Freddy

I am fascinated that this is an AOC M1 upper. I Was under the Impression that due to acceptance delays, all M1 by AOC were reconfigured and re-stamped M1A1 before leaving the factory... I had only seen M1s by Savage so far... A very nice piece!

Thanks for posting the pictures! The newly made barrel looks very good, congratulations! It fits much better than a ww2 variation with square cooling fins. My friend owns the remains of Colt 11410 that went to the US Army - do you know the history of 11317? I would be very curios. Here is a thread with pictures of 11410: http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=17730

PTRS-14.5, thank you very much, the picture of the lower receiver is highly interesting. The internal mechanisms in the lower receiver were almost entirely re-designed apparently. If you find some time, I'd be very curious how the right side of the gun looks like. On your photos, we see the selector etc. on the left side - I wonder if they were also attached with a pivot plate similar to the AO-Thompsons, or if the whole arrangement was entirely different. How do you separate upper and lower on this BSA prototype? Is there also a button somewhere similar to the US-Thompsons, or was an entirely different mechanism used? Thanks a lot for taking the time to share information and photos about this interesting variation!

Thanks for the pictures! Seeing pictures of the interior of the lower receiver would be interesting - the mechanisms were probably changed quite a bit compared to the original TSMG...?

From what I understand reading some posts on this thread, a ringed barrel would not mean it is unusable. In my opinion, with such a rare early Colt-Thompson, the collector's appeal is much bigger with an all-original barrel. Even if it is ringed (and that wouldn't even affect its performance according to previous posters, I am no expert on the matter, though). I believe most people would not own such a Colt Thompson to shoot it, but rather as a historical artifact with attached history - and for historic artifacts I believe it is more important to have it all original. The ringed barrel might affect the performance to some degree, yes. But if someone wants a shooter with top performance, it would make more sense to me to use a less valuable gun where it doesn't matter if you replace parts (e.g. West Hurley)... I believe with antique collectibles with rising scarcity and age originality becomes more important than functionality... Especially since I read that if you replace the barrel and at one point decide to screw the original back in, it will turn a little further, meaning the draw-line and sight will be a bit off-center (according to ReconBob in a post..) meaning the original configuration couldn't be restored 100% if the barrel is replaced. But that is just my opinion...

In my opinion, most people regard a Colt Thompson rather as a historical artifact than a shooter, since they are quite rare. Meaning originality is most important; if it still has all the parts it left the factory with it would be more valuable, even if they are slightly damaged... Especially since the ring would not affect its performance according to some posts above. But as a collector's peace, originality is more important than performance. On the other side, a shooter-grade Thompson's price (e.g. a West Hurley) would be affected by a ringed barrel, and would be more valuable with a replacement... What is your opinion?

I would say from a collector standpoint, it is not good to replace an original production Colt barrel: I see it is an early production 1921 (by the square actuator slot), a replaced barrel would probably significantly hurt its value, vs. having an original but ringed original barrel... I would not replace the barrel.

Did the seller's father at one point own a Thompson 1921? I hear in the US many owners of 1921 Thompsons for shooting purposes replace internal parts that might wear out with cheaper WW2 1928a1 parts and keep the original parts separately. It might be that at one point he owned a 1921 Thompson, put the internal parts aside for shooting, and after he died it was sold with the incorrect internal parts as the relatives didn't know about the 1921 parts that were kept separately? Just a wild guess...

I read in the other thread referenced here about this gun that Colt No. 3000 is in a museum with a mis-matched frame... And this Thompson here has No. 3000's frame... It would be interesting to contact the museum if they want to switch frames? I don't know if the owner of this gun is interested - but wouldn't it be neat to have a Colt Thompson get its matching frame? And whatever frame is currently on No 3000 - I wouldn't see the value of this Thompson here going down with a different frame? Of course, the owner of this Thompson is free to do as he pleases - but I just had the idea, so wanted to write it..

gijive, good point. I remember having a discussion with my friend about this - the punch mark indeed touches the "P", but we were both quite certain that the P also extended to the receiver when looking closely... I will post a photo in the next days, that will be much clearer... My friend actually also owns a deactivated British used Thompson (not from "Eastern European" stock, very well used etc.) that at one point went through some barrel-replacement where you can see a trace of the P on the receiver that don't line up with the barrel... Will also post photos of that. I am quite certain that the "P" was applied on the assembled unit receiver-barrel. And replacement-barrels were probably separately tested and marked with a P... So, if a barrel was installed in a gun, my guess is that it was then marked when already installed meaning that the stamp could also be imprinted on the receiver if not perfectly placed; if the barrel was produced as a spare part, it was marked by itself with the "P", meaning that all barrels were marked P... But I am no expert on this - my theory on the Eastern European Thompsons is much more backed by observations than my theory about replacement barrels as I never looked too much into that. So far I have only seen Thompsons with punch marks on the barrel when looking at the deactivated Thompsons available in Germany - but of course that's always a small sample. I remember reading on this board that a source indicated more than 100000 .45 smgs were sent to the Soviet Union during WW2 via Lend-Lease... But so far, I have yet seen one of the "Russian" / "Eastern European" Thompsons without a punchmark on the barrel... So I saw no proof against the theory.

gijive, thanks for the input! Indeed, I have seen the "P" in sans-serif font on a deactivated 1928a1 made by Savage that clearly slightly touches the receiver... The top of the "P" facing the muzzle. I can post a photo in a few days when I visit the collector who owns it. It is interesting - Do the replacement barrels also feature the "punch" mark? (Dot that was punched inside the "P" and on the receiver)? Because all the deactivated Thompsons I observed from Eastern European Sources have these "punch" marks on receiver and barrel, too. (in the center of the receiver with Savage-made Thompons, on the top left with AO made Thompsons, as is expected). I think the barrels are originally installed and not replacements? Concerning the sources: There may very well be different sources. But I refer to the guns that have been described to come from "Russia" or "Eastern Europe", and they have these characteristics in common: -> Either matching numbers or forcematched frames. If frames are re-stamped, they always use the same font that is unlike the "original" font used for the serial number. -> containing brand new and worn / pitted parts. Parts where the bluing is gone (either wear or scrubbed off from removing rust) are painted black. -> stocks have not been "updated" to the crossbolt stocks on 1928a1 and early M1. In my opinion, these two characteristics describe this kind of Thompson best? It is of course impossible to say when and where they were exactly rebuilt - I have no idea where they were stored, except that many sellers in Europe and overseas say they are either "Russian" or "Eastern European". Still, looking at the samples, I think it's possible to say at least what happened to them after manufacture...

@ gijive, thanks for the input. Indeed, I do have both ATII as well as TUTB, and read both thoroughly. I formed my theory after reading ATII and TUTB, and observing numerous deactivated Thompsons. Latest M1A1 frames were not serial numbered to the receiver according to those books, that's clear. User "Anihilator" describes an M1A1 Thompsons from Eastern Europe that had a matching number on the frame - but the frame was AO made, the receiver by Savage, proving that they have been switched out. Probably, an un-numbered M1A1 frame was installed during rebuilding, and then the number of the upper added to it. The numbers on the frame were in a different font than on the upper. From this observation I conclude that also originally un-numbered M1A1 frames were also re-numbered during rebuilding, as I have indeed yet seen a deactivated M1A1 Thompson from Eastern European sources without number on the frame. It supports the theory that after rebuilding all Thompsons were to have matching numbers. Concerning the drawlines: Indeed, I read that they often didn't quite line up from the factory. I have observed numerous deactivated guns - regardless if the drawline lined up, the "P" on top was always in the center. There have also been some where the "P" was stamped in a way that it slightly "touched" the receiver and you could clearly see it continuing slightly on the receiver - proving it was stamped after the barrel was installed, and the barrel was original to the receiver. I am pretty certain the barrels have not been swapped on the ones I observed due to the "P" always being on top, etc. There have been threads about the drawlines not always lining up on 1928a1 Thompsons... etc... A very interesting topic!

A lot of things look right for a Thompson of that serial number (flat ejector, Lyman sight, "US" and "A1" stamped after the "Model of 1928"...) But at a later point a few parts have been swapped: Safety/Selector are from an M1A1, the actuator should be knurled... The stock would have originally been one without crossbolt from the factory, but it could have been a legitimate upgrate at a later point in the war... If selector/safty are replaced by older style ones and the actuator by a knurled one, it would be pretty correct for a Savage-Thompson of that serial number. To me, the serial number looks fine with the NAC stamped afterwards. To be 100% certain, there'd have to be pictures of the frame serial number - the serial number should look exactly the same at both places since the same roll marks were used for receiver and frame. Interesting enough, in the close-up photo, the receiver looks pretty correct having a matte-blue factory finish... But in the far-away shot it appears grayish, looking parkethized..

Thanks for the great discussion! I just thoroughly updated my initial post in this thread (on page 1, first post) to explain my theory in way more detail and to be more precise. My theory is actually that the Thompsons were rebuilt similar to the Russian rebuilt K98k rifles that are very common... More in the initial post. Anihilator wrote that many M1A1 frames that wouldn't be numbered are numbered and matching on these Thompsons from Eastern Europe. That fits my theory that at one point all the Thompsons were rebuilt and then ordered to be numbers matching again afterwards - those without number on the frame would have gotten stamped at that time.... What do you all think?

I just updated my first post, putting in more details about my theory and making it up-to-date: @Annihilator: I noticed as well on many deactivated Eastern European Thompsons that the drawlines on the barrel and receiver don't match. But in my opinion the barrels were like this from the factory: There are multiple threads on this board that the drawlines often didn't really line up on WW2 produced M1928a1 Thompsons. Also, I observed on deactivated guns that the "P" is always on top of the barrel where it should be. Also, they are drilled only one time for the compensator as you say. Therefore, I am quite certain that during rebuilding, they were not re-barreled. In my opinion they were disassembled in their components except for barrel, sight etc. which would be difficult to disassemble. Again, this is comparable to the Russian rebuilt K98s: Action and barrel often match, but no other parts, proving that receiver and barrel often stayed together. The Russians capturing thos K98s disasssembled them all and re-built them from piles of parts. I am certain that not all K98s actually needed rebuilding. It was probably simply ordered to disassemble and re-assemble ALL K98s. Similar with the Thompsons, I am quite certain. In the case of the Thompson, some workers tried to match back receiver and frame, some didn't and simply put together random receivers and frames, re-stamping the number on the frame to match the one on the receiver. Dating the rebuilding: The rebuilding of the Thompsons certainly took place a while after they were delivered. Explained by the rusty spots that were cleaned and re-painted black. I assume they were stored for a while in sometimes not perfect conditions. I saw a deactivated otherwise pristine condition Savage-made 1928a1 that had the compensator and barrel pitted underneath the black paint, proving that the rust was probably from bad storage - there was no wear at all on receiver or frame except for the rust pitting in front that had been painted over black.

@DZelenka: The gun was first deactivated in Ukraine - by deactivating bolt and barrel. It was then inscribed in cyrillic on the receiver to mark it as "deactivated". Its receiver was still intact as in Ukraine deactivated guns can apparently have intact receivers. When it was imported into the US, the receiver was cut up - but the inscription has nothing to do with the receiver being cut.

I just edited my initial post to include some info from a post I did on page 2, so all the info about my theory is now in the first post... @ Anihhilator: Very interesting about the numbers on the M1A1 that probably also have re-stamped frames to be numbers matching. That would be a further proof about the theory, that they were rebuilt at some point and then force-matched if the original frame wasn't attached - or if the frame was unnumbered in case of the M1A1.

Hi everybody, this topic has a lot of feedback, I am impressed by the discussion. Here are a few more points to substantiate my theory: -> During the war, indeed Thompsons were refurbished in the US. There were contracts with AO to do it. Refurbished Thompsons have AO-44 or AO-45 stamps. (see American Thunder II). None of the observed guns from Eastern Europe have such stampings. -> There are many sequentially numbered guns in the Eastern European lots. (e.g. in this thread http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10382 you can see it). One interesting sample: The user Schatzperson mentions two Thompson M1A1s 393,940/1. A friend owns 393937 (deactivated). It is in pristine condition. It is highly plausible if not the only likely explanation that they were shipped from the assembly line. Interesting, that M1A1 393937 has a very very worn magazine-catch while the rest of the parts is new. Showing that at one point it had been rebuilt. You can only replace the magazine catch when pivot plate etc. have been removed. That means that at one point, that pristine M1A1 393937 was disassembled entirely (at least the frame) and re-assembled, putting a worn magazine catch in. The buttstock assembly on that specimen, by the way, is also rather used while the metal retains about 99% original bluing showing that the wood had been replaced at one point, further suggesting that the gun had been rebuilt. Explanation on worn parts: On all the deactivated guns I saw, there have been two kinds of "worn" parts: 1. parts that had rusted due to improper storage. They almost always had the rust removed in a rough way and were then painted with a kind of black paint to hide the bare metal. 2. parts that showed legitimate wear from use, they are more rare than the ones mentioned above but still around. My theory: Wherever these guns were sent (Russia or some other Eastern European country) a few were used (as proven by the picture). Due to humidity / improper storage, some were rusty or damaged. At some point, therefore, there was an order probably to disassemble all of them (new and used) into parts and re-assemble them, sorting out unservicable parts. The buttstock-assemblies, for example, should be matching from factory, but they aren't on these guns. The Russian rebuilt K98s are an interesting example, because they were disassembled and re-built as well as we know. Parts kits vs. deactivated guns: I am pretty certain that the parts kits offered in the US were from the same source as the deactivated guns in Germany. The re-stamped numbers on the frames have the same font as those on the deactivated guns judging from the photos, and it's in the same position. It makes sense that there is one large "source" of those delivering to different countries in different forms of deactivation. Conclusion: I do not know where these guns are from, but they are almost certainly from Eastern Europe as most sources (sellers, the thread mentioned above) state that. They were probably new when sent over; and were probably sent over during the course of production, starting with 1928a1 with Lyman sight until M1A1. That is explained by so many pristine samples and sequential serial numbers. Some of them were used, others were damaged due to improper storage. At one point in time there was likely one or multiple rebuilding program where all guns, regardless of damage, were taken apart into parts and rebuilt. Worn / rusty parts were "repaired" wherever possible. That explains otherwise pristine guns with some worn parts. And some pristine guns that have non-matching numbers on frame and receiver. Some workers probably paid attention to keeping frame and receiver together, others didn't, and those guns were re-stamped with the new serial number on the frame. I have observed multiple deactivated guns where both frame and receiver show not the slightest sign of wear - still they included some "used" parts and were not matching numbers.

There have been discussions about the "Russian" Thompson guns, their non-matching serial numbers, etc. Looking at numerous deactivated Thompsons here in Germany, I noticed a few things (they are all from Eastern Europe - presumably Russia? - in very new condition): Observations: Some parts show wear not consistent with the rest of the gun. E.g. on a deactivated M1A1 described later the magazine holder was showing a lot of pitting while the rest of the gun was in pristine condition. There are signs of ejectors removed (traces in the bluing), and sometimes the ejector is "old" (flat) on high serial numbered 1928a1s, etc. The buttstock assemblies are never matching, i.e. the wood and metal parts when disassembled show different numbers. Even pristine condition guns are sometimes not numbers matching, instead the frames are force-matched to the receiver even though both are in pristine condition, as if they never saw use. There are numerous threads about the re-numbering here on the board, showing that this is also the case in a lot of parts kits and has nothing to do with the deactivation of the Thompsons I observed in Germany. My theory on the Russian Thompsons after handling numerous of these (deactivated) guns in Germany: I think ALL these Thompsons at one point - probably for a rebuilding-program - were dis-assembled into every small component / screw / etc.. except for barrel, sights and receiver that stayed together. These components were put on piles and they were then re-assembled from piles. That explains why some otherwise pristine guns have some small parts with wear; and explains why the buttstock-assemblies are never matching. This rebuild program was probably similar to the one done on Russian captured K98k rifles, as will be explained later. The people doing the dis-assembly sometimes paid attention to find matching frames and receivers when putting the guns back together, sometimes not... (Maybe different people?) That would explain the force matching. I can imagine a pile of frames, another one of receivers; some workers putting them back together paying attention that the numbers match, some don't care. At a later point non-matching guns are re-numbered. I strongly doubt that this disassembly and re-assembly of often pristine guns was done in the US prior to shipping. I am actually quite certain it was done in Russia (or wherever they were stored after the war) after they were shipped. Could it be that they were rebuilt in the US prior to shipping? There have been theories on this board that they had been refurbished prior to being sent to Russia - I think that is very unlikely if not impossible: During the war, indeed Thompsons were refurbished in the US. There were contracts with AO to do it. Refurbished Thompsons have AO-44 or AO-45 stamps. (see American Thunder II). None of the observed guns from Eastern Europe have such stampings. The re-stamped serial numbers on the frames have a very different font than the US one used at AO and Savage. And I saw mis-matched guns where no part showed any wear and they clearly had the factory finish, proving that they had not been "refurbished". There are Thompsons present of all serial-number ranges, not only "old" ones. There are many sequentially numbered guns in the Eastern European lots. (e.g. in this thread http://www.machinegu...showtopic=10382 you can see it). One interesting sample: The user Schatzperson mentions two Thompson M1A1s 393,940/1. A friend of mine owns 393937 (deactivated). It is in pristine condition. It is highly plausible if not the only likely explanation that they were shipped from the assembly line. Interesting, that M1A1 393937 has a magazine-catch that has rust-pitting, had been scrubbed off and re-painted black, while the rest of the parts are in pristine condition. Showing that at one point this M1A1 had been rebuilt. You can only replace the magazine catch when pivot plate etc. have been removed. That means that at one point, that pristine M1A1 393937 was disassembled entirely (at least the frame) and re-assembled, putting a worn magazine catch in. The buttstock assembly on that specimen, by the way, is also rather used while the metal retains about 99% original bluing showing that the wood had been replaced at one point, further suggesting that the gun had been rebuilt. What kind of worn parts do we find on the rebuilt guns? On all the deactivated guns I saw, there have been two kinds of "worn" parts: Parts that had rusted due to improper storage. They almost always had the rust removed in a rough way and were then painted with a kind of black paint to hide the bare metal. Parts that showed legitimate wear from use. They are more rare than the ones mentioned above but still around. My theory: Wherever these guns were sent (Russia or some other Eastern European country) a few were used (as proven by pictures showing Russian soldiers with Thompsons), causing wear on some specimen. Due to humidity / improper storage, others were rusty or damaged after being stored for a while. At some point, therefore, there was an order probably to disassemble all of them (pristine and damaged) into parts and re-assemble them, sorting out unservicable parts. The buttstock-assemblies, for example, should be matching from factory, but they aren't on these guns. The Russian rebuilt K98s are an interesting example, because they were disassembled and re-built as well as we know. How far were they disassembled when rebuilt? I noticed as well on many deactivated Eastern European Thompsons that the drawlines on the barrel and receiver don't match. But in my opinion the barrels were like this from the factory: There are multiple threads on this board that the drawlines often didn't really line up on WW2 produced M1928a1 Thompsons. Also, I observed on deactivated guns that the "P" is always on top of the barrel where it should be. Also, they are drilled only one time for the compensator in the observed specimen. Therefore, I am quite certain that during rebuilding, they were not re-barreled. In my opinion they were disassembled in their components except for barrel, sight etc. which would be difficult to disassemble. Again, this is comparable to the Russian rebuilt K98s: Action and barrel often match, but no other parts, proving that receiver and barrel often stayed together. The Russians capturing those K98s disasssembled them all and re-built them from piles of parts. I am certain that not all K98s actually needed rebuilding. It was probably simply ordered to disassemble and re-assemble ALL K98s. Similar with the Thompsons, I am quite certain. What about the re-stamped numbers? The Russian rebuilt K98 rifles are almost never number-matching besides barrel and receiver that stayed together during the dissassembly. But all other parts were then force-matched. In the case of the Thompson, some workers tried to match receiver and frame when re-assembling, some didn't and simply put together random receivers and frames. In the end, there was probably an order to make sure the final guns had matching numbers. Those frames not matching were then re-stamped with the receiver's number. Some frames are re-stamped with two different numbers, probably showing that during storage, there had been multiple rebuilding programs. When were they rebuilt? The rebuilding of the Thompsons certainly took place a while after they were delivered. As we see by the rusty spots that were cleaned and re-painted black, they must have been exposed to bad storage for a while. I know a deactivated otherwise pristine condition Savage-made 1928a1 that has the compensator and barrel pitted underneath the black paint, proving that the rust was probably from bad storage and not from usage - there was no wear at all on receiver or frame except for the rust pitting in front that had been painted over black. Parts kits vs. deactivated guns: I am pretty certain that the parts kits offered in the US were from the same source as the deactivated guns in Germany. The re-stamped numbers on the frames have the same font as those on the deactivated guns judging from the photos, and it's in the same position. It makes sense that there is one large "source" of those delivering to different countries in different forms of deactivation. Conclusion: I do not know where these guns are from, but they are almost certainly from Eastern Europe as most sources (sellers, the thread mentioned above) state that. They were probably new when sent over; and were probably sent over during the course of production, starting with 1928a1 with Lyman sight until M1A1. That is explained by so many pristine samples and sequential serial numbers. Some of them were used, others were damaged due to improper storage. At one point in time there was likely one or multiple rebuilding program where all guns, regardless of damage, were taken apart into parts and rebuilt. Worn / rusty parts were "repaired" wherever possible. That explains otherwise pristine guns with some worn parts. And some pristine guns that have non-matching numbers on frame and receiver. Some workers probably paid attention to keeping frame and receiver together, others didn't, and those guns were re-stamped with the new serial number on the frame. I have observed multiple deactivated guns where both frame and receiver show not the slightest sign of wear - still they included some "used" parts and were not matching numbers. What do you think of my theory? I am pretty certain it would explain a lot of issues on the "Russian" Thompsons.

Very interesting! I just posted a thread with a new theory on the Russian Thompsons, that fits very well here: http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18163

I wonder what happend to the frontgrip mount? Is it broken off due to corrosion, or is it missing for some other reasons...? Thanks for the pictures!

Very good! Just as I speculated in the other thread - the barrel is original to the gun. Who knows why the compensator had been replaced in the past... Did you already get a WW2 marked one as a replacement?

Interesting, thanks for the pictures! What about the screw that seems to be holding the metal bar for attaching the handguard? Was that an improvement to make barrel changes easier? Or a modification done sometime later? Also, I notice the sight is not riveted on, but seems to be held by screws... Were there changes to the design done by Colt?

I am wondering, would it theoretically be possible to repair the drum-modification on a M1 / M1A1 type Thompson by welding in additional material to get it back into original shape? Has it ever been done? It would probably always be visible, but still might get it closer to the way it looked if carefully done...?

Kilroy, I am glad to deliver the good news! AO started their production much later than Savage, meaning that the change to smooth barrel / simple sight happened at much earlier serial numbers compared to guns built at Savage. (Savage had already produced a few hundred thousand Thompsons when AO factory started making them...) That's why at Thompsons built at AO, the changeover to smooth barrel and simple sight occured at much lower serial numbers compared to Savage-built Thompsons. At the same time that AO production reached approx. number AO-100.000, Savage reached about S-500.000 (approx.)