Question On Colt Thompsons

[AC556]

Considering the condition of the guns are equal, say 90%

How would you rate the value or collectable from 1 to 3 and why on the following guns?

 

Colt 1921A

Colt 1921AC

Colt 1928 Navy

 

 

[nobra81]

I would take then in the order you have them.

 

1921a You rarely see one for sale

1921ac See some for sale

1928 navy I think the most common model

 

I would rather have th 1921a more than the others. Maybe cause i have the others

 

steve

[OldFalGuy]

Wouldn't it be neat to be able to find/make/acquire a 21A front "ring" sight in place of the compensator/sight combo-

 

Wonder what prompted Colt to make this change? Were the Non-comped 21A's all the early guns, say pre s/n 2000 or so?

 

Mark

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I don't see why a 1921A would automatically be considered more valuable or "collectible" than a Navy. All 15,000 came off the assembly line as 1921A's. The fact that some were modified with a Cutts before being shipped from Auto-Ordnance Corporation after 1926, or sent back by a PD or private party after 1926 for this addition, doesn't automatically place these examples on the lower end of a sliding scale of collectability. Aside from a distinguished or notorious owner history, or a 3 digit serial number, a 1921A would not on its own bring a premium.

 

But if all three are in 90% condition, then as far as "collectability," I would go with:

 

1) A Navy with the horizontal forearm and buttstock with offset Enfield sling swivels is way more unusual than a 1921A. Couple that with a Navy actuator riveted to an early concave front 1921 actuator and that specimen leaves a 1921A in the dust.

 

2) 1921A

 

3) 1921AC tied with Navy sans stocks with proper swivles and rivited actuator.

[Ron Mills]

Arthur, an interesting perspective. I won't be redundant and repeat the points from your post, but your remarks bring another thought from my ever-growing cobwebbed mind:

 

What was it like on the assembly line for those 15,000 Colts? Sure one could say it was just "a job", but the pride factor was running high from what I've seen in the Colts I've looked at! Not being mechanically or engineeringly (is that a word?) inclined, I applaud all things that are paid attention to when being mass produced. My .0002 cents worth.

 

Another point may be which model has more "appeal", like different finishes on a Gibson ES-175 guitar or paint on a 1965 Ford Mustang. Who knows; I sure don't...wink!

 

Ron

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Ron,

 

I can only imagine that the artisans who worked at the Hartford plant were intrigued about the prospect of manufacturing a completely new type of firearm for Colt; the submachine gun. One only need look at the attention to detail, the finish, the roll stampings, and yes, the realization they needed to out source the manufacturing of the wood, barrels, sights, and compensator, to appreciate the overall effort it took to turn the prototypes into a marketable firearm bearing the proven cache of the Colt name.

 

Some may say the lines are cleaner without the Cutts. Some may say the blaze emanating from the top and front of a Cutts TSMG is an added attraction. The M1/M1A1 chewed (eschewed) the Cutts because of cost cutting. The Blish Lock and Cutts seem to define the TSMG for better or worse.

[Hyper Sniper]

I feel one reason that the 21a is thought to be rarer, is the fact that early on when the myth that the cutts reduced the muzzle lift in a big way, most guns were fitted at that time with the cutts comp. Most all Navy's have them, thus now leaving very few guns still configured like the original 21a as we know it today.

 

There are guns scattered up and down the serial range, but for the most part they are early guns, being after the advent of the cutts comp most people wanted them equipped on there gun if they could afford it at the time. just my .02

 

Dan

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I don't know if it can be said that the 1921A is "rarer" since Colt made 15,000 of them. Had the Colt TSMG come off the assembly line with Cutts and a few examples missed the addition of a Cutts, then it could be said that it is rare to find a non Cutts Colt TSMG. The fact that more customers availed themselves of this Auto-Ordnance Corporation installed accessory post 1926 doesn't mean that the number of 1921A's that were manufactured changed.

 

The "A" and "AC" appellation is only a catalog designation, not an added stamping on the receiver. The "Navy" stamp and "8" overstamp, while not a Colt marking, also has some added appeal in that these stampings are differently applied on the various examples. Since the original Colt 1921A barrels were of Remington manufacture, as were the new post 1931 barrels that accommodated the 2nd version of the Cutts, it isn't even a Colt issue.

 

If a Colt TSMG sans Cutts is considered "rare," than a Colt uncompensated Navy is truly collectible since nearly all Navy marked TSMG's had a Cutt's.

[Hyper Sniper]

Arthur,

 

I would agree with most of your post, and understand the model designations this is why I made mention of the 21a as we know it today, or uncompenated 21 rather then AC

 

Yes they all were 21's but many of the guns were sent back and retro fitted with the cutts much later on while still in PD's long before they started showing up in civilian hands. Here is one other thought how many have had barrel changes, or cutts added to them from certain dealers, that early on felt that the AC or comp guns brought more money.

 

This is one reason why I feel that there are fewer uncompenated 21's over compensated variants.

There is also one other equation, and this is the number of guns that were on form 10 and or destroyed vs guns that made it to form 5 and eventually into civilian hands. Maybe there were just fewer that actually made it into the registry to be transferable.

 

I will not say that the 21a or uncompensated 21 is a rarer gun, just that as nobra81 denoted, for some reason you don't see nearly as many for sale in civilian hands.

I have no way of knowing the number differences in the registry between these variants, it is just a simple observation from years of watching sales.

 

Dan

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

I will not say that the 21a or uncompensated 21 is a rarer gun, just that as nobra81 denoted, for some reason you don't see nearly as many for sale in civilian hands.

Dan,

 

I agree. I think many of the first 1000 or so 1921A's were destined to travel outside the U.S. Sending them back to AOC for a Cutts upgrade was not feasible for a multitude of reasons. That may account for the sparsity of examples in the U.S. for sale.

 

But as to the hierarchy of desirability and collectability of the aforementioned three Colt TSMG's, the popularity of the Cutts after 1926, for whatever real or imagined reasons, and the extra $25 spent for the device (1/7th the price of a 1921A in the Fall of 1926!), surely make the Cutts Colt TSMG's more intrinsically valuable.

 

The Blish (even though invented in 1913), and Cutts are cool in that they represented the cutting edge of 1920's technology . The fact that they have been superfluous makes them even cooler. They add to the mystique of the TSMG.

[philasteen]

Arthur,

 

How exactly did the M1/M1A1 chew the Cutts? Does that make those guns ruminants?

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

[Ron Mills]

It's simple, laddie: Cows chew their cud, M1A1's chew their Cutts. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/woot.gif

[Hyper Sniper]

PhilOhio,

 

Yes I believe it has its functiuon, as I even hunt with a boss system which reduces recoil substantially. Let me say this yes I truly believe your right and that the law of physics do apply, and probably shouldn't have used the word myth, but have read it so much I am conditioned. I said that because it is a long winded debate

thru the years regarding the cutts, and many say it is nominal and some say substantial, but that was not my point, I was trying to get to the fact that in the early years it was regarded as a must have on your TSMG and that many of the guns from that point were ordered with them. So again my point was that many guns were updated to having cutts put on there guns, leading to why I feel there are fewer 21a's in the registry without them presently.

 

Dan

[AC556]

I did a search on subguns.com and sturmgwehr.com for Colt Thompson.

 

No 1921A listed.

 

5 1921AC listed

12455 listed at $30,100 80%

1236 listed at $36,500 ?

4234 listed at $30,000 ?

2053 listed at $38,000 80%

9969 listed at 40,000 ?

 

3 1928 N listed

? listed at $29,995 90%

? listed at $34,995 95%

? listed at $49,995 80%

 

 

All guns were listed with Acc. Some more than others.

Edited May 25, 2006 by AC556

[SecondAmend]

On a gun as heavy as a Thompson, Cutts comps don't work any better than an equally heavy lump of clay on the end of the barrel.

 

F = mA (where the force is the rotational "kick up" vector)

 

The force generated by a wee puff of gas out the slots of the top of a Cutts does little to push down the barrel of a 10+ lb gun and counter the rotational force generated when firing at 700 rounds/min.

 

Blish lock is a delay mechanism. No magic there. Lots of mechanical ways to generate lag in an apparatus. Auto Ord had bought the patent from Bliss so they damn well had to use it.

 

My Colt Targetsman was made in 1975 or 76. It has a beautiful blue/black flawless finish. Looks like a Gillette razor blade. Colt was capable of good finish work for many years after 1922.

 

The Colt Thompsons are cool because they were the first U.S. subgun, gangsters used a few so the media popularized them, and the styling is right with or without a Cutts and with vertical or horizontal front grip.

 

MHO, YMMV, etc.

[Hyper Sniper]

AC556

 

You forgot the 1921A #167 for $85000.00

[1921A]

AC556

 

Most long time Colt collectors would agree with your order....

 

1921A

1921AC

1928N

 

If you want to look at numbers surviving, the 28N is the most common followed closely by the 21AC and then a few 21A's. A 95% 21A is a rare animal these days. For that matter, so is any Colt variation in that condition. My personal favorite is the 28N with horizontal fore grip... don't know why, I just always found them interesting There are 21A, 28A and 27A configuration Colt guns out there and I guess you would have to include the 1923 as an "A." http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

Greg Fox

 

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Greg,

 

I also have a weakness for the real Navy's visceral appeal. But as to what "long time collectors" have historically considered desirable, a quality that supersedes numerical inferiority, the 1921A does not carry the day.

 

Of the 1800 or so transferable Colt TSMG's in the ATF registry, the 1921 AC is way more common than the Navy. Consider all the Navy models that were sold to other countries and that all the FBI Colt's were Navy's which meant that they were either destroyed or off-limits.

 

A typical Vollmer ad 10 to 15 years ago consisted of approximately 16 1921AC's, 13 Navy's, none of which were of the horizontal grip variety, and 3 1921A's. Now here is the kicker, the 95% 1921A was advertised for $6500 while the 96% Navy was advertised for $8000. In fact the cheapest 1921A in 90% condition was advertised for $4900 while the cheapest Navy in the same condition was also $4900.

 

What does this typical dealer ad reveal about the hierarchy of "collectability" regarding the three variations? Other than the days of a dealer having 30 Colt TSMG's in their inventory are long gone, neither the dealers, nor "collectors," placed a premium on Cutts-less Colt's, regardless of their paucity in comparison to the other models.

[SecondAmend]

Phil,

 

With all due respect to your personal evaluations, the mass hence the inertia of the Thompson vastly exceeds that of the .22 pistols, hence the rotational forces - both the up and down - about the center of balance are vastly higher for the Thompson. It will take a lot more force to make the Thompson barrel to move down once it starts to move up than it will to move the .22 pistol barrel.

 

For my personal evaluation, I have shot my M1A1 and '28 using the same ammo simultaneously in left and right hands and then switched, and I could not tell any effect of the Cutts versus none.

 

As reported in 'American Thunder", the Army evaluated the Cutts and found it to have no effect. However, that appears to also have been subjective, hand held evaluation.

 

Thus my modest proposal. Instead of personal hand held evaluations, why not rig up a scale to actually measure the downward force (or change in upward force) with mechanically fixtured and fired - not hand held - versions of your Thompson gun in the various calibers and configurations. Be sure to try the Cutts with the slots open and with the slots sealed or blocked.

 

I for one would really like to see a test such as this. I admit that I may well be wrong and would love to see your "Myth Buster" results. I am aware of your fabrication facilities and your mechanical skills (which I do not have) and believe you you would generate complete and objective testing. You may even wish to write this testing up as an article in the TCA Newsletter or SAR.

 

Thank you for your consideration.

 

 

 

[nedry]

Another possible use for the Cutts might have been for fire-breathing "intimidation effect". I know guys who like to have chrome/stainless bushings on otherwise dark-blued or Parkerized 1911s for similar reasons (albeit different process to achieve it).

 

Looking forward to hearing about the experiment, Phil!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

QUOTE

I suspect that the reason comps were originally worked into the Thompson design was because it was intended to build such a gun in larger rifle calibers, where a comp would have been much more useful. When they settled on .45 ACP, it may have been that the guys just wanted to stay with the comp, to get people used to it or something. The comp and the entire gun were new conepts...cutting edge technology at that time. All this is just my conjecture.

Phil

 

Col. Cutts & son Lieutenant Cutts invented this device originally for the BAR in 1920. It was this BAR Cutts that the Army declined. AOC did its own testing of TSMG's equipped with the Cutts Compensator and believed it did indeed increase accuracy in full auto mode. Since 1921, the Colt TSMG was not exactly flying off AOC's storage racks. Why add another $25 to the price of a weapon that was not selling if the damn thing didn't work? Then again, why did the military and the FBI request their Colt TSMG's be fitted with Cutts? Was it the fact that they were using federal funds to procure their TSMG's and didn't care about the expense? But that doesn't explain why a myriad of other buyers fancied the Cutts as well. Was this merely another AOC promotional "gimmick" to increase sales and revenue?

 

But as to this threads original premise that conventional wisdom places Cutts-less Colt TSMG's atop collector's list, that myth has been busted.