Savage Date

[Highseas]

I have a 1928A1 Savage parts kit (receiver on order from Recon Bob) for which I’m trying to arrive at a rough production date, but I’m having a problem. The serial number on the trigger frame is in the 49,000 range, barrel is finned, exterior is excellent, bore and internals are near mint. As far as I can see, this is not a mix-and-match set of parts. Despite the low serial number, the selector switch, safety lever, and actuator knob are uncheckered, indicating a late—i.e., 1942—production date. Also, the sight is a Lyman “L” sight, pointing to a post-January 1942 date. So how does the low serial number square with these late-style parts, particularly the selector and safety, which are certainly original to the trigger frame? Maybe there’s an obvious answer here, but it’s eluding me at the moment. Any thoughts on this? Thanks very much.

[FireMerc]

I doubt that the parts kits were kept separated after the receiver was removed. At least the parts kits that I saw there were boxes of barrels, actuators, stocks, etc..

[1921A]

You may have a kit that did have a mismatched upper/lower, or more likely, the importer stripped the adjustable Lyman sight, knurled control levers and actuator and replaced them with plain parts. Then, they sell the "premium parts" separately. It stinks but that's what they do.

 

[inertord]

A few years back I had occasion to visit a distributor who handled Thompson Parts Kits and observed that all like type parts were shipped together in separate crates when he received them (i.e.: Barrels, lowers, bolts, wood, etc. were all bulk packaged separately). The distributor would then assemble and box complete kits from the separate crates as an order would come in. This easily accounts for a parts kit(s) with mixed type and manufacturers parts.

[Highseas]

Very interesting and enlightening. Thanks, guys.

[TD.]

This is why you find the knurled selector levers and actuators priced separately with many of the dealers. A 49,000 Savage Thompson probably had an early flat type ejector - a very hard to find and expensive part. Your right, originally it did have a Lyman adjustable rear sight - something we have discussed on the Board previously. Check out the FAQ Section above on Reproduction Thompson Parts (with a lot of pictures). There is a good chance your type L rear sight is a reproduction.

 

Can you post a picture of the serial number of your Savage lower?

[TSMGguy]

I have a matching, unaltered Savage produced M1928A1 with a 332xxx serial. It has its original knurled pivot, safety, and actuator, along with square barrel fins and adjustable Lyman rear sight. I believe that the plain items (without knurling) just mentioned came into use after the production date of my gun, and well after yours. Edited February 16, 2009 by TSMGguy

[Highseas]

There is a good chance your type L rear sight is a reproduction.

 

Can you post a picture of the serial number of your Savage lower?

 

TD, thanks for the input. You're right on the money about the sight--definitely a repro according to the FAQ. Here's a shot of the trigger frame.

 

[gijive]

Highseas,

 

Many of the Russian Lend Lease guns were rebuilt and arsenal refinished before shipping to Russia in probably 1942 or so. Your gun exhibits a characteristic that several of the parts kits do. When the guns were refurbished they often restamped the grip frame serial number to match that of the receiver on the rebuilt gun. Your grip frame may be Savage made but that wasn't the original serial number. In fact, I would bet that your grip frame was matched with an A.O. serial numbered receiver in the 49,000 serial number range. That low of a serial number on a Savage gun would have definitely been a Model of 1928 that probably went to Britain in 1940 or 1941. It wouldn't have been part of a Lend-Lease Shipment in 1942. Besides, if it hadn't been restamped it would have an S preceeding the serial number. I would recommend that you get Frank Ianammico's book American Thunder II that explains all the nuances of the Savage, A.O. marking variations and the time frame of the Thompson 1928/1928A1 production.

Edited February 17, 2009 by gijive

[Highseas]

Highseas,

 

Many of the Russian Lend Lease guns were rebuilt and arsenal refinished before shipping to Russia in probably 1942 or so. Your gun exhibits a characteristic that several of the parts kits do. When the guns were refurbished they often restamped the grip frame serial number to match that of the receiver on the rebuilt gun. Your grip frame may be Savage made but that wasn't the original serial number. In fact, I would bet that your grip frame was matched with an A.O. serialed numbered receiver in the 49,000 serial number range. That low of a serial number on a Savage gun would have definitely been a Model of 1928 that probably went to Britain in 1940 or 1941. It wouldn't have been part of a lend-Lease Shipment in 1942. Besides, if it hadn't been restamped it would have an S preceeding the serial number. I would recommend that you get Frank Ianammico's book American Thunder II that explains all the nuances of the Savage, A.O. marking variations and the time frame of the Thompson 1928/1928A1 production.

 

GI Jive:

 

Thanks very much. This stuff is fascinating. The level of knowledge possessed by the members of this forum never ceases to amaze me. I do have Frank's book and I'm going over it very carefully now. Thanks again.

 

Bill

[TSMGguy]

Highseas,

 

The font of the lettering is wrong in the photo you posted, looking like no font in use at US arsenals. Looks Russian. Look at the open topped '4s'. Note also how the your frame was deeply ground to remove the original serial before the current serial was applied. This is called "forced" matching. US arsenals never did that during rebuild. Savage and AO roll marked the serials on their guns, and the process left very neat, even serials. The roll marked serials were applied at the same time, by the same operator, with the same dies, and were very uniform. The markings in the photos look stamped.

 

The guns to come out of Russia generally have the same characteristics: they are in new or near new condition, and blued.

 

No, US arsenal rebuilt TSMGs were not sent to Russia as Lend-lease in 1942. We were not yet in the business of rebuilding these guns as the ones that went to the Pacific before August 1942 generally got captured. The rest had only been in general issue since about 1940 and were not yet worn to the point of requiring rebuilding. If there was any rebuilding/refinishing done to Russian Lend-Lease guns, it wasn't done here, and I'll bet that it wasn't done during the war in Russia, either, but after. Their arsenals were just too busy turning out their own small arms to bother rebuilding guns that they did not even issue to their own troops.

 

US arsenals rebuilt TSMGs with a phosphate finish and generally made no effort to keep the serialed parts together.

Edited February 17, 2009 by TSMGguy

[Highseas]

Highseas,

 

The font of the lettering is wrong in the photo you posted, looking like no font in use at US arsenals. Looks Russian. Look at the open topped '4s'. Note also how the receiver was deeply ground to remove the original serial before the current serial was applied. This is called "forced" matching. US arsenals never did that during rebuild. Savage and AO roll marked the serials on their guns, and the process left very neat, even serials. The roll marked serials were applied at the same time, by the same operator, with the same dies, and were very uniform. The markings in the photos look stamped.

 

The guns to come out of Russia generally have the same characteeristics: they are in new or near new condition, and blued.

 

No, US arsenal rebuilt TSMGs were not sent to Russia as Lend-lease in 1942. We were not yet in the business of rebuilding these guns as the ones that went to the Pacific before August 1942 generally got captured. The rest had only been in general issue since about 1940 and were not yet worn to the point of requiring rebuilding. If there was any rebuilding/refinishing done to Russian Lend-Lease guns, it wasn't done here, and I'll bet that it wasn't done during the war in Russia, either, but after. Their arsenals were just too busy turning out their own small arms to bother rebuilding guns that they did not even issue to their own troops.

 

After the US entry into WWII, TSMGs were no longer supplied to Russia as Lend-Lease as we needed them to arm our own forces.

 

US arsenals rebuilt TSMGs with a phosphate finish and generally made no effort to keep the serialed parts together.

 

TMSGGuy:

 

Very interesting! Hadn't noticed the unusual number style. Very insightful! By the way, when you say "forced" matching, what was it being matched to--the serial number on the receiver?

 

Bill

[bug]

Highseas,

 

The font of the lettering is wrong in the photo you posted, looking like no font in use at US arsenals. Looks Russian. Look at the open topped '4s'. Note also how the receiver was deeply ground to remove the original serial before the current serial was applied. This is called "forced" matching. US arsenals never did that during rebuild. Savage and AO roll marked the serials on their guns, and the process left very neat, even serials. The roll marked serials were applied at the same time, by the same operator, with the same dies, and were very uniform. The markings in the photos look stamped.

 

The guns to come out of Russia generally have the same characteeristics: they are in new or near new condition, and blued.

 

No, US arsenal rebuilt TSMGs were not sent to Russia as Lend-lease in 1942. We were not yet in the business of rebuilding these guns as the ones that went to the Pacific before August 1942 generally got captured. The rest had only been in general issue since about 1940 and were not yet worn to the point of requiring rebuilding. If there was any rebuilding/refinishing done to Russian Lend-Lease guns, it wasn't done here, and I'll bet that it wasn't done during the war in Russia, either, but after. Their arsenals were just too busy turning out their own small arms to bother rebuilding guns that they did not even issue to their own troops.

 

After the US entry into WWII, TSMGs were no longer supplied to Russia as Lend-Lease as we needed them to arm our own forces.

 

US arsenals rebuilt TSMGs with a phosphate finish and generally made no effort to keep the serialed parts together.

 

 

I know very little of this lend lease shipping but I am curious. Are you saying that no Thompsons were sent to Russia after Jan 42? I have examined many of the rescent parts kits and most are marked on the grip frame as Highseas is. Of course the receivers were no where to be found. Along with the guns and magazines a lot of web gear came in too. While I've seen 41 and 42 dated 5 cell pouches and pistol belts there were quite a few 43 coded items. I don't have any reference material handy but my question is "do we know for sure the dates when the TSMGs were shipped to russia?" I know lend lease to Russia went on until Sept of 45. What were we shipping? TIA

 

Bob D

 

[TSMGguy]

Hi, Bob,

 

I've got to say in all honesty that I'm just not certain exactly when Russian Lend-Lease TSMG shipments stopped.

 

I, too, have several canvas TSMG items that supposedly came out of Russia, dated as you mention. I'm also sitting on a pile of Russian spam cans full of re-packed 1942 dated .45 ball ammo. Most of it has RA head stamps, but some has commercial head stamps, as well.

 

I'll see what I can find on this subject.

 

Howard

[TSMGguy]

 

TMSGGuy:

 

Very interesting! Hadn't noticed the unusual number style. Very insightful! By the way, when you say "forced" matching, what was it being matched to--the serial number on the receiver?

 

Bill

 

Hi, Bill

 

Yes, common Russian practice. They either lined through the old serial or completely ground it off, as you see here.

 

Howard

 

[TSMGguy]

Here's a complete list of all US Lend Lease shipments to Allied countries made in WWII. It was prepared by the War Department on 31 December, 1946.

 

Under the Ordnance, General Supplies sub-heading, we find that the number of submachineguns of all types furnished to the Russians was 137,729. No 30 rd. mags were furnished at all.

 

Everything shipped is in these lists, down to the smallest items, even cleaning brushes. Unfortunately, there are no shipment dates!

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/LL-Ship/index.html

Edited February 17, 2009 by TSMGguy

[gijive]

Highseas,

 

 

The guns to come out of Russia generally have the same characteristics: they are in new or near new condition, and blued.

 

No, US arsenal rebuilt TSMGs were not sent to Russia as Lend-lease in 1942. We were not yet in the business of rebuilding these guns as the ones that went to the Pacific before August 1942 generally got captured. The rest had only been in general issue since about 1940 and were not yet worn to the point of requiring rebuilding. If there was any rebuilding/refinishing done to Russian Lend-Lease guns, it wasn't done here, and I'll bet that it wasn't done during the war in Russia, either, but after. Their arsenals were just too busy turning out their own small arms to bother rebuilding guns that they did not even issue to their own troops.

 

US arsenals rebuilt TSMGs with a phosphate finish and generally made no effort to keep the serialed parts together.

 

 

TSMGguy,

 

I would respectfully disagree with that statement that the guns were rebuilt and refurbished in Russia. Later arsenal rebuilds by the U.S. did use a parkerized finish and yes, generally no effort was made to match the serial numbers. However, we are talking about earlier in the war probably 1942, 1943 time frame. Many of the parts kits I have observed have barrels that were obviously replaced as the witness marks don't line up correctly. Also the blue finish appears too new and even, not consistent with used service weapons. I maintain that some guns were probably new as issued but since the Army was using the Thompson in limited numbers since 1936, it is very unlikely that none of their submachine guns were not rebuilt or refurbished at some point. Many contend that the Rusisians never even used these guns, why would they rebuild, refinish and match serial numbers? I agree that some of the parts kits do have Russin characters stamped on the guns but this may have just been for inventory purposes. I thnk it more likely that these guns were all inspected and refurbished at U.S. depots prior to shipment to Russia. I believe Tracie Hill may have an Army memo that specifies not making an effort to renumber grip frames, but that is dated later in the war than 1942. Most of the guns sent to Russia are 1928 Models so it would stand to reason that the older limited standard model would be sent to the allies after the M1 series was developed in 1942. I really doubt that the Russians rebuilt and refurbished these guns espcially if they never used them. This is just my theory of course, I stand corrected if you can document that these were rebuilt in Russia.

[dalbert]

I believe Tracie Hill may have an Army memo that specifies not making an effort to renumber grip frames, but that is dated later in the war than 1942.

 

Chuck,

 

I have an original of "Ordnance Field Service Technical Bulletin No. 23-40-1," for the M1928A1 and M1 Thompson Submachine Guns, which is the bulletin to which I believe you refer. It is dated June 3, 1942. It states as follows:

 

1. It has been noted that difficulty is being experienced in the field in keeping records on the subject weapons since in many cases the serial number on the receiver does not correspond with the number on the frame.

 

2. As frames as well as receivers are completely interchangeable, the serial number on the frame will be disregarded and records will be kept according to the receiver serial number. Units of future manufacture will not have serial numbers on the frames.

 

3. This information is published pending revision of FM 23-40 and publication of FM 23-41. (I have never noticed where they followed through on this assertion in later revisions or supplements to FM 23-40...If anyone has noticed it in later copies, I'd be interested in the page details and revision date)

 

By Order of the Chief of Ordnance:

 

J.K. Crain

Brig. Gen., Ord. Dept.,

Chief of Field Service

 

I'm posting the above as an FYI...BTW Chuck, I got the "Burkart 1942" marked Thompson magazine pouch in the mail from overseas today, and will post pictures ASAP in the canvas pinned post. It's in remarkable condition, which makes me just a little wary of a potential reproduction. I'll be interested in your assessment of the pictures, and will bring the magazine pouch with me to the next event we both attend...

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

[TSMGguy]

GI Jive,

 

I completely agree with you. I know of no TSMGs that were refurbished in Russia. That fails to explain the serial on Highsea's grip frame that was obviously not applied by AO or Savage.

 

The US was not in the TSMG arsenal rebuild business until after the guns were withdrawn from service late in 1944. No US arsenal refurbished TSMGs went to Russia as Lend-Lease. As proof, we've seen no TSMG "kits" that have come out of Russia parked and mismatched, which is how most if not all arsenal refurbished TSMGs left the respective US arsenals. After arsenal rebuild, the guns went into storage until later issued to US allies after the war, and for service in Korea, and as late as Viet Nam. They were stored and not re-issued as (you'll remember) they had been withdrawn from front line US service, to be replaced by the M-3.

 

There were several ordnance depots set up in France and Belgium following D Day and the push across Europe. Damaged and abandoned US equipment and weapons were gathered up and cleaned, serviced, rebuilt as necessary, and issued to arriving replacement troops and other units as necessary. Small arms were a big part of this effort, which employed local labor in addition to US Ordnance personnel. This was no small operation, but it was not the same as the arsenal rebuild program that existed later in the States.

Edited February 18, 2009 by TSMGguy

[Highseas]

That low of a serial number on a Savage gun would have definitely been a Model of 1928 that probably went to Britain in 1940 or 1941. It wouldn't have been part of a Lend-Lease Shipment in 1942. Besides, if it hadn't been restamped it would have an S preceeding the serial number.

 

G.I., I found this interesting bit in American Thunder II on p. 137:

 

However, in late 1940, there was reportedly one contract for 50,000 1928 model guns that were made without the S prefix to identify them as Savage weapons. The Savage-Auto-Ordnance contract specifically stated that the S prefix be omitted from the serial number of the Thompsons in that particular contract.

Edited February 18, 2009 by Highseas

[gijive]

I believe Tracie Hill may have an Army memo that specifies not making an effort to renumber grip frames, but that is dated later in the war than 1942.

 

 

I'm posting the above as an FYI...BTW Chuck, I got the "Burkart 1942" marked Thompson magazine pouch in the mail from overseas today, and will post pictures ASAP in the canvas pinned post. It's in remarkable condition, which makes me just a little wary of a potential reproduction. I'll be interested in your assessment of the pictures, and will bring the magazine pouch with me to the next event we both attend...

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

 

Dave,

 

First, I still think the pouch is original although it is a little known contractor. I have a pretty good Boyt example that looks almost new. It probably was probably found packed away in Europe after the war and was never used. I'd like to see some better pictures when you get a chance.

 

Regarding the TSMG discussion, thanks that was the memo I was referring to. In essence, it refers to Ordnance Field Units and not a major undertaking like the Lend-Lease shipments. I do agree that U.S. Arsenal rebuilds do favor the characteristics TSMGguy mentions, however, who is to say that these guns were U.S. Arsenal refinished? It's entirely conceivable that Auto-Ordnance may have done some maintenance work since many examples of the parts kits are A.O. made guns and run the gamut from early Lyman adjustable sight models to the late Savage and A.O. plain barrel variety. Frank's book indicates that Savage or A.O. actually did some rebuilding at some point during the war. If the guns were new production, right off the assembly line, one would think that they would be more consistently one model type? I have examined several butt stocks from these kits and all the ones I have observed are all rebuilt. Few or none of the numbers match on the butt plates, stocks and attachment slides so these were rebuilt berfore shipment during and after 1942, why not the guns? What purpose would the Russian military have for grinding and striking through grip frame serial numbers and matching them with receivers and refinishing the guns if they didn't use them, which apparently many weren't? But in 1942 when the 1928A1 become limited standard and hundreds, if not thousands, were going to be shipped via Lend-Lease why wouldn't the U.S. inspect the guns and return them to as new condition before shipment? This just seems like a more reasonable scenario than being rebuilt in Russia. Were the guns opened inspected in Russia over the last 70 years, sure they were. That would explain some of the finish issues on the parts kits with the slight pitting and coating with the black paint-like substance found on many of them. They were probably repacked for long-term storage, maybe more than once. There is evidence that the original shipping containers were repainted and remarked a couple of times.

 

I don't know the definitive answer, but since the U.S. production capabilities during WWII were mind-boggling it is not inconceivable that any guns destined for Lend-Lease to our allies were returned to "as new" condition before shipment. It seems to me that the late or post-was arsenal rebuilds favor the parkerizing process as oppsed to the original blue finish that was applied when they were made. Maybe the new post information by schatzperson and examination of the apparently many hundreds of guns that still exist in crates will shed some additional light on this topic.

 

Highseas,

 

I am aware of that information in Frank's book, but I am not aware of of anyone that has or has seen one of these examples. I believe Frank even thinks it is a mystery where they went. The guns coming out of Russia have the S or A.O. prefix on the serial numbers except for the ones like your example or the ones with the line crossed through the serial number and restamped on the grip frame.

[TSMGguy]

To the best of my knowledge, all of the TSMGs that went to Russia were new guns from Savage or AO. None were arsenal rebuilds. We know this because all of the kits that have verifyably come out of the Russian Federation have been in new (not rebuilt) condition, occasionally with the finish and minor corrosion issues mentioned. Different models of TSMG are seen in and coming out of the Russian Federation because lend lease shipments covered a long enough time period for all models to have been sent.

 

Actually it is pretty much inconcievable that any of the guns furnished to Russia under Lend-Lease had been arsenal reconditioned prior to shipment. The US was not in the stateside TSMG arsenal rebuilding business until after the guns were withdrawn from general issue and service. Then, they were shipped back to the US for disposition. Since the plan was to store the guns against future need, they were inspected and serviced prior to storage, to include complete arsenal rebuild if necessary. Arsenal rebuild stamps were applied at this time. I've never seen a Russian kit or gun with one of these stamps.

 

As an aside, I have two different guns that were a part of this process. The first is a stone mint Winchester M12 trench gun, with matching serials and its original, perfect commercial grade of blue and polish. Next to the GHD inspector's mark is an arsenal mark. The gun had been produced in 1942, but later inspected at that arsenal and then stored before it was later disposed of. The second gun is a mint Remington 2 groove M1903A3. The gun has clearly never been messed with in any way, but the stock bears the Ogden, Utah (OG) arsensal stamp where it was inspected and stored until it became, at some point, a part of the DCM sales program.

[richard w.]

The frame in my Lend Lease parts set has been renumbered by having the old (Savage) serial struck-through and a new serial stamped next to it. As mentioned earlier, there's a big difference in the fonts.

 

It's hard to make out in this photo, but that new serial (47251) is also electropencilled above the old serial.

 

http://www.fototime.com/2FFFBAF701816F3/orig.jpg

 

 

[Highseas]

Highseas,

 

I am aware of that information in Frank's book, but I am not aware of of anyone that has or has seen one of these examples. I believe Frank even thinks it is a mystery where they went. The guns coming out of Russia have the S or A.O. prefix on the serial numbers except for the ones like your example or the ones with the line crossed through the serial number and restamped on the grip frame.

 

Thanks, G.I. Fascinating stuff.

[newtommygunner]

I also have a lower fm a parts kit discribed as above. org ser A. O. 81266 lined through, them new number stamped 79068, it also is electro stensiled above the old ser #. Sorry i'm not set up for pictures yet, but working on it. mike