Bob B

Heh heh, wouldn't be the first time the obvious or simple solution was ignored in favor of something a lot more complicated or speculative! "But I saw who did it." "Don't bother me now, can't you see I'm trying to analyze this cigarette butt for teeth impressions?" http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

WONDERFUL bit of memorabilia, Sig! Thanks a lot for taking the trouble to scan this and put it up. Absolutely amazing that Thompson would have been so naive as to reveal to a national readership the existence of "secret" serial numbers. Didn't he figure out that when you reveal a secret it's no longer a secret? Reminds me of that hilarious "Failure to grasp the concept" literary competition a few years ago. Wonder how long it took the bad guys to find the location of the "secret" number after this disclosure - 10 minutes? 15? Hawkeye - They probably DID need acid to bring up the numbers on the Valentines Day guns. That was a couple of years AFTER Thompson let the cat out of the bag.

Tried to find the poll webpage but couldn't. It's not linked on ANY of the Susan Davis Congressional webpages. I did find Susan Davis' statement on expiration of the AWB - leaves no doubt she's STRONGLY anti-gun. Attempted to suss out the correct URL but without success, although there apparently IS a directory folder named "/survey/" that is passworded. If this poll or survey exists, it's certainly not being made public, but perhaps that's the idea. Maybe it's a "public opinion" poll just for anti-gun types who are given the password, so they can cite 100% support for a new improved AWB - or worse. Hawksnest, try breaking up the URL into separate "words" so the Invision Board software doesn't truncate it with dashes. At least that way we'll have something to reassemble and THEN copy and paste.

You're not likely to be able to do it without special tools, i.e. a barrel wrench to hold the barrel and a compensator wrench such as the one shown in the Doug Richardson catalog (I'm assuming the compensator is not pinned). Basically, this wrench is a block of aluminum bored out to the exact size of the compensator. The block is split and equipped with bolts to tighten it on the compensator; it has a pipe handle for leverage. Failing this, if you have access to a machine shop you could try cushioning the compensator with a wrap of brass shim stock and chucking it in a collet (15/16"Dia. plus shim thickness for early model compensators or 1-1/32"Dia. plus shim thickness for later model). With a chucked dowel pin supporting the rear pilot hole, if you're lucky, you should be able to loosen the compensator using the frame handle for leverage. If you're not lucky, you might unscrew the barrel instead. A hint: many of the West Hurley threaded compensators are installed with thread locking compound. so a little heat or solvent soak might help soften things up. Best solution is a good gunsmith if you don't have the facilities to tackle this properly. Replacement barrels and compensators aren't cheap, not to mention the cost of having the replacements properly headspaced and aligned. Do you really NEED to remove it?

Okay, THAT explains it! This thread has truly been an education - thanks for the clarification hardrede. All I can say about our convoluted "Catch 22" type system is what the Russian actor in those old motel commercials used to say - "Vhat a country!"

Well said, Phil. I think that this and its companion thread "From Russia with love" have been very informative despite the tensions that have sometimes flared. If nothing else, discussions like these serve to illustrate the byzantine and multi-layered nature of our system of law and policy, a system that cries out for a major overhaul. Now it's just a question of who's going to get to do that, but I'll say quite frankly I don't trust the Republicans to do a decent job of it any more than I do the Democrats. All politicians say what you want to hear, but as soon as elections are over they sell you out. The only thing that'll keep 'em in line is heavy and unrelenting pressure from what the Dems are pleased to call the "Gun Lobby". If the squeaky wheel gets the grease, let's resolve to be the squeakiest wheels ever!

Sgt, That might indeed make a difference, but if that's the case it goes beyond the information that hardrede provided in his post titled "Russia and Defense Articles / This should about cover it". The Lend Lease aspect is very probably another obstacle to legal importation, but it still doesn't explain the exception that was evidently carved out to allow importation of Romanian AKs in apparent contravention of the DOS/DTC policy cited in support of the position that NOTHING could be imported from Russia. Bob

Hardrede, This isn't to carry on any kind of argument , since I never disagreed with you in the first place, but the import/export-related Code section you posted in your other thread states as follows: (a) It is the policy of the United States to deny licenses, other approvals, exports and imports of defense articles and defense services, destined for or originating in certain countries. This policy applies to: Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Byelarus, Cambodia, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Mongolia, North Korea, Romania, Russia, South Africa, Syria, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine Uzbekistan and Vietnam. (You highlighted Russia and Ukraine in your original post, and I highlight Romania here.) In your response above you stated that the legally imported AKs are Polish, Romanian, and Czech. Wouldn't the fact that there are huge numbers of Romanian AKs and parts being imported and sold indicate the no-import policy set forth above is at least SOMEWHAT flexible? After all, if the above-stated regulation were hidebound and enforced to the letter, imports from Romania SHOULD be just as illegal as those from Russia. Believe me when I say I'm really not trying to play a game of "gotcha" here, but I think you'd concede this as a valid point. Unless the legally imported Romanian AKs were perhaps transferred first to a country not on the no-import list, it indicates that the DOS/DTC has SOME discretionary authority. If that's the case, why couldn't the same discretion be exercised in permitting imports from Russia? If the AKs WERE transferred to an "okay" country first, and imported from there, why couldn't the same be done with Russian goods? Bob

If it makes you feel better - YOU WIN!!! Don't know why yer knickers are in such a knot anyway, since neither I nor anyone here ever disagreed with you that the drums are illegal to import or to own. Okay, so they're illegal, and I agree with you, does that mean I can get ten years for telling Oleg so and counseling him to seek legal means for their importation? Give me a break! Maybe he'll find out that it IS impossible to obtain import approval from ATF, DTC, or whomever, but why is it so wrong for him to even try? I'm not questioning your credentials as an authority on this area of the law, but unless you're the Federal official who's going to actually make the yea or nay determination on whatever import application may or may not result from Oleg's inquiries, I really don't understand why you're so exercised about it. Don't know about you, but I'VE certainly got better things to do than try and convince the world that nothing can under any circumstances be legally imported from Russia - ever. A year ago no one thought we'd be organizing a group purchase of new production L-drums either, yet here we are.

I, too, had contacted "Oleg" to advise that importation of the drums would probably be illegal. Like Dan, I suggested he get in touch with a gun parts importer here in the US to find out if a way could be found to get the drums here legally. This was his reply (received this morning). Hello Robert! Thanks for the information. I'll try to contact some licensed gun dealers, who have experience with importing guns and parts, perhaps a partnership could be made and then it would be possible to buy them legal in US. Best regards, Oleg While "Oleg's" trustworthiness may be another story, I really don't see the harm in communicating and asking reasonable questions. I see no reason why any regulatory agency would infer from my communication OR from Dan's - or for that matter from "Oleg's" responses - that we were doing anything other than trying to encourage LEGAL importation of the drums. I'm a law-abiding citizen, and I suffer a lot of the sometimes idiotic rules and regulations without too much complaint because I AM law-abiding. However, I'll be damned if I'm going to vette every word I say or email I send with the "thought police" just because someone somewhere might (mistakenly) think that I'm entering into some kind of criminal conspiracy. This is, after all, America (or at least I hope it is)! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/dry.gif

She's a real beauty Zamm! Oh, and your daughter's pretty too. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

http://www.nfatoys.com/tsmg/tcn/1998/aug/aug98p1.htm

No image here either, and can't fix it using the usual image code. "Copy shortcut" and paste this url for a terrific shot of the "dangerous duo". http://image.pbase.com/u36/darklightimager...andClydeBWG.jpg

Hope you don't think I'm looking for an argument hardrede - more like just an honest exchange of ideas. I'm all for "self-policing", but you'd have to explain to me how initiating Federal action at that level is even remotely similar to blowing the whistle on some nut case you knew was about to shoot up a school. Do such incidents make it bad for all the rest of us? Sure they do, but nothing anyone says or does will change that. Although I would want to know I'd done everything I could to keep someone from stumbling into serious trouble, I'd think long and hard before involving the Federal government, and would do so only if lives were potentially at risk. Now that I think of it, doesn't the NRA have a sort of "self-policing" office to address situations such as this effectively but with the least amount of backlash? All of us have seen examples of government over-reaction where some poor slob winds up being treated like one of the Dillinger gang, and I know from (almost) personal experience what a life-changing experience that can be. In my younger days I used to fly out of a small private airport in upstate New York that was owned by an old guy who back in the '20s had the bad luck to have been a passenger in a small plane that happened to have been used on a DIFFERENT occasion to fly cases of whiskey in from Canada. The plane was seized based on its identification number and he was arrested but later released with no charges filed. However, even though he was cleared of any involvement in rum-running, he was put on a CAA (later FAA) blacklist and prevented from EVER obtaining a pilot's license - a circumstance that persisted despite appeals until his death more than sixty years later. Even if the DOS doesn't conduct a predawn raid with a swat team, it's certainly possible that similar administrative sanctions might befall the hapless buyer of something from overseas that technically can't be imported. Will such people - even if not charged with any crime - wind up in some database that triggers re-evaluation of existing ATF registrations or in the future effectively prevents them from obtaining NFA transfer approval? Only time will tell.

Lancer, You've put into words what perhaps many of us were thinking. To urge caution and point out the (il)legalities is one thing - to set in motion a powerful and oftentimes mindlessly punitive machine is quite another. The GunsAmerica ad will doubtless attract buyers who don't frequent this board and won't have the benefit of hardrede's counsel. Assuming the offering isn't a complete scam (and that's a big if), the first clue some of them may get that anything is amiss might be the service of a search warrant at three in the morning, confiscation of the drum(s) together with anything else that might not be completely "by the book", and no end of legal hassles, lawyers fees, etc. That seems like a lot of consequences just to make a point, particularly when the matter could have been resolved with an email to GunsAmerica alerting them to the potential illegality of importing the advertised items. I'm sure they would have pulled the ad. In light of what now may already be in motion, that may be the only way to keep a bunch of clueless but otherwise innocent people from being ground up in the gears.

Yup. Sure sounds like what you've got there is an original Thompson ammoanomaly. Might be a special like the shotshell mag, made to take only left-handed "anomolous ammo". Could also be you were just a little "under the weather" and didn't realize you were looking at it in a mirror. Oops! Just gave away my strategy for selling rare left-handed M1A1s at three times the going rate! Oh well, easy come, easy go ... Here's a thought: colttommygunner has a 1923 AOC brochure that shows pictures of an aircraft fitted out with thirty mounted Thompsons. Here's the url to that page (direct link disabled; copy and paste only): http://colttommygunner.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/1923-6.jpg It doesn't say, but they must have had right-twist barrels on one side and left twist ones on the other to neutralize inertial effects when firing - the same principle as counter-rotating props. It only stands to reason then that the mags were also made for left and right, you know, to maintain proper balance and to allow the pilot to see when he was low on ammo. Think I'll have another drinky poo. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif Post a picture or two if you can, but remember, NO MIRRORS! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Just as a matter of interest, I noticed a discrepancy or error in the rate of fire cited for the 1921A. In most of the AOC literature, full auto fire is described as being 300 shots per minute (controlled bursts, not cyclic). However, in AOC's 8-page brochure for the year 1928, full auto ROF is given as 500 shots per minute. The image cuts below show the difference. http://img48.exs.cx/img48/4362/ROF_300_500.jpg

Just a thought, but could your "reversed" mag be a factory mistake? I'd guess that the perforated channel part of the magazine would be formed prior to doing the end-forming, so it would seem possible for one of these perforated blanks to have been reversed in this secondary operation. I've seen other examples of "factory mistakes" such as drum lettering being stamped twice - in the right place as well as 180 degrees away. If your mag is in this category, maybe it's more valuable in the same way as currency and stamp misprints. Could your reversed viewing hole mag be the "inverted jenny" of Thompson mags? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Sorry for the poor picture quality. Closeups seem to be sharper. Let me know what specific areas of the case would provide better clues. BTW, inside there's a sleeve-type pocket with a snap tab at the top for a cleaning rod, if that means anything. http://img59.exs.cx/img59/9116/Canvas_Case_01.jpg

Got the case at Numrich in 1975 when I picked up my '27A1. Never used it because with its long barrel the '27A1 won't fit, but it'll make a very nice accessory when I fit a dummy short barrel. Condition is pretty much unused. It would be nice to know the details of this case - when made, by whom, etc. - but I've been over it from stem to stern and there isn't a single mark of any kind - makers mark, date, or anything else to distinguish it. It's without question an "original" as opposed to a reproduction, but the question is, an original what? I've seen references to "Rusco" cases and "Mills" cases, both of which apparently were made for the 1921 model Thompsons, and there may be other variations I haven't heard of. This one is the old khaki color, so I think it's a fairly early version. Any thoughts on what to look for to nail down an identification? I don't have a digital camera, but can probably do halfway decent webcam pics if that would help. Thanks Bob B

I'm certainly no Thompson historian, but as I understand it the Model 1928 in all its variations was the mass-produced version of the limited number of '21/'28 US Navy "overstamp" guns made from the original '21 Colts. The '21/'28 Colts, in addition to having a reduced rate of fire, used a modified '21 actuator that proved prone to breakage and was replaced in the '28s with a one-piece actuator. According to what I've read, there were 652,000 '28s produced (as opposed to only 15,000 of the original Colt '21s, only a small percentage of which are "overstamps"), under many different contracts and at different times. ALL were made by either AOC or Savage, in both commercial and military versions. To give some idea of the variation in '28s, they were made using three different types of sights, finned as well as plain barrels, with and without compensators (two types of these were used as well), horizontal and vertical foregrips, three different types of selector/safety levers, and blued or parkerized finishes that could range in color from smoke blue to charcoal. The 1928A1 was the military version, the 1928AC ("C" stood for compensator or Cutts) was the commercial. The West Hurley '28s were produced after Numrich acquired the inventory and rights to what remained of AOC, long after production had ceased. Some of the earlier West Hurleys used original AOC or Savage parts, but as these stocks were depleted they began making their own. The later model WH guns used softer, more machinable steel in the receivers and frames, workmanship was not up to even the standards of the AOC and Savage guns, and according to some sources, certain critical dimensions and angles in the receivers were incorrect as well. This is why WH Thompsons have never commanded the high prices of the earlier models. Most of the market price of Thompsons is attributable to the fact that they are registered. That said, one would have to know a lot more about it than I do to be able to establish a value on the guns you're looking at, but it's fair to say an original AOC or Savage '28 has greater intrinsic value.

Rich, Here's a webpage that gives an excellent breakdown on the three different slings that were used with the Thompson from the '20s through wartime production. http://www.rifleslings.com/Thompson_SMG_Sling.htm These are available, but kind of pricey for the originals. Good repros are available at more reasonable prices. A Google search for Thompson Sling should give you some places to start. Bob

These drawings are marked as being for the M1A1, but there should be no significant difference for the M1 trigger frame housing. Having said that, note that the drawings show provisions for a detachable stock, which as far as I know was never used on the M1A1, and a profile (except for the "stepped" grip mounting) that isn't correct for the M1A1. They may be an early (and inaccurate) revision, or just reworked 1928 drawings. The source of these? Anyone's guess, but the story goes they were "shop drawings" used for reference in wartime production. Maybe someone more knowledgeable about the history of Thompson design and manufacture could help clear this up. Anyone? The image quality is terrible I know, but they ARE readable - sort of. http://img68.exs.cx/img68/4379/thompson_m1a1_blueprints0001.gif http://img68.exs.cx/img68/3024/thompson_m1a1_blueprints0002.gif

Here ya go. http://img14.exs.cx/img14/5415/1928TriggerFramesm.jpg

Paul, I assume these poll results aren't merely a matter of hypothetical or academic interest to you? DO TELL!!! C'mon, stop being coy and spit it out! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif Oh yeah ... I'd be in for one. Bob