13 replies to this topic

[Max]

I am in the final stages of purchasing a 1928A1 military Thompson, and the grip mount appears to have been staked in place with a punch (in four places) on the bottom of the receiver in the U shaped area where the mount is visible. Has anyone ever seen this done before? I assume this would be a standard practice on any piece found to be loose during a rebuild procedure. The gun also has the Brit crown proof stamp on the upper front portion of the receiver- could this be a Brit modification? Any info would be greatly appreciated-

[Grumpy]

Hi Max,
Welcome to the Board! I have seen that a few times on M1A1 parts sets. Mount was still loose on one of them.

Bill

[Mike45]

This staking was done to 28 & M1 guns for above stated reason.

[PK.]

I have to admit I have never seen this kind of staking (punch applied to the receiver bottom). This would seem quite “bush league”, especially for military armories who generally follow prescribed procedures. I have seen many, many gripmounts that were staked on the flange that enters the mortise in the receiver, this was the rule, I believe.

While tolerances exist between the gripmount and it’s receiver mortise, looseness was not perceivable when the original, one piece milled steel gripmount was used. It was bent slightly upwards to bind against the barrel and keep everything feeling tight.

[wolfer113]

PK did you get my email about the barrels i need? you can email me at ibewolfer@aol.com...Thx

[PK.]

I’ve been unavailable for the last week and am just now trying to catch up; I am working on your reply right now as a matter of fact.

Sorry for the delay.

[Ron A]

I have had 2 M1 kits in which the mount was staked with punch in 4 places.

[TSMGguy]

For what it's worth, My M1928A1 does not have the staking that you describe, and the milled grip mount is tight. The gun is in almost new original condition and is unmodified with matching serials, Sn. S-332xxx.

[PK.]

Ron, was there anything to indicate a British or foreign history? Do you still have the receiver noses?

[Gunner]

This brings to mind a question I've had for a while: Does anyone know why the front grip & mount design is the way it is? In other words, it seems to me to be fairly unusual and pretty fragile for a combat arm. I assume that the floating design is intended to help cool the barrel by keeping the grip away from the barrel and letting air circulate. Just seems like an awkward way to do it, but I'm a liberal arts major, not an engineer...

[PK.]

As originally made, the grip mount was of hardened steel and designed to have 3 point support (front and back of mortise and barrel point under spring pressure). This was a graceful arrangement with the vertical foregrip and quite fitting to the overall lines of the gun. It is not fragile as I suspect that the wooden grip and long narrow screw would bend and break prior to the grip mount.

The documented troubles with the gripmount came as they were “value engineered” and made of lesser materials and weakened designs.

IMHO

[Gunner]

Thanks, PK.

[Ron A]

PK - I didn't save the receiver noses - and the punch marks I felt were poor field repairs - I always felt the guns had been out of US military hands due to the extra poor condition. The bores were gross, and wood was as bad as it gets.

[PK.]

Thanks Ron.

I am inclined to believe this is "field repair", but would like to have seen the pieces had you retained them.