Bob B

I doubt the disconnector could be the problem - its only job is to "reset" the firing mechanism to a non-firing condition until the trigger is released. Sounds more like the problem is in the magazine-operated pawl/trip lever train that locks the bolt open when the magazine is empty. Check to see if the pawl (the front end of which protrudes into the upper end of the mag-channel) moves freely and returns to the "down" position when released. If not, it's either binding or a spring is missing. The bolt shouldn't lock back until the pawl tension is overcome by the stronger mag spring, which raises the pawl allowing the rear end of the trip lever to engage the bolt.

I'm no expert on Thompson literature, but that blue-cover edition is indeed a reproduction, and a "low budget" one at that. Notice the printing - the ragged edges and swollen distorted lettering are indicative of an overexposed negative and/or printing plate, which was probably used on a low-end offset machine (e.g. single transfer roller single blade) with paper not well suited to the offset process. Note especially the fine printing surrounding the Thompson logo - individual letters are filled in and hardly readable. By contrast, the originals (and good reproductions) have lettering that is sharp, crisp and open (no swollen lines crowding into the "white" areas of the letters). The originals were probably typeset, with cuts for the graphic inserts. Offset isn't ruled out, but either way the originals were made by professional printers who knew what they were doing. The blue cover edition obviously was not.

Called Kahr this morning and explained the situation. The person I spoke with said they knew all about the problems with the recent run of L drums and "the vendor" had already made corrections. I was told to just send it in and the people in receiving would know instantly what the deal is (guess that means they've had some "feedback"). They promised to replace it with a new "corrected" version, and even gave me a UPS account number to charge the shipment to. So it's on its way to them now, delivery scheduled for Friday. I must say they made no bones about acknowledging it was their error and seemed eager to make it good. Jeez, it'd be so easy for them to just do the proper in-house QC and avoid all the expense of return-and-replacement. How can any for-profit company think that using their customer base as a QC department is good business? Anyhow, I guess we'll soon see what the "new corrected" version looks like. I'll post a report when I receive it.

Zamm, Heheh, that's one dude who'd better NEVER forget a birthday or anniversary! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif Bob

Received mine today and have the same problem with very poor engagement of the magazine catch. On closer examination I discovered that (on mine at least) the front and rear plates are not positioned properly, making either the front mounting rail a little low or the rear rail a little high. This makes the drum angle slightly forward (away from the front surface of the stick-mag slide), so that the magazine catch just barely engages. Didn't even try to cycle ammo through it to check the tolerance of the spiral guides. Doesn't look too bad otherwise (cosmetically) apart from the kinked winding key which apparently had been badly bent in two places and very amateurishly straightened. Back it goes! This is in no way a reflection on PK, who as far as I'm concerned went "above and beyond" in taking the time and trouble to put the group buy together. We knew the risks we were running with Kahr (but that doesn't let them off the hook). We paid for working drums, not movie props!

Don't know why, but reading this thread reminded me of an old cartoon drawing of a seedy looking character waiting patiently in a teller line holding a Thompson and a large leather valise. The caption of the drawing was "Failure to grasp the concept." Appropos of this, my contribution: Presentence statement of defendant found guilty of attempted bank robbery for entering bank premises carrying TSMG -- Defendant: Please your honor, I'm completely innocent. It was never my intention to rob the bank, I was only there to put my Thompson in the safe deposit box. Judge: I must tell you I find your story one of the most creative defenses I've heard in my 23 years on the bench, and that level of creativity should not go unrewarded. I therefore sentence you to twenty years in a facility to be determined by the Bureau of Prisons, with an additional five years added for your creativity. But please don't think of it as prison - just think of it as a kind of "safe deposit box." This court is adjourned. Moral: If you decide to store your TSMG this way, it **might** be a good idea to cover the bases beforehand with bank officials, the FBI, the ATF, and whomever else might tend to be less than credulous in the event you're obliged to explain yourself. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Thought you might be interested in this photo of what was described to me as the prototype of Numrich's model 1927A1. This is a cropped scan of an original 8" x 10" black and white glossy photo evidently made for promotional purposes some time prior to ATF approval and start of production. They had a framed copy on the wall at NAC when I visited the West Hurley facility in 1975, so I asked if they had another and after some digging through desk drawers they found a spare. I have no idea how many of these prints were made or how many survived. It's apparent that the original negative was retouched or airbrushed, presumably to improve lighting effects on the receiver and magazine surfaces and possibly to hide original markings. The side relief on the rear sight looks unlike any Lyman flipup I've ever seen, but that could have been the result of overzealous retouching. Examination of the print under high magnification leaves little doubt that the negative started out as a photograph of an actual gun, as opposed to a good artist's rendering. We're all aware there were several prototypes submitted before ATF signed off on the final design, so I don't really know what stage of evolution this photo shows. However, the substantial differences between the photo and what Numrich eventually produced suggest this might be the first version. As far as I can tell, the photo reflects EVERYTHING the ATF found objectionable about the initial designs. Careful scaling indicates (though I can't be 100% sure of this) that the receiver is "full height", that is, without the 0.10" height reduction that necessitated elongating the magazine hole. The radiused drum mag slots and "correct" rear sight location additionally suggest that what is shown may actually have been a '28 receiver. Note also the FA-style pivot plate and absence of the forward milled out "step" on the trigger frame housing. There are other differences as well, such as the no-crossbolt stock, shape of the actuator handle, etc. Comments and thoughts welcome! http://img132.exs.cx/img132/4707/numrichprototype3xe.jpg

In the interest of more complete documentation, here's a scan of the 1936 catalog purchased at Numrich in December 1975 (one of only six originals left in stock at that time). It's an interesting wrinkle that Numrich may have had reprints made years before, but it's certainly possible they "ran out" and later discovered more boxes of originals. When I was there the place was like Alladin's cave - tarp-covered palletloads of stuff stacked up around outside and even in the woods behind the buildings, some in bad condition where boxes had split from moisture and spilled their contents. Beside one pile for example I saw maybe 30 or 40 of what looked like (cosmolined) M-1 carbine breechbolts just lying on the ground. Amazing. Hard to imagine they even knew everything they had. http://img57.exs.cx/img57/9134/1936cover7ak.jpg

David, You've got mail.

I think this may shed some light on the Numrich reprints and exactly when the supply of originals was exhausted. I picked up my '27A1 in West Hurley in mid-December 1975. On the day I was there, only six originals of the green/blue 1936 catalog remained, and none of the 1923 catalogs. I bought one of the 1936s [big spender that I was http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif ] and would have gotten even a reprint of the 1923, but was told that reprint arrangements for both catalog versions were still being made and these wouldn't be available until at least the following month. I don't know when the last 1923 original was sold, but when I left that day only five of the 1936 originals remained. The image below shows a cropped page from Numrich's Catalog "Number Five", advertising the originals, which was current from about June 1975, and a cropped portion of a mail flyer I received about the end of January 1976 describing the reprints. The flyer text reads: "Auto Ordnance has reprinted the rare 1923 and 1936 editions. Care and attention has been taken even in duplicating the color and texture of the original paper. These volumes are already a collectors item and are unlimited." Note there was no difference in price between the originals and the reprints. http://img134.exs.cx/img134/6297/numrichthompsonpages1ie.jpg Hope this helps clear up the mystery. Bob B

What Marks said! Happy New Year all, and remember, only 44 shopping days left 'til Valentines Day! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Dan, Words can't express! All I can say is you are in our thoughts and prayers. If there's an upside to this, it's that it could have been a lot worse. Hang in there buddy, and may the coming year be a bright one for you and yours. Best, Bob B

Has anyone tried a process that used to be called "grease plating" to lubricate the workings of a drum without completely disassembling it? As I understand it, the desired type of grease is dissolved in a volatile solvent such as gasoline, and the assembly is immersed in this and sloshed around. After draining, the solvent evaporates leaving a film of grease. The thickness of the film is dependent upon the ratio of grease to solvent in the mixture. Never tried this myself, but seems like it might be a good way to get real grease into inaccessible places.

A buddy of mine in Iraq sent these links - thought you all might be interested. The first link is an article in the form of an open letter to the 3.1 written by Kevin Sites, the NBC photojournalist who filmed the shooting: http://www.kevinsites.net/2004_11_21_archi...107420331292115 The second link is a RealStream video that includes the shooting incident as reported by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's (ABC's) LateLine (in case you thought the coverage here was bad ...): http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200411/r35639_88936.ram (I had some trouble connecting to this due to network congestion, but if the connection times out, keep trying, the link DOES work.) The general feeling over there seems to be that the kid who did the shooting was completely stressed out and probably shouldn't have been returned to combat following his injury the day before - "pretty much a basket case" was how my friend put it. He went on to say he's afraid of guys who crack like that, and recounted a story of someone in his unit who lost it during a firefight and just started shooting indiscriminately at everything that moved, including a Humvee that crossed his line of fire. War is truly hell. The sad part is that if and when these guys make it home, they'll have to hire lawyers just to get the treatment/compensation they've earned. Hate to say it, but seen it all before. Can't eat f***ing citations.

Hope you had a good one Zamm, and remember, you're only as old as you look ... uhhh ... FEEL! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Hope it's not politically incorrect to say so (or to reply to an OT post http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif ), but Rudy G. shoulda stuck to prosecuting organized crime figures. He was a great prosecutor, but as soon as he got real political clout he revealed the previously hidden dictatorial side of his personality. The guy has made no bones about his opposition to guns - ANY guns - in private hands; if he's appointed AG, I don't hold out much hope for "rights" of any kind, much less gun rights. Even with a Republican-controlled House and Senate it's worrisome enough, since most politicians - Repubs as well as Dems - fear an armed populace and tend to support strict if not confiscatory regulation. At least this inclination is dampened by the example set in this election demonstrating yet again that strict gun control is literally the third rail of American politics - Bush's slim margin is probably more than equalled by pro-Second Amendment folks who despise Bush but voted for him only because of what Kerry represented. However, the AG has the power to "interpret" existing law in ways that could make things a whole lot worse without any further anti-gun legislation whatsoever. And let's not forget that George Bush himself promised to sign another AWB (or worse) if it came to his desk. That it didn't may be more reflective of pre-election political pragmatism than a true commitment to gun rights. In short, a strong NRA is more important than ever, despite the election.

That was almost too easy. This test is pretty easy too ... for MOST of us. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://img28.exs.cx/img28/6150/EyeExamChart.jpg

I recently purchased this "shot out" barrel from a forum member. It is undersize in length - only 8 3/8" long from receiver-nose to muzzle (not including receiver threads), and has only 24 fins (counting the wide "fin" that butts up to the receiver). I bought it to make a dummy display barrel for my '27A1. The plan is to remove the threads at the receiver end, tap the chamber, and machine a solid "extension" section to screw in. This will be hard soldered in place and 5 additional fins and receiver mounting threads will then be machined. The finished product will be a properly proportioned 10 1/2" dummy barrel, solid for about 4" at the breach end and thus incapable of chambering or firing a round. http://img89.exs.cx/img89/5323/OddballBarrel01.jpg I'm curious though about this barrel - curious about its odd 8 3/8" length, and the fact it has only 24 fins (which interestingly enough are correctly formed in the Colt '21 style). Is this an original but really oddball barrel, or is it something someone made up? I could understand if it had the correct number of fins, but the double-thick "fin" at the receiver end means a standard finned barrel could not have been shortened at that end and re-chambered, and the large-diameter barrel section where the ring-sight is mounted argues that it wasn't cut down at that end either. The only possibility for the rework theory is if someone cut down an unfinned barrel from the receiver end, rechambered and threaded it for the receiver, and then cut correctly proportioned fins (but only 24 of them). This doesn't make much sense - why would anyone go to all that trouble for such an oddball result? I just want to make sure before I start that I'm not committing sacrilege by destroying some rare piece of history. Does anyone have a theory on this? Thanks. Bob B

Thanks for the link, Wilson. Very good pictures and you're right - the "dovetail sight" has EXACTLY the slide-lock arrangement shown in the Eickhoff patent. Interestingly, the patent application and issue dates are the same for both the "dovetail" and the "adjustable", so I imagine it's one and the same patent. The use of this slide on the dovetail sight, however, puts even more of a point on the original question - since they obviously had done the tooling for the pushbutton lock, why didn't they use it on the "adjustable" model? Admittedly, either sight would be very expensive to manufacture, but if the only nod to economy was that the pushbutton lock was omitted in favor of the flat spring type they really couldn't have saved much. There MUST have been something other than (or maybe in addition to) cost that factored into the decision

U.S. Patent 1,408,276 describes a sight mechanism identical in most respects to the one with which we're all familiar - with one notable exception. The patent describes a spring-loaded pushbutton locking device for holding the aperture slide assembly at the desired position on the leaf. When the button is depressed, the slide is disengaged from the leaf serrations and is free to move to the desired position; when the button is released a pawl engages, providing a positive lock. In this original design, the serrations are located on the inside of the left leaf leg. In contrast, the sight used on the Thompsons I've seen utilizes a flat spring "friction pawl" that is always engaged with the leaf serrations. In this version, the serrations are located on the outer edge of the left leaf leg. This arrangement can be quite stiff making the aperture slide difficult to move and adjust. (The flat spring can of course be carefully bent to increase or decrease pressure, and the pawl tooth rounded somewhat to make it less "sticky", but this is at best a compromise.) The patent illustrations below show the original design. The pushbutton is identified as "24" on the drawings. http://img6.exs.cx/img6/7570/LymanSightPatentDetail.jpg The patent describes the adjustment mechanism as follows: "The slide S comprises a body 17, side members 18 and 19, contacting with the outer sides of the legs 12 and 13, and flanges 20 and 21 which contact with the rear sides. The upper part of the slide (Fig. 6) has a horizontal chamber formed therein and in the chamber wall, adjacent the legs, is provided a slot 23. A stud 24 fits in the chamber and has a cavity 25 therein in which lies a compression spring 26. This spring by its pressure against the end of the cavity urges the stud outwardly from the chamber. A tooth 27 projects from the stud 24 through the slot 23 for engagement with the serrations 15. The stud 24, tooth 27 and associated parts form a catch for securing the slide to the leaf. ... The slide may be adjusted by depressing the catch through pressure on the stud 24, thereby releasing the tooth 27 from the serrations 15. The slide, being freely movable on the leaf, may be set for any distance by aligning the lower edge of the eyepiece E with the proper graduation 38. Releasing the catch secures the slide through the engagement of the tooth 27 and one of the serrations. If it be desired entirely to remove the slide from the leaf, the stud 24 is depressed by some pointed instrument, such as a nail, into the chamber 22 until the tooth 27 is in a position to pass through the clearance notch 16 of the bar 14." (Dontcha just love the suggestion that a NAIL be used?) http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif As a matter of historical interest, was the version described in the original patent ever produced and used on the prototypes and/or early model Thompsons, or did the change to the subsequent flat spring configuration occur prior to first production? Was patent # 1,408,276 ever superceded by a new patent showing the revised design?

On that theme Zamm, don't have time (or a lot of inclination) to do more, but here's a revised closing verse for "Can you hear the drums Fernando". Now I'm old and grey Fernando, And I still don't have a drum To fit the Thompson in my hand. Maybe this time we'll be lucky, Before they pass another pointless, Ineffective weapons ban - Damn politicians never tire Of legislating Just because they can. There was something in the air that night, ... etc. Now all we have to do is convince Abba to rewrite the rest of it and cut a single to swing popular culture to the side of supporting the Second Amendment ... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

There are two articles in TCA News you should read about the original versus WH reproduction C drums. The first is a general overview at http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/1997/mar/mar97p3.htm (The values indicated here may be somewhat out of date.) The second article (in two parts) is an excellent and analytical account by Gordon Herigstad of his personal experience with the WH C-drum: Part I http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/2002/jan/jan02p2.htm Part II http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/2002/feb/feb02p2.htm The value of a WH repro drum in otherwise good condition will depend entirely on whether or not it has been professionally rebuilt by someone who specializes in making these drums work properly. Last I heard, the charges for this were somewhere in the $300+ range.

I certainly can't claim to be an expert on the subject, but my gut tells me there's something wrong here, and the fact that the dealer still has this C-drum after having sold the rest of the stash he states came from WH suggests that others must have thought so too. Can't understand why a "numbered" Colt drum would have WH internals. Nor does it make sense that one of the mounting rails would have been squeezed to make it thinner, except that I read one of the faults with the WH repro C-drums was that the rails were incorrectly shaped so that the fit was too tight, and the rail plates themselves were incorrectly positioned making the drum tilt a few degrees to the rear. Maybe the obvious attempt at modification was some garage tinkerer's attempt to correct these problems. I suspect this may not be a Colt drum at all, but one of the notoriously bad WH reproductions abandoned halfway through a failed attempt to make it serviceable. I'd proceed with great caution, and perhaps seek the advice of someone who really knows drums. Any chance you could get some pictures to post here? Also, the serial number with the leading zero seems odd to me. Did Colt use a leading zero on its numbered drums (i.e. 0550 as opposed to 550)? It might also be that the dealer bought odds and ends left over from WH's experiments prior to manufacturing the repro Cs. That COULD explain the mixture of Colt and repro parts, if in fact any of the parts are really Colt-manufactured.

Does anyone know the name of the typeface or engraver's font Colt used in making up the original roll dies for the Thompson lettering? I've compared enlarged images of the lettering with many fonts currently available but nothing matches exactly. I suspect Colt may have used one of the standard Gorton (or similar) engraver typefaces available at the time - I doubt they would have designed one specially for the Thompson.

Not sure how permanent this would be, but you could try scraping or sanding the bottom of the stock inlet so the stock slide would recess a few thousandths deeper when tightened. That would cause the wooden "flanks" on either side to bear against the trigger frame bottom and help eliminate vertical play and rocking. A second possibility would be to measure the vertical play and cut a piece of steel strip or flat spring stock a thousandth or two thinner to exactly fit the "floor" of the stock slide recess, for a fairly good friction fit between the groove bottoms on either side. This shim plate would be pierced to allow operation of the latch, and wouldn't be visible if done carefully. An alternative fix would be if you had a very heavy parallel-jaw vise (such as the kind used on large milling machines) you could try *carefully* squeezing the stock slide on both sides to reduce the groove width slightly, and file flat any resulting metal displacement. Depends how hard the slide is; with mild steel it wouldn't be difficult to make a small adjustment this way, but hardened or cased steel could be problematic without annealing and re-heat-treating.