kyle Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 QUOTE (TD. @ Jun 22 2004, 06:30 AM) Kyle's 1928A1 does not have the "NAC" suffix as part of the BATF registered serial number. No word on whether SAVAGE is listed as the manufacturer on the BATF forms. On my Form 4, the manufacturer is Auto Ordnance Corp . I don't think Savage would ever be listed as the manufacturer as they were merely a subcontractor to AOC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Kyle, That would be a strange change of events since Auto-Ord-Co was never the manufacturer of the original guns (other than the 40 prototypes) and these TSMG's have Colt listed as manufacturer on the BATF forms. These BATF forms are filled out by the transferor. Perhaps on your form the tranferor decided to fill in Auto-Ord, but other transferor's might type in Savage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted June 22, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Arthur, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to tell me. Let's assume I have the following Thompson in front of me. The right side of the upper receiver is stamped... AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION BRIDGEPORT,CONNECTICUT,U.S.A. The left side is marked... U.S. MODEL OF 1928A1 NO.S- 334XXX Are you telling me that Savage should be listed as the manufacturer and not Auto-Ordnance on the Form 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawksnest Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 My Savage 1928A1 is S/N 165xxxNAC. The manufacturer is listed as Auto Ordnance Corp. USA. The NAC suffix is included with the serial number on the form 4. The frame and trigger housing match (both have NAC following the serial). The gun has brithish proofs on the right side of the receiver in front of the mag well. The gun is marked "Tommy Gun" on top of the receiver to the right of the lyman sight. I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Kyle, Let me clarify. The Savage Arms Corporation made TSMG, with the left side of the receiver stamped either, "Auto-Ordnance Corporation New York, N.Y.N.Y. U.S.A." or "Auto-Ordnance Corporation Bridgeport, Connecticut, U.S.A." had their factory in Utica, New York. So in reality it was not Auto-Ord that made these guns regardless of the markings. The AOC marked guns of WWII would have been manufactured by an actual Auto-Ordnance controlled factory in Bridgeport, CT. So, "should" Savage be inserted into the manufacturer's box on a BATF form? It could and it would be quit correct. But whether it says Auto-Ord, or Savage, BATF could care less. To further illustrate this conundrum with receiver markings, the Colt TSMG has the Colt name and Hartford, CT address along with the Auto-Ord New York Address. Yet, I have seen forms with Colt used as the manufacturer for BATF forms. Could a transferor also put Auto-Ord-Co in that box? I'm sure they could. I guess it comes down to what the transferor sees in front of them on the receiver when they fill in the box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 smoker Posted June 22, 2004 Report Share Posted June 22, 2004 Well, had to wait to get home to check form 4 and NAC is definitely in the serial no. on the form as well as Savage as the manufactorer....interesting note,I started to check other NFA paperwork and on my Schnellfeuer paperwork the manufactorer is listed `WWII GERMANY`...kinda cool in a way and the NESA BAR is listed as `Browning Arms ` as the manufactorer...doesn`t seem correct to me...should be ....`New England Small Arms`...but that`s the government for ya,my .02. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif P.S....Phil,.. we micro-examine these records because 1) it is very interesting and 2) there is $$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved like never before...IMO, http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEC46 Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 I have a NAC suffix Auto Ordnance 1928A1 Thompson that shows Numerich Arms as importer on my form3 and the NAC suffix at the end of serial number also on the form. It is completely Auto-Ordnance all the way. It has the ordnance bomb and auto-Ordnance inspectors initials stamped on the receiver but no British markings like most that I have seen. It came out of a police department about thirteen years ago. It came out with two other NAC Thompsons. One was exactly like mine and the other one was British marked and with Tommygun on top of the receiver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyle Posted June 23, 2004 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Wow! I was never aware of the diversity in the NAC universe. This could a whole chapter in Frank's next book. Thanks for all the great input guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 SecondAmend - Good point about the JC Devine Auction. I know all too well what you are referring too. If you include the 15% buyers premium for NAC 5 it sold for $11,500. AZDoug - Thanks for the update on NAC 15. This is one interesting Thompson. Kyle - I would have thought Savage would have been listed as the manufacturer of your Savage 1928A1 on the Form 4. It appears Arthur and Phil are right in that it doesn't really make any difference who or what is listed in the manufacturer box on the Form 4. In this small sampling, we are all over the place! Hawksnest - You have a Savage 1928A1 like Kyle's that has Auto-Ordnance listed as the manufacturer. However, Hawksnest's Thompson has the NAC suffix listed as part of the serial number on the Form 4 and Kyle's NAC suffix marked Thompson serial number does not have the NAC suffix as part of the serial number on the Form 4. (I would love to own either one) Colt21a - Here is a Savage 1928A1 with International Armament Corp as the manufacturer. I am beginning to see a pattern here http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/huh.gif 21Smoker - Thanks for the update. A Savage 1928A1 with Savage as the Manufacturer and the NAC suffix listed as part of the serial number on the Form 4. Dec46 - An Auto-Ordnance 1928A1 that shows Numrich Arms as the importer and the NAC suffix listed as part of the serial number on the Form 3. Based on this small sampling it appears you could put "BRAND XXX" as the manufacturer on the Form 4 and no one would bat an eye. Interesting. Except for Kyle's 1928A1 Savage, it appears the NAC suffix is listed as part of the serial number on the Form 3 or Form 4. It would be interesting if Kyle could locate some of the past Forms 3 and/or 4 for his Thompson to see if his Thompson at one time had the NAC suffix listed as part of the serial number on the BATF forms. Any others want to share some information? It would be great to get a few more NAC suffix and prefix guns in this informal survey. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmagee Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 With the exception of Colt Thompsons, and without digging through all the paperwork, I can safely say that 95% of the WWII Thompsons I have had, both M1/M1A1 and '28's have listed Auto Ordnance as the manufacturer. It has been my eeperience that most guns registered prior to 1968 have manufacturers and model names/numbers listed that are not as "accurate" as we know they could be. As others have pointed out simply naming the country of origin is often listed on foreign guns and listing 1919's, BAR's, etc. as Browning manufacture. Doesn't make it wrong, just they way it was done "back in the day." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondAmend Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Emmagee, et al., To add to the Brand X Theory, I have seen a West Hurley 28 Korean War Commemorative where the manufacturer on the Form 4 is listed as American Historical Foundation, Richmond, VA. The receiver has the (gold filled) an Auto Ordnance, West Hurley, New York stamping on the rear, left receiver and American Historical Foundation, Richmond, VA on the left, front of the receiver. I've also seen the Form 4 for a 21/28 Navy where Auto Ordnance, Nashua (sp?), New York, not Colt, Hartford, CT was listed as the manufacturer, and my Savage 28 has Auto Ordnance, Bridgeport, CT as the manufacturer. Whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 TD Checked my gun and paperwork and here's what I found. On the paperwork, the manufacturer is listed as "Auto Ordinance", the serial number listed does not include the letters "NAC". About the gun: Its a Auto Ord 1928A1. The "US" has been ground off and the letter "C" is stamped over the numeral "1". The serial number is in the 1510--X range. I can find no government inspector or acceptance stamps. It has a finned barrel, lyman adjustable sight, and the late period cutts comp with no markings. It came with a M1917 Kerr sling and both vertical and horizontal forarms/grips. Slig swivels are milled steel. Actuator knob is smooth. Paddle safety and rocker levers are milled with no checkering. This is a Ex-PD gun from my old Department. It was reported that they had several prior to my employment. Since then, they were traded for newer weapons. (Mini 14's, M16's) Hope this helped. I too would like to see more info on these guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted June 23, 2004 Report Share Posted June 23, 2004 Slightly off of the NAC subject but, the form 4 on my pending Savage M1 is marked "Thompson Auto Ordnance" in the manufacturers space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Emmagee - It appears you are right based on what we are seeing on this post. Hopefully, we will get a few more responses. SecondAmend - A West Hurley with incorrect information. I guess the problem is not just with the older guns. Colt21a - I wonder if Gordon has the information on the Marine Corps Colt guns. If you have any of the serial numbers, I will be glad to look up the numbers for you (and the rest of the board). Ron, did you ever acquire (and sell) any NAC prefix Thompsons? We only have one response with this type of NAC. Greg - Thanks for the update. "Auto-Ordinance" - looks like spelling is not all that important on the Form 4's http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Your Thompson is like Kyle’s in that the NAC suffix is not listed as part of the serial number on the Form 4. Your Thompson is definitely a PD gun with the altered US 1928 A1 to 1928AC markings. PhilOhio has one just like it with the altered model markings and no government inspector markings or acceptance stamps. If I remember correctly, Phil believes his Thompson was sold directly to the PD by Auto-Ordnance because of the lack of government markings. Your Thompson also has no government markings but appears to be definitely imported from outside the US by NAC because of the NAC suffix. Interesting. Tex - Thanks for the post. It appears this problem with manufacturers in not just with the 1928's. I will keep the tally if we can get more information posted. It appears there is a lot to learn about the NAC Thompsons. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blishblock Posted June 24, 2004 Report Share Posted June 24, 2004 Well guys, sorry to be late on the thread ; however I just picked it up. NAC17is on a form 3. Maker "Auto Ordnance Corp"; Registered serial is NAC17. Number was orignally an S prefix that was ground off. S still there but not part of the serial no. lower matches NAC17 and was not ground. Clearly ww2 manuf. Bought it from Roger Cox in 1979---came from a PD. On replacing the bbl I found 2 serial nos under the grip mount inlet--one was partially obliterated. other in 500xxx range. Gun is a 21A configuration. Shoots 10" high at 50 yds. Something wasn't right at the factory. Otherwise it shoots flawlessly. Put 10,000 rds throughit easily since 1979---my shoooter. Now sitting in NRA museum Have a number of other NAC suffix guns--all came from Del State Police in 1981. All are AO prefix; on form 3's ; Regist. maker on all is" McGuire Industries." US ground off; 1 on A1 is ground and restamped with a C. No military proofs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Blishblock - Thank you for your reply on NAC 17. It is quite obvious that NAC 17 is a Savage receiver. The Form 3 lists the manufacturer of NAC 17 as Auto-Ordnance. AZDoug has NAC 15 and the manufacturer is listed as Colt. I have a theory about the NAC prefix guns that I will share later. Hopefully, a few more posts will come in on NAC prefix guns that may give us a little more to go on. I find it very interesting your AO NAC suffix Model of 1928AC Thompsons show McGuire Industries as the maker. Do you know if Delaware State Police traded them to Numrich Arms in 1981 (prior to your purchase) or purchased them from Numrich Arms in the 1950's or 1960's? PhilOhio has a 1928 marked just like yours without the NAC suffix that he believes was sold directly to a police department by Auto-Ordnance during the war years. Phil - is McGuire Industries listed as the manufacturer on your Model of 1928AC on your Form 4? I would think that McGuire Industries listed as the manufacturer would be a good indication the gun was sold right out of the factory. Who else but McGuire Industries would ever think to put McGuire Industries as the manufacturer? It is just a thought; I certainly don't know this to be true. As I said before, I will gladly keep the tally. How about contributing to this post if you have or know of a NAC prefix or suffix Thompsons. Very little has been written or recorded on this subject. This can be a great learning experience for all. Thanks again, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blishblock Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 Please allow me to correct an error in describing the Maguire guns. I was working from memory late last night. The maker on the Delaware guns is stated as " Maguire Industries Inc., Auto-Ordnance Division, Bridgeport , Conn." Model on the Form 3 is "28AC". Serial on the form 3 is "AO 150029X". THe gun is numbered the same way, that is orignal Auto Ord number with an X stamped after the number. US is ground out and the 1 inA1 is overstamped with a C. Same is true of an Auto Ord gun with serial in 38 thousand range. So these guns aren't Numerich guns at all. They are post war or even ww2 sales by Maguire Ind. I believe these to be interesting variations of the 28A1. Sorry to say that they were NAC---they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 25, 2004 Report Share Posted June 25, 2004 The reason George Numrich, who, as Roger Cox states, bought the physical assets of the "Auto-Ordnance Company," but not the name from Fred Willis, felt compelled to scribe NAC on Colt/Savage/AO/Maguire Industries Thompson's, is because he knew he didn't own the rights to any guns already stamped "Auto-Ordnance Company." If Numrich actually had owned the company name, why would he want to mark these guns with the abbreviation from his "other" company Numrich Arms Corporation (NAC)? It is strange that George Numrich never exercised his right to produce "Thompson's" using the WWII physical assets, if not the right to use the name "Auto-Ordnance," or "Thompson." Numrich left that task to Ira Trask. George sold Trask the same physical assets he bought from Willis. Since George did not sell Trask his NAC company (which he believed must have had some indispensable link to the "Auto-Ord" guns he marked with NAC) one wonders why if Trask didn't need to add any additional business name markings (other than the new West Hurley, N.Y. address) to the newly manufactured "Thompson's" in 1975, why did Numrich feel obliged to mark NAC on the numbered, and un numbered "Auto-Ord" guns 24 years earlier if he already owned the company lock, stock and barrel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 Blishblock - thanks for the update on the Delaware Thompsons. We will exclude these from our tally of NAC suffix Thompsons. Again, thanks for the information on NAC 17. I look forward to seeing it on display at the NRA National Firearms Museum later this year. Phil - You are probably right. As a side note, I think this Thompson would be a perfect candidate for a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request similar to the one John, Jr. has recently posted about because it has had what appears to be a small number of owners. This may clear up some of the theory.... or create more questions. Just a thought. Arthur - I don't see an "Auto-Ordnance Company" in my copy of Roger Cox's book. I do see..."acquired the remaining physical assets of Auto-Ordnance in 1951." Where is this word "Company" located? I also don't see any reference to "the name" in Roger's book. Are we looking at the same reference material? Is there any more NAC Thompsons out there? Please share so we all can learn. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 TD, My mistake. I should have wrote "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" not "Company" as it is found on Thompson receivers. But the point was why did Numrich add the abbreviated stamping of his other company on a weapon that already had the name of a business he supposedly owned? This nagging NAC marking may be the sine qua non concerning the debated issue as to whether there was ever any legal transfer of the "Auto-Ordnace" & "Thompson" name on guns made aftrer 1944. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDoug Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Jun 24 2004, 09:54 PM) The reason George Numrich, who, as Roger Cox states, bought the physical assets of the "Auto-Ordnance Company," but not the name from Fred Willis, felt compelled to scribe NAC on Colt/Savage/AO/Maguire Industries Thompson's, is because he knew he didn't own the rights to any guns already stamped "Auto-Ordnance Company." If Numrich actually had owned the company name, why would he want to mark these guns with the abbreviation from his "other" company Numrich Arms Corporation (NAC)? It is strange that George Numrich never exercised his right to produce "Thompson's" using the WWII physical assets, if not the right to use the name "Auto-Ordnance," or "Thompson." Numrich left that task to Ira Trask. George sold Trask the same physical assets he bought from Willis. Since George did not sell Trask his NAC company (which he believed must have had some indispensable link to the "Auto-Ord" guns he marked with NAC) one wonders why if Trask didn't need to add any additional business name markings (other than the new West Hurley, N.Y. address) to the newly manufactured "Thompson's" in 1975, why did Numrich feel obliged to mark NAC on the numbered, and un numbered "Auto-Ord" guns 24 years earlier if he already owned the company lock, stock and barrel? OK... Did Cox interview George Numrich and GN told him he was compelled to do this becuase he wasn't worthy, or is Cox practicing some form of later day psychoanalysis/tranferance and divining what G. Numrich really thought and felt for his reasons for putting NAC on the guns? Come on, this is crap. I am surprised their isn't some refernce to inadaquacy due to lack of breast feeding or sexual organ size mentioned. Maybe the simple answer is it was an easy way (adding NAC) to keep track of what was sold. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 26, 2004 Report Share Posted June 26, 2004 AZDoug, In the interest of accuracy, Cox only went so far as to confirm what Numrich actually got from Willis. I am just superimposing my own interpretation on the existing facts about why Nurmich started the nick nac game. But if Numrich's reason was to "to keep track of what was sold," considering the prefixes, suffixes, and obliterations of "S's," he couldn't have picked a more confusing and illogical method that could only further complicate his books. The existence of this thread pretty much invalidates the record keeping assumption. And we are talking about a number of guns possibly not exceeding a 100 total, and certainly not in the thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 Arthur, I feel your pain. You’re right - it is actually two problems. The first problem has been with us all along - trying to make rhyme and reason with these NAC prefix & suffix markings. This problem only exists because the proper research has not been done to put this issue to rest. Until the price of Thompsons went through the roof, no one really cared about NAC Thompsons. Now, price driven, people care about all Thompsons. And the debates continue. As to the first problem, I think you are reading way too much into what happened at Numrich Arms Corporation when George and staff opened the crates of the former Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries Inc. AZDoug hit the nail on the head when he stated the answer was probably very simple. I feel I know the answer to the NAC markings, but what I believe is also based on interpretation of existing facts. My answer will ring true to some, but more than likely have no impression on those hung up on the second problem. My hope is that someday the proper research will be performed and publication issued. The second problem as you so eloquently stated is the one of succession. This is the issue that causes all the debate. I feel it is a manufactured problem driven by those who only appreciate the early guns, begrudgingly accept the WWII guns only because of their global success and acceptance and look for any reason to speak with disdain on everything manufactured since. Numrich Arms Corporation is not Colt’s Patent Firearms MFG, Co. Each has different goals. The success (and failures) of each is quite obvious. I do not have any problem connecting the dots from Warner & Swasey to Kahr Arms. The path is clear. Yes, the non-lawyers can make many a quasi-legal argument about the chain of succession of Auto-Ordnance over the years – but at the end of the day the dots still connect. With all that is said, I must admit I enjoy the conversation. This thread in particular has confirmed a few things I only suspected. Thanks to all for their posts. This is one great board. At this time I have no absolutes for problem number one. But the problem or question that begs a simple answer is - where do the dots go for you? Any more NAC suffix or prefix guns out there? As I said above, this is one area where the data is still being collected. What can your NAC Thompson tell us? Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 27, 2004 Report Share Posted June 27, 2004 TD, If Ira Trask is still alive, it should be a relatively easy task to contact him and have him reveal the documents that he got from Numrich, which he in turn got from Willis, which he in turn got from Kilgore, that he in turn got from Maguire, that stipulates that the owner of the "Auto-Ord" physical assests has the legal right to manufacture "Thompson's" and use of all the names and trademarks associated with the gun. Maybe Trask just trusted his former boss to the point where he never questioned that all Numrich had to sell him was a pig in a poke? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Well Arthur, I can see the dots do not connect for you as easily as they do for me. At least we agree that the crates purchased by George Numrich was the former Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. I guess I look at the transaction between Kilgore and McGuire Industries in a much different light. It is uncontroverted that Kilgore paid $385,00 in1949 to McGuire Industries with the published intent to resale Auto-Ordnance Division to the Egyptian government because Kilgore thought the Egyptian government wanted to manufacture the Thompson Submachine gun. This deal was done with future manufacturing stated as the pretext. Even today $385,000 is a lot of money; imagine what it represented in 1949. Do you really think Kilgore paid that type of money for a few crates of parts and old machinery? I am sure a contract was drafted. I expect it was a very simple contract assigning all rights to the Thompson from McGuire Industries to Kilgore. To take it one step further, given the amount of money involved, I am sure Kilgore would have expected the Egyptian government to have performed some type of due diligence prior to making any future deal. In addition, I have never heard anywhere that McGuire Industries retained any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun or ever claimed any future rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun. The other transfers are easy. Willis got what Kilgore purchased. Willis was in or had been in the gun business. Willis certainly would have done some due diligence. And George Numrich certainly knew how to conduct business. Like McGuire Industries above, there is no indication that Kilgore or Willis would have wanted to retain any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun when it left their respective hands. No, I don’t have the contracts. But I am not the one that has the problem with all the transfers or has the need to prove something. The lineage from Cleveland, Ohio to West Hurley, New York is complete. Follow the Blish pistol. George ended up with it - and everything else. I suggest you also see an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson stated, to wit: “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.†I have never heard anything that indicated George Numrich was anything other than an honest businessman. Given George Numrich’s statement back in 1967, I think it is safe to assume he acquired the complete Ordnance Division from Maguire Industries. If you have a NAC Thompson, we would like a report. I am still keeping a tally. Please don't let mine and Arthur's comments scare you away. I am sure this is a non-issue for most folks http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now