ones that have the smaller thumb release area on the metal slide are on your revised non-Navy stocks.
No matter if the the Colt/Remington stock is found on the N.A.C. TSMG, the severely refinished nickel plated Colt TSMG, the Midas Touch Colt TSMG, early or late serial numbered 1921A's or 28 Navy's, the stock slides appear to be all the same. The only smaller thumb release area are found on WWII era slides and those listed by serial number from your #44 catalog.
Can you tell us where you originally obtained these complete stocks?