Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nice 28 On Sturm But....


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#21 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 28 September 2005 - 09:08 PM

QUOTE (rjb1 @ Sep 28 2005, 02:24 PM)
And speaking of serial numbers, at approximately what serial number did the US-marked,  Model of 1928A1 guns start being produced?


Joel,

There is no definitive cut-off number range when the 1928A1 started to be produced. According to Frank Iannamico's American Thunder the 1928 Model and the 1928A1 were being produced simultaneously depending on the contract involved. Some 1928 Models were retro-stamped with the U.S. and A1 depending on whether they were sold to the military or not. American Thunder makes reference to Savage guns as low as the 17,000 serial number range as being retro-stamped with U.S. and A1 and guns as high as the 185,000 serial number range with no U.S. or A1 markings, similar to your gun.

If your gun has no British Proof marks then it was apparently an early law enforcement order through Auto-Ordnance Corp. prior to WWII. Your gun should have the New York, N.Y. address on the right side of the receiver and checkered actuator and fire, safety selector levers. It also should have a second model Cutts compensator with the Cutts diamond logo on top front with no bullet logo on the left side.
  • 0

#22 SecondAmend

SecondAmend

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 610 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 October 2005 - 05:33 PM

My 28 is very similar to the one rib1 has except for a couple of significant(?) features.

Mine is a matching nos. Savage having a much higher serial no. (340,xxx) which I believe puts it in the end of the 1940 time-frame. Well, past the so-called "commercial Savage" guns. Also, as well as no military marks and original sale to a PD, the "U.S." and "A1" were buffed down so as to now be barely visible prior to Dulite finishing.

I'm guessing it was pulled off the line for the PD sale.
  • 0

#23 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 02 October 2005 - 09:32 AM

QUOTE (SecondAmend @ Oct 1 2005, 05:33 PM)
Mine is a matching nos. Savage having a much higher serial no. (340,xxx) which I believe puts it in the end of the 1940 time-frame.  Well, past the so-called "commercial Savage" guns.  Also, as well as no military marks and original sale to a PD, the "U.S." and "A1" were buffed down so as to now be barely visible prior to Dulite finishing.


SecondAmend,

Do you have the original paperwork or can you document the original sale to the police agency for your gun? If so, you may be able to shed some light on these guns that were sold to police agencies during the war. Virtually every Thompson with the US ground off that members of this board have seen is an Auto-Ordnance made gun. Yours is the first Savage made gun that has been mentioned in the same configuration. Are you sure your gun is the original finish? If so, how can you document that? Is it possible that the police department that owned your gun may have had it refinished at some point?

Your gun sounds like an interesting variation.
  • 0

#24 SecondAmend

SecondAmend

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 610 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 October 2005 - 12:02 PM

RE Savage 28:

"U.S." and "A1" are not ground into the receiver as I've seen in the pictures of the A.O. guns. I base my belief on the originality of the finish on the bright line civilian proof marks. As for the original sale to a PD, the FOIA papers only took me back to a '68 amnesty registration. I base the belief on the original sale to a PD from comments made to me by the seller who had no reason to make up a story. I do not regard this as particularly unbelievable as I would guess there were occasional requests for Thompsons from the PD market. The U.S. had not yet entered WWII when the gun was made so PD sales would not have interferred with "the war effort." I could be wrong and I'm not trying to sell the gun nor will I advertise the gun as "an original PD gun" should I ever decide to sell it. I will let the buyer decide based on condition as I did when I bought it.

Actually, back in '04 I offered to bring the Savage to the TCA shoot so it could be reviewed by experts but no one expressed any interest so it stayed home. I couldn't make the TCA shoot this year. As we have not seen any notice of an October TSMG shoot in southeast Michigan from GiantPanda4, it looks like that a No Go.

PhilOhio and others not too distant, should you wish to travel to SE Michigan to check out the gun, send an e-mail and we can try to set up something.

I've tried pictures, but with the digital camera equipment I have they don't work for showing finish and the like very well.
  • 0

#25 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 02 October 2005 - 06:57 PM

QUOTE (SecondAmend @ Oct 2 2005, 12:02 PM)


I base my belief on the originality of the finish on the bright line civilian proof marks.  As for the original sale to a PD, the FOIA papers only took me back to a '68 amnesty registration.  I base the belief on the original sale to a PD from comments made to me by the seller who had no reason to make up a story.

SecondAmend,

Sorry, not sure what you mean by the "bright line" civillian proof marks. I don't believe there were any "bright line" civillian proof marks on military 1928A1 guns. By my calculations, a serial number in the 340,000 range might likely be manufatcured more likely in the Spring of 1941. I think the Savage serial numbers stopped somewhere in the 400,000 range in Fall of 1942.

Since your gun was amnesty registered, there's no telling what happened to it after WWII. It sounds to me like it was a military gun, and probably refinished, that wound up in a police department arsenal and was registered in 1968. I think it is unlikely that your gun is of the same Auto-Ordnance police sales variety that we were discussing.
  • 0

#26 TNKen

TNKen

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 374 posts
  • Location:Bristol, TN
  • Interests:Firearms, machine guns, defensive handgun competition, snow skiing and ski patrol, my children

Posted 02 October 2005 - 08:45 PM

Here's my AO '28 Thompson. You can see the grind mark in the frame where the "US" came off with the "halo", as well as the "C" stamped over the "1" SN 151106X. The question seems to be is this what happened to your Thompson, followed by a refinish.

Ken

user posted image
  • 0

#27 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:52 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Oct 3 2005, 09:16 AM)

You spurred me to do what I should have done long ago.  I just mailed off a FOIA request to see if there are records suggesting when my gun was first registered to the Maryland PD.


Phil,

Sounds interesting, keep us posted on the results. It doesn't take them too long to do the search, I did one recently. I think it was just a few weeks.

We'll be interested to hear what you find out.
  • 0

#28 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 03 October 2005 - 09:58 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Oct 3 2005, 10:16 AM)
You spurred me to do what I should have done long ago. I just mailed off a FOIA request to see if there are records suggesting when my gun was first registered to the Maryland PD.

I was rather disappointed in the FOIA request reply on my Albany Ga. PD gun, it only went back to 1982 which I assume is when the PD sold it.
  • 0

#29 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 03 October 2005 - 10:55 AM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Oct 3 2005, 09:58 AM)
I was rather disappointed in the FOIA request reply on my Albany Ga. PD gun, it only went back to 1982 which I assume is when the PD sold it.

Lancer,

Your request did not include the original copies of the registration papers when the Albany, GA P.D. registered the gun? Yes, you would be correct that the 1982 date would have been when they sold it, but there also should have ben a copy of the original registration, presuming it was a post WWII sale to a police agency.

Is it an AOC variety gun with the US ground off the receiver?
  • 0

#30 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 03 October 2005 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (gijive @ Oct 3 2005, 11:55 AM)
Your request did not include the original copies of the registration papers when the Albany, GA P.D. registered the gun?  Yes, you would be correct that the 1982 date would have been when they sold it, but there also should have ben a copy of the original registration, presuming it was a post WWII sale to a police agency.

Is it an AOC variety gun with the US ground off the receiver?

It's a 1928ac with US ground off, #AO150969x. Smooth barrel, Lyman L sight, cross bolt stock. The FOIA reply did not included the original copies of the PD registration forms. I had hoped that this form would be included, I just assumed that it wasn't available. Do you think there's any use in pursuing this further?

user posted image
  • 0

#31 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 03 October 2005 - 12:40 PM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Oct 3 2005, 11:35 AM)
The FOIA reply did not included the original copies of the PD registration forms. I had hoped that this form would be included, I just assumed that it wasn't available. Do you think there's any use in pursuing this further?


Lancer,

I would think so. The gun had to have been registered sometime in the 1950's or 1960's in order for the police department to have sold it in 1982. Even if had been amnesty registered in 1968 a copy of the amnesty registration shoud have been included. Many of the guns like yours went to law enforcement agencies after WWII. It would be interesting to determine who registered them and when.
  • 0

#32 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 October 2005 - 01:44 PM

You can appeal to the following authority:

Office Of Information & Privacy
U.S. Department Of Justice
Flag Building
Suite 570
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

But it is a rigged deck over at ATF. They arbitrarily omit and redact information without any explanation. I submitted an appeal for documents going back further than the 1970's
that were omitted from my original request. They sent me back an additional two pages. My own Form 3 and the previous form that of course was already in my possession. Thanks!

Even if they include the document, they will redact the name of the owner (transferor), even if it is a public organization such as a PD, and the name of the transferee. For some reason, known Roger Cox owned TSMG's, have had his name redacted from the copied forms. I wonder if his arrest and jail time has anything to do with this bizarre discretion on the part of ATF?

The original purchasing police department may or may not be sympathetic to your request as well

  • 0

#33 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 03 October 2005 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Oct 3 2005, 01:44 PM)
Even if they include the document, they will redact the name of the owner (transferor), even if it is a public organization such as a PD, and the name of the transferee.  For some reason, known Roger Cox owned TSMG's, have had his name redacted from the copied forms.  I wonder if his arrest and jail time has anything to do with this bizarre discretion on the part of ATF?

The original purchasing police department may or may not be sympathetic to your request as well[/b][/color]

Arthur, you are correct, of course. Even if the name of the PD is omitted, however, the date of the transfer would be available. One could then conclude that that was the date the PD registered the gun, unless it was transferred to more than one agency. I think that is what PhilOhio is trying to determine; exactly when his gun was registered by the PD that owned it.

Interesting comment about Roger Cox's guns.
  • 0

#34 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 04 October 2005 - 08:32 AM

I looked over the appeal procedure and decided to send it in. I'll post the reply went I receive it. It seems to me that the original registration form has to be there, it's just a matter of getting them to dig deep enough to find it.

Does anyone know, was Roger Cox located in Athens, Ga. in the early 80's? If so this gun may have passed through his hands.



Arthur
I don't get your point about about Roger Cox. Are you suggesting that their redacting policy may be the result of the Roger Cox case?
  • 0

#35 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:08 AM

QUOTE (Lancer @ Oct 4 2005, 08:32 AM)

Does anyone know, was Roger Cox located in Athens, Ga. in the early 80's? If so this gun may have passed through his hands.



Lancer,

Yes, Roger Cox was in Athens, GA in the early 1980's. Does your form show the Athens, GA address, but the name has been redacted? If so, the gun was probably purchased from the PD by Roger.

No, the redaction policy had nothing to do with Roger Cox. They edit any names that you wouldn't be authorized to have. I'm not sure what their ctiteria is for redacting the names, but they even redacted Colt Patent Firearms on a form I saw.
  • 0

#36 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 04 October 2005 - 09:55 AM

QUOTE (gijive @ Oct 4 2005, 10:08 AM)
Yes, Roger Cox was in Athens, GA in the early 1980's.  Does your form show the Athens, GA address, but the name has been redacted?  If so, the gun was probably purchased from the PD by Roger.

I have no hard evidence that this gun passed through Roger's hands or Athens, Ga, for that matter. The evidence I have is anecdotal in nature.

Late last year I had some contact with the Albany, Ga. PD. I inquired whether they had any record of the gun or if anyone remembered it. In return for their efforts in helping me track down the its history I would donate a large photo of the gun to display in their museum. (I feel terrible that I haven't followed through on my promise. Gotta get that done.)

Below is the reply I received from them. He says that the gun was traded to another PD in Athens, but it seems to me a more likely scenario would have been that they were traded to Roger Cox. What PD in the 1980's would want to trade modern SMG's for a 40yr. old Tommy gun?


"Tod,

Thanks for that information. I have asked around and don’t have much but will pass what I have so far. Our Department had 2 of those guns, but how or when we got them I have not found out yet. They were used on the “Rifle Squad.” In addition to them, we had two .30-06 deer rifles and two AR-15’s. The squad was converted to a SWAT team around 1980, and somewhere in the 90’s the name was changed to SRT (special reaction team). The guns were traded to another department for three Mach 10’s. I have not found anyone yet who for sure knows what department, but one of the Majors thinks it was Athens-Clarke County."

Our Chief remembers firing one of the guns years ago in a field somewhere in the east side of Albany. He’s not sure when or if that is in fact the gun.

I’ll keep trying. I look forward to making the arrangements to get the donated pictures you mentioned for our museum collection we’re putting together."

  • 0

#37 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2005 - 12:25 PM

Lancer,

I was just speculating why ATF would redact Cox's name from a Form 3, a well known Class III dealer, but not redact the name of a lessor known Class III dealer on another Form 3. It is their policy to turn these forms into something resembling a WWII G.I. POW's letter to his wife.

But my brief with the FOIA release of ATF documents is that they redact the name of the police department that was the original owner of the weapon. Naturally, the names of private citizens should not be released, but if they arbitrarily allow a Class 3 dealer's name to go un-censored on their copied forms, then why censor the name of a public service organization?

In other words, if you did not already know the PD that purchased your TSMG (Colt or WWII), you would not uncover the name of the PD from a FOIA ATF request.

Not only that, you would also not get even a redacted copy of that PD"s (assuming they purchased it after 1934 from Auto-Ord/Federal Labs and it was registered before 1968) ATF Form. And that is really the document one might expect to get after waiting three months for this FOIA request to materialize in your mail box.

  • 0

#38 gijive

gijive

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois
  • Interests:Thompson SMG, WWII, Firearms in general.

Posted 04 October 2005 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Oct 4 2005, 12:25 PM)
Not only that, you would also not get even a redacted copy of that PD"s (assuming they purchased it after 1934 from Auto-Ord/Federal Labs and it was registered before 1968) ATF Form. And that is really the document one might expect to get after waiting three months for this FOIA request to materialize in your mail box.[/b][/color]

Arthur,

How come one wouldn't get a redacted copy of a registration form prior to 1968? Maybe I didn't read the Freedom of Information guidelines closely enough, do they only go back a certain number of years?

If a police agency registered a Thomspon, say in the early 1950's, that wouldn't be available or ATF would not forward that document? If this is the case, can you explain their rationale for not sending early registration forms?
  • 0

#39 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 04 October 2005 - 01:30 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Oct 4 2005, 01:25 PM)
Lancer,

I was just speculating why ATF would redact Cox's name from a Form 3, a well known Class III dealer, but not redact the name of a lessor known Class III dealer on another Form 3. It is their policy to turn these forms into something resembling a WWII G.I. POW's letter to his wife.

Arthur
OK, I see what you are saying now. The reason for my confusion is that the FOIA form copies that I received, ALL names were redacted including the form 3.
  • 0

#40 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 October 2005 - 02:57 PM

QUOTE (gijive @ Oct 4 2005, 12:41 PM)

How come one wouldn't get a redacted copy of a registration form prior to 1968?  Maybe I didn't read the Freedom of Information guidelines closely enough, do they only go back a certain number of years?

If a police agency registered a Thomspon, say in the early 1950's, that wouldn't be available or ATF would not forward that document?  If this is the case, can you explain their rationale for not sending early registration forms?

gijive,

As far as I can determine, from the back and forth of snail mail contacts with Richard L. Huff, Co-Director DOJ OIP, who isn't programed to respond to specific questions, but sticks to his form letter guidelines, these FOIA firearms ownership histories only cover the transfers of firearms from dealers to dealers, dealers to private parties, private parties to dealers, but not original manufacturer/seller(Auto-Ord-Fed Labs) to buyer (PD, or private party), or the original PD ATF registration.

Here is the explanation for why they held back the info I requested:

"The ATF properly withheld from you information that is protected from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act pursuant to:

5 U.S.C. & 552(cool.gif (2), which concerns matters that are related to internal agency practices;

5 U.S.C. & 552 (cool.gif (3), which concerns matters specifically exempted from release by statue (in this instance, 26 U.S.C. &6103, which concerns the protection of tax return information) ; and

5 U.S.C. & 552 (cool.gif (6), which concerns material the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.

I have also determined that this information is not appropriate for discretionary release."

If you are dissatisfied with my action on your appeal, you may seek judicial review in accordance with 5 U.S>C. & 552 (a) (4) (cool.gif."

My case was on the Supreme Court's calendar but got bumped by Anna Nichole Smith.

  • 0