SAR Article on the NAC Thompson

[Kilroy]

I think I'm set up to be disappointed. I latched onto the idea that my NAC suffix gun was an import and therefore a military piece. I got a feeling in Part II I'm going to learn otherwise and have a wake up call. Guess that's an expensive lesson to learn. I jumped into the Thompson game before educating myself.

[buzz]

Kilroy, I don't know how long you've had that gun, but you might be pleasantly surprised at the current value.

 

I like the NAC guns, I would not hesitate to buy one.

[TD.]

Arthur,

Thank you for the information on the Champlin auction. Can you point me to your source of information for the auction. This would great to include in an update story. As an aside, I have been looking for NAC 1 and NAC 2 for many years.

I hope the pictures of NAC 15 are included in Part 2. This is a one of kind NAC Thompson with very unusual markings. The picture selection and layout at SAR are above my pay grade!

 

Kilroy,

Do not panic. It very well may be a military Thompson. I believe the majority of NAC marked Thompsons are not from the original 1951 purchase. The reason I wrote this story is to give enthusiasts, owners and prospective owners all available information on this variation. So much mis-information has been banded about over the years. Stay tuned!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

Thank you for the information on the Champlin auction. Can you point me to your source of information for the auction.

 

The 2000 auction did not get much if any publicity before it took place. Ron Kovar, being a Tuscon dealer, may have had a heads-up at the time. I referenced the Champlin auction in this 2003 thread. Ron posted that he did have knowledge of the sale.

 

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=971&hl=%2Bdoug+%2Bchamplin+%2Bauction+%2B2000&do=findComment&comment=7358

 

Richard MacLean 2014 SAR article on J. Curtis Earl makes an oblique mention to the Champlin auction.

 

The final story, and one that probably is the source of much of the consternation over Curtis’ business dealings, concerns a shoot that occurred after the sale of the machine guns from the J Curtis Earl Automatic Weapons Collection at the Champlin Fighter Museum in Mesa, Arizona. Several Class 3 dealers were present, including one that had recently acquired a Soviet PPS-43 submachine gun. Another dealer, also present, was one of the several dealers involved with these museum weapons after the collection was disbursed. It was the first time that very knowledgeable people had fired and thoroughly examined this weapon since it was sold to Champlin.

 

This is the PPS-43 #A14761 referenced above. One of the 188 NFA items in the Champlin museum.

[TD.]

Thanks Arthur. I was waiting to see if Ron would chime in. I will have to reach out to him. It must have been a great auction. Interesting so little is known...

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

1928 AC NAC-14 was also part of the Champlin Museum NFA collection that sold at auction. "AOC" inside a diamond pattern is stamped on unspecified parts. Another one of the Virginia State Police TSMG Curtis Earl purchased.

[Kilroy]

Tom,

 

Any idea when the next article will be published?

 

Thanks.

[darrylta]

Arthur,

You omitted a key descriptive on your NAC-14 heading. It should a Colt NAC- 14.

By far the rarest of the NAC guns. I own Colt NAC's #4 & #9.

Both of mine are all Colt except the sights and barrels.

The lower numbers had the most original Colt parts.

Darryl

Edited July 18, 2016 by darrylta

[TSMGguy]

my NAC gun is pictured in the book - it is an original matching WWII 1928A1 Savage, some early parts - with typical arsenal stampings and "NAC" after the SN. Gives it a whole new slot in the "collector" realm.

My NAC serial suffix M1928A1 has these same features, and has all original Ordnance Department, Savage, and Auto Ordnance Bridgeport markings, right down to the punch marks on the receiver and barrel. The serial numbers match, and were clearly roll marked using the same dies. The original rear sight rivets are undisturbed, and the gun has about 99% of its original finish. We're saying that this is a "parts" gun?

[TD.]

Kilroy,

I don't know when Part 2 will be published. I assume sometime soon. If not published next month, I will inquire. Thank you for asking.

 

TSMGguy,

I address the variation you describe in my story. If as you describe, I am not saying it is a parts gun. I believe the story as a whole will clear up many misconceptions involving the NAC Thompson guns.

 

Darryla,

The NAC Thompsons with Colt receivers are not Colt production Thompsons. The receivers with the 1922 patent dates on the right side of the receiver were simply un-serial numbered Colt receivers used by Numrich Arms to make working guns that were sold to the Virginia State Police in 1953. Other variations of NAC Thompson guns with Colt receivers exist. I do not believe this variation of NAC Thompson guns is the rarest of the NAC guns. Nor is there anyway to tell which NAC guns had the "most original Colt parts." There was no standardization of parts from one gun to the next. In addition, many of these NAC guns were owned by a police department and J. Curtis Earl for many years.

 

Are the NAC Thompsons with the 1922 patent dates that have been completely refinished or remanufactured the most beautiful guns of this variation? Perhaps. NAC 4 and NAC 9 along with NAC 11 are beautiful Thompsons. But then there is N.A.C. - 45. It is really all in the eye of the beholder. The purpose of my story was to have a story that explained the history of this Thompson variation to the enthusiast. It removes any doubt about the Savage Thompsons owned by MG08 and TSMGguy, above, being "parts guns." It also explains the NAC Thompsons with Colt receivers are not a Colt product and should not be viewed as such. The NAC guns are their own special variation.

 

If you attend the All Thompson Show & Shoot this weekend I bet Mike Wank will have a complete copy of my NAC story on his table with S38N.A.C. - another unique NAC Thompson gun.

[darrylta]

TD,

You have got to be kidding me. The Colt NAC guns are few and far between in comparison to the WWII GI NAC guns.

Who implied that the Colt NAC guns were manufactured by Colt....it wasn't me? Your holier than thou attitude is

very aggravating to me. I guess you're the anointed beholder as well?

Give me a break,

Darryl

[TD.]

Darryl,

I am the one who spent the time and effort to do the research and write the story. How it is perceived is up to the reader. If you note anything in the story you believe false, let me know and I will certainly look into it. As an aside, I supplied an advance copy to a few of the long time Numrich employees asking for comments, especially about anything I had written that was not correct. The remarks were very positive; no mistakes noted. I have no doubt this story will be the authority on the NAC Thompson guns for the foreseeable future. I do hope I, or someone else, is able to find more information and expand on the story.

 

I asked you for assistance when researching the story because you own two NAC Thompson guns. You were not interested. Since your two NAC Thompsons share a common history with all the Virginia State Police NAC's, there was no real loss to the story. Now I find out you have figures to support the number of NAC guns with Colt receivers versus WWII receivers. Please share with the Board this information. If I agree with your documentation, I will include the information in any updated story.

[Robert Henley]

Great article. Thanks for sharing.

 

Robert

[Kilroy]

 

my NAC gun is pictured in the book - it is an original matching WWII 1928A1 Savage, some early parts - with typical arsenal stampings and "NAC" after the SN. Gives it a whole new slot in the "collector" realm.

My NAC serial suffix M1928A1 has these same features, and has all original Ordnance Department, Savage, and Auto Ordnance Bridgeport markings, right down to the punch marks on the receiver and barrel. The serial numbers match, and were clearly roll marked using the same dies. The original rear sight rivets are undisturbed, and the gun has about 99% of its original finish. We're saying that this is a "parts" gun?

This describes my '28A1 to a T, looking forward to reading the story.

 

Thanks for the update Tom.

[giantpanda4]

TD is correct in that there will be at least 2 NAC guns at TATA this weekend, S 38 NAC as well as S-15043. Hopefully more too.

 

And a copy of the NAC story as well.

 

Maybe someday we should try to get a bunch of them all together at the same time.

 

Darryl, I would love to see NAC #4 and NAC #9!

[Kilroy]

Looks like Part II is in this months issue.

 

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3405

[TSMGguy]

Looks like Part II is in this months issue.

 

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3405

Edited August 4, 2016 by TSMGguy

[Bob]

Part two did answer some questions and a good theory of what the spare receivers (later NAC builds) might have been used for during production. Good work Tom!

[TSMGguy]

 

Looks like Part II is in this months issue.

 

https://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=3405

 

​Great article! Thanks for making it available here.

[mgvince]

Those are great reads. Thanks Tom for the good work!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

"N.A.C. – 45 is built on a leftover Savage Arms M1 prototype receiver!" T.D.

 

Whether Rich's N.A.C. - 45 was a Savage M1 prototype or a Savage M1 unfinished receiver that Numrich finished and used original Savage/AOC roll die stampings to mark the receiver was debated in this 2004 thread.

 

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2660&hl=%2Bnumrich+%2Bengraved+%2Bthompson&do=findComment&comment=23195

 

In that thread, I wondered about identifying the receiver as a Savage "prototype" and the use of the then defunct spelling of "CALIBRE" :

 

Posted 11 July 2004 - 09:39 PM

 

If Rich's M1 was a complete prototype receiver with all the markings, just like the one that resides in the West Point Museum, why would Numrich, who knew exactly what the significance of this gun was, morph it (as well as the others) into M1A1 presentation models?

 

 

[TD.]

Great question. Unfortunately, everyone involved with N.A.C. - 45 when it was found in the crates is long gone. The earliest reference I can find on the Savage prototype M1 Thompson is in Thomas Nelson's book, The World's Submachine Guns - first published in November 1963. Since the conversion of N.A.C. - 45 to its present state happened before the eventual sale to the first owner in July 1963, the significance of this prototype receiver may not have been fully understood. The frame on N.A.C. -45 is a common M1 production numbered frame so likely the receiver was found by itself and unnumbered. The ATF Freedom of Information Act paperwork does not tell us when N.A.C. - 45 was initially entered on the NFA Registry. This is not an uncommon occurrence. I know of other NAC Thompsons where the ATF FOIA paperwork begins with a Form 5 or other owner registration, not with the initial registration by George Numrich. The results of the FOIA search are only as good as the person doing the search and/or the available records. Since I do not own the guns in my story, it is impossible for me to discuss the FOIA deficiencies with the ATF when I know and can prove the FOIA response is incomplete. Most owners, understandably, do not want to press the issue with ATF.

 

Regarding value: In 1963 I would submit N.A.C. - 45 was worth far more in its converted condition than as a bare prototype Thompson receiver. What were 95% Colt production Thompsons selling for in 1963? How many machine gun collectors were there in 1963? I believe the market was very very small.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

The earliest reference I can find on the Savage prototype M1 Thompson is in Thomas Nelson's book, The World's Submachine Guns - first published in November 1963. Since the conversion of N.A.C. - 45 to its present state happened before the eventual sale to the first owner in July 1963, the significance of this prototype receiver may not have been fully understood.

 

 

Regarding value: In 1963 I would submit N.A.C. - 45 was worth far more in its converted condition than as a bare prototype Thompson receiver.

 

As to your first point, it is possible Numrich was clueless about the M1 receiver's significance considering it was missing the distinctive rear sight as well as any markings. Although it's not as if the crates didn't contain other unique AOC offerings such as the Blish Pistol that Numrich did recognize as better left alone. We also do not know if it was Numrich who finished machining the receiver including the bolt handle disassembly hole position at the rear of the slot which remains as the only similarity to the complete prototype M1 examples as displayed at the Aberdeen Proving Ground Museum (which closed its doors in 2009) and West Point Museum. This may be why Numrich went ahead and turned the M1 into a Savage presentation piece rather than preserve the receiver that really didn't have much to recommend it as a bona fide prototype.

 

The unknown engraver is indeed responsible for the desirability and value of N.A.C. - .45.

[TD.]

While we have no idea as to the condition of the receiver of N.A.C. - 45 when found, I believe it highly unlikely that Numrich employees would be responsible for making the bolt handle disassembly hole at the rear of the cocking slot. That said, I do believe it quite possible some receivers were found in various states of production and completed over the years. My guess, again only a guess, that these unfinished "crate" receivers were the last ones registered and sold by Numrich Arms. Shortly thereafter, Auto-Ordnance Corporation of West Hurley, New York was formed.

 

I like the moniker, "Savage presentation piece."

 

All good stuff!!!

[drfcolt]

Just got the FOIA request back on my NAC Thompson (AO134532NAC) - Photos: http://s277.photobucket.com/user/drfcolt/library/1928%20Thompson

 

Transfer history:

- Form 2: 11/29/1971

- Form 3: 12/09/1971

- Form 4: 02/10/1972

- Form 4: 02/07/1987

- Form 4: 05/23/1989

- Form 4: 09/08/2005

- Form 4: 06/10/2014

- Form 4: 07/10/2015

Edited September 2, 2016 by drfcolt