Jump to content

Savage 1928 TSMG on gunbroker - Square Magazine Slots on late Savage frames


Recommended Posts

On 12/2/2022 at 1:10 PM, TD. said:

Katanafred,

I think the sales tax information is great but the real value of this thread for collectors are the square magazine slots on late 1928 model Savage guns. To that end, can you change the title to this thread? I think we should add this statement after the hyphen mark: Square Magazine Slots on late Savage frames.

Unless someone can find information on square magazine slots on the Model of 1928 frames in some publication, I think we have found something very interesting with the late Savage guns. Again, the WWII military guns are not my specialty. That said, this potential discovery is just too good not to report. Prior to this thread, I thought all 1928 frames manufactured during WWII had rounded magazine slots. My opinion has changed. Again, please contribute if you have Savage Thompson with square magazine slots or a late Savage Thompson with rounded slots. This change may not be absolute. I always expect exceptions! 

Forum member dam6 sent me the below photographs revealing square magazine slots on a late numbered Savage frame: S-469727. This frame is on a very early Savage Thompson (27,000 serial number range) with British markings on the receiver nose. A definite war mismatch that was probably imported into the USA, circa 1960s or thereabout. 

IMG_0432 - CROP LT.jpgIMG_0431 CROP LT.jpg

We need more examples! Get out your toys. Let's explore this subject fully. And thank you dam6. 

TD - I changed the thread title as you requested!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

katanafred - thank you for changing the topic name. I always enjoy finding historical information on the Thompson gun to write about in my stories. However, I really enjoy finding something specific about the product, the Thompson gun. This is information that can directly help enthusiasts evaluate guns and parts in the marketplace. Given the expense of these toys today, one cannot have enough information. For example, Omega Weapon Systems (sadly now defunct) sold many Thompson frames with the serial numbers completely removed. Of course, the positioning of the FULL AUTO markings will allow you to know if it is a Savage or Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport (AOB) frame. If Savage and the magazine slots are square, now you know it is most likely an original part that was in the late Savage serial number range. 

Thank you chipsaunders for posting about S-487977 with rounded magazine slots. That frame falls right between S-469727 and S-492XX9, both with square slots. The design change for the magazine slots at Savage Arms appears to have been phased in. But based on limited known information, i.e., this thread, the change appears to have occurred in the late 400,000 serial number range. 

All good stuff!!!

Come on guys, let's get those Savage guns out of the safe and let us know what you have.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have S414955 It has the rounded magazine slots.

Frank

I also have a earlier S-153333 of course it has the rounded slots 

I have a couple more but I’ll have to dig them out  Don’t know if they are AO C or Savage 

 

Edited by Gio
Added more information
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are two of my Savage lowers.  I have a third one, but do not have access at the moment.  That one is at a SOT for repair (short chambered Numrich barrel).

The top receiver is NO. S - 518722  GEG marked Dulite finish.   I think it got it with an old parts kit.   It has a square magazine slot.  The frame latch hole is slightly beveled downwards.  Perhaps another minor variation?

The bottom receiver is NO. S - 407788  GEG partial strike, dulite finish.  It has a rounded / curved magazine slot.  The frame latch hole is flat and not beveled.  It came with Savage Machinegun 50224.  (This gun has been in the mixed configuration since 1956.)

 

Savage WWII lowers Round and Square slots (2).jpg

Beveled frame latch catch (2).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think it's fun to take notice of these manufacturing differences. Just for fun I'll mention a comment I made today on reddit, and I think it fits how this post matured to what people are really interested in. Someone was asking about Thompson finishes on ...I gave my info on it but I said that the Thompson community isn't so worried about the finish condition, tint or even general wear....I said they were interested in differences in manufacturing orgin ie WH, Colt, Savage....and generally the operation of the guns.

I pointed out that war time Thompson's had one job, which was to put .45 cal holes on the enemies of democracy, so adding cost in the finishing process of an already pricey gun wasn't a priority. Anyway, I'm just chiming in that it's part of my interest in Thompsons is to learn about the content of this post, to file away for some future conversation with someone also interested in Thompsons. Being helpful and answering the question on reddit, I did relate that a Thompson had an advantage in that it can be finished many different ways, ie some guns won't tolerate if the finish adds thickness in areas with tight tolerances. I also related that the most messed up Thompson I've seen was in the NRA museum. I said that at first I was taken aback....but then I thought if the Thompson has been dragged behind a jeep, it's probably a piece that's historically accurate and it should be shown as is and not restored.

On the finish note, I related that I do put a piece I'm working on next to my Phila Ord blank gun, just to gauge how I imagined it turning out vs. how it actually turned out.

I left out a lot, none of you need to hear what goes on on reddit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

    I believe that the "bevel" at the tail of the frame is not a manufacturing technique. It is damage.

If you look closely you can see that it is not even - the left side is thicker than the right side.

I don't recall ever seeing a frame like that. I just checked about 10 frames and none of them have that

bevel. I also checked the ordnance drawing, and there is no indication that that surface should be

beveled.

 

Bob

Edited by reconbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2022 at 1:06 PM, inertord said:

Rebuilt 25 September, 1943 

3Rd. Battalion 301St. Ordnance Regiment

My search comes up empty for a 301st Ordnance Regiment.. I have never seen this type of format for a US Ordnance rebuild or overhaul. Has anyone seen a similar stamping?  RIA and Auto Ordnance stamped the receiver when they did an overhaul or rebuild.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, reconbob said:

    I believe that the "bevel" at the tail of the frame is not a manufacturing technique. It is damage.

If you look closely you can see that it is not even - the left side is thicker than the right side.

I don't recall ever seeing a frame like that. I just checked about 10 frames and none of them have that

bevel. I also checked the ordnance drawing, and there is no indication that that surface should be

beveled.

 

Bob

I had a AOC 1928A1 trigger frame from Omega Weapons System that had both of the frame latch "ear"s ear ground off . I often wonder if it had possibly been done while the guns were likely in Europe before returning to the USA as parts kits. I know Don Bell knew better then to grind off part of the trigger frame. I sold it as it bothered me enough knowing the alteration was there. I asked Don about it later and he said I could return it, that he didn't look at  them that close when he sent them out. I do miss Don Bell and Omega Weapons Systems but time marches on.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bridgeport28A1 said:

My search comes up empty for a 301st Ordnance Regiment.. I have never seen this type of format for a US Ordnance rebuild or overhaul. Has anyone seen a similar stamping?  RIA and Auto Ordnance stamped the receiver when they did an overhaul or rebuild.

Early WW2 Ordnance Regiments operating overseas to repair/rebuild firearms and state side arsenals were two completely different operations/animals.

Early in WWII the US Government combined with the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) to establish, man and equip Ordnance Regiments. The Regiments were numbered from 301st to the 305th. They were established and trained at Camp Sutton, NC. 

Ordnance regiments got caught up in the movement from regiment structure to group structure:

The 301st Regiment became the 601st, 602nd and 603rd Ordnance Base Battalions. 

301st Regiment 3rd Bn Companies I K L M became 603rd: 3103, 3153, 3203, 3253 

 

 

 

8E4B7D47-AB8B-41DE-B3F3-49F68C348203.jpeg

8BD69508-ACE8-428C-8C8E-9E4B001EB69D.jpeg

Edited by inertord
Add photo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

    This rebuild marking is a mystery unto itself. It appears this is the only trigger frame any of us 

have ever seen with this type of marking. This rebuild marking is hand stamped - which is to say

that its not a prepared stamp like the ordnance bomb, or GeG, or the RLB. Each letter or number was 

stamped individually by hand - and there are EIGHTEEN of them! It must have taken 10 minutes to

do this, and that makes no sense. Ordnance technicians have better things to do with their time. So

maybe the reason we never saw one of these is that it was one guy marking one gun on his lunch

break, for posterity...or something. I am not saying it is not authentic, I am just saying it makes no sense.

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have Savage trigger frames 93,202 & 425,874 and both have the rounded slots. The only 1928 trigger frames I have that have squared slots are one of the partially finished trigger frames (I got it in the white, lacking the "Full Auto/ Single" markings and SN) and one of the fully finished trigger frames (parkerized, has all markings minus SN) that Numrich sold years ago. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making that slot square was part of the manufacturing simplification for the M1, correct?

So taking a guess here, maybe they ran out of the rounded cutter bit for the very last batches of 1928A1 lowers and just substituted the new M1 cutter.    

When you work in a factory, NOTHING is ever allowed to slow or stop production.   Because the factory costs a fortune to run per hour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has turned into a very informative thread. I would guess the effort to simplify the production of the Model of 1928 Thompson started on day 1 of production. The Thompson submachine gun was an old design that had not been manufactured for 19 years. It was very labor intensive and expensive to manufacture. As collectors, we are aware of the major changes during the 2 1/2-year production run at Savage Arms - ejector, knurling, rear sight, barrel, etc., but I there are probably many more shortcuts taken during the manufacturing process that are not readily recognizable unless you are a machinist or engineer or study these areas. Of course, all of these shortcuts led to the adoption and subsequent production of the M1/M1A1 Thompson. 

Based on the information we have gathered, it appears S-469727 is the lowest serial numbered Savage we know about that has square magazine slots. However, the change at Savage apparently did not happen all at once as we have S-487977 that has rounded magazine slots. Perhaps, the change was initially implemented on a trial basis to give the Auto-Ordnance and US government inspectors time to review and accept the change before square magazine slots became the standard. This appears to have happened by the 500,000 serial number range but we have a lot more data to collect before stating this with any authority. 

Obviously, this change to square magazine slots was standardized and it was part of the M1 manufacturing process.  

There is a lot of conjecture and guessing in what I have posted above. However, it is valuable information for those examining a late Savage Thompson and now understanding square magazine slots may be correct for these Thompson guns. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During WWII, all US small arms were made to specifications. Everything conformed to these specifications (drawings). Unlike everywhere else in the world, no hand fitting during assembly was allowed. Assemblers had no access to grinders or files. So, if we find late production M1928A1s with squared magazine slots, you can bet that they were made to approved drawings, and that there were reasons for the change.

Parts were drawn at random from finished parts lots for ordnance inspection. A failed inspection caused the rejection of the entire lot. This could and did result in production halts.

Only the US achieved true parts interchangeability in its small arms in WWII. All other nations had production that involved at least some hand fitting, often by highly trained, skilled assemblers.

Edit: Rounded magazine slots on my matching serials NAC M1928A1, 332,xxx.   

Edited by TSMGguy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lacking a time machine, all we can do is look at the sparse evidence and make reasonable guesses.   As information accumulates, hopefully our guesses will get better and better.

One of the big flaws of history books is that the wrong information is sometimes repeated from book to book.  The authors all assume that since they saw something in print, it must be true.   And then they repeat it.   And the thing they are repeating might be 10% wrong, or 50% wrong, or 100% wrong.

An example would be the Douglas Devastator torpedo bomber of WWII.  It's continually listed as "the worst aircraft of WWII", but actually when it was introduced it was a highly advanced and well-engineered aircraft.  The poor performance of the aircraft in combat was due to bad tactics, bad torpedoes, bad training, and obsolescence.  But people have it welded into their brain that the plane was bad, and that's that.

The best thing you can do as a researcher is to be mildly skeptical of everything. 

All this being said, I have several of Tom Davis' books and I give them an A++.   He is a patient, careful researcher.



 

Edited by Doug Quaid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to get totally off topic, but here is an excellent example of a really badly researched history book:

https://www.amazon.com/Death-Traps-Survival-American-Division/dp/0891418148

This book, "Death Traps" is an atom bomb of misinformation that has become a virus among WWII history enthusiasts.

When this book came out, it was embraced by the public without a tiny smidge of critical thought.  Like when they were little kids and their parents told them that their new Atari 2600 video game was made by elves in the North Pole.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TSMGguy said:

During WWII, all US small arms were made to specifications. Everything conformed to these specifications (drawings). Unlike everywhere else in the world, no hand fitting during assembly was allowed. Assemblers had no access to grinders or files. So, if we find late production M1928A1s with squared magazine slots, you can bet that they were made to approved drawings, and that there were reasons for the change.

Parts were drawn at random from finished parts lots for ordnance inspection. A failed inspection caused the rejection of the entire lot. This could and did result in production halts.

Only the US achieved true parts interchangeability in its small arms in WWII. All other nations had production that involved at least some hand fitting, often by highly trained, skilled assemblers.   

I have no experience with WWII factories, but I did work in a military parts factory and I would have to concur with this.

The production people on the factory floor where I worked were given zero discretion in making changes to the products.   Changes would come from engineering departments and were the result of a formal process.

The changes done for the M1 model were to cut cost.  So we can reasonably assume that the square slot was easier to cut.   

The mystery is why the square slots are showing up here and there on 28 lowers.   If the change was already approved for the M1, then why wouldn't it be allowed for the final batches of the 28?

Savage had their own in-house engineering department.  Would it take an act of Congress to make a change to a part that had already been approved for the M1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Doug Quaid said:

... Would it take an act of Congress to make a change to a part that had already been approved for the M1?

Not quite, but the US Army Ordnance Department would have had to concur. 

A nice example is Remington's production of the M1903 rifle. Remington proposed and adopted several changes to make the rifle faster and easier to produce. The Ordnance Department concurred but specified that all changes had to be compatible with Remington's early M1903 production, and with all other models since M1903 production began.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...