blueline541 Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I bought a nice one at Knob Creek last april and am glad I did. My AO '28ac was missing a few beats upon purchase but I was aware of it before hand. The actuator that came with mine was a bit bent so I replaced it and the bolt with the parts from the kit and now no more problems. The previous owner suspected the bolt was the issue but never bothered with it during the nearly seven years of owning the gun because he almost never shot it. The gun has matching numbers but I finally got around to trying the second frame on it today. It is an amazingly tight fit. The original frame has a very, very small amount of play when on the receiver, but I've always expected this in a 65 year old submachine. I'm going to leave the original locked up and use the spare from now on. The gun came without a breech oiler but I haven't decided whether to use the spare or not. I lean towards leaving it out because I think advancements in lubricants have increased since the creation of the Thompson. Just rambling this evening but I do recommend a parts kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gijive Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 QUOTE (blueline541 @ Jul 30 2007, 07:29 PM)I bought a nice one at Knob Creek last april and am glad I did. My AO '28ac was missing a few beats upon purchase but I was aware of it before hand. The actuator that came with mine was a bit bent so I replaced it and the bolt with the parts from the kit and now no more problems. The previous owner suspected the bolt was the issue but never bothered with it during the nearly seven years of owning the gun because he almost never shot it. The gun has matching numbers but I finally got around to trying the second frame on it today. It is an amazingly tight fit. The original frame has a very, very small amount of play when on the receiver, but I've always expected this in a 65 year old submachine. I'm going to leave the original locked up and use the spare from now on. The gun came without a breech oiler but I haven't decided whether to use the spare or not. I lean towards leaving it out because I think advancements in lubricants have increased since the creation of the Thompson. Just rambling this evening but I do recommend a parts kit. blueline541, A couple of thoughts on your post about Thompson parts. The slight "play" betwen the grip frame and the receiver is normal on Thompsons. Even the original Colt made guns have some "play" on them. The grip frame should not be so tight that is difficult to get on and off. I have seen some WWII grip frames that will not even go on a Colt gun , for example. They were made within a certain tolerance and not all grip frames will interchange. As an example, a couple of years ago I helped the Chicago Office of the FBI clean and repair three Savage made 1928A1 Thompsons they still had in their arsenal. Over the years someone had switched the grip frames on two of the guns. I had to use a rubber mallet to remove the grip frame from one of the guns and these were all genuine WWII Savage production Thompsons with matching serial numbers. Once the switched frame was mated with the correct receiver, it slid right on as smooth as can be. These guns were hand fitted at the time of manufacture and individual guns will vary in their fit and interchangeability of parts. As far as the breech oiler is concerned, the gun was designed with one for a reason. Irrespective of improvements in lubricants, oil is oil, in my opinion. The gun likes oil and the breech oiler is an integral part of the internal workings of the 1928 Model. With the availability of the 1928 parts kits in recent years, why not pick up an extra breech oiler instead of relying on the claims of gun lubricant manufacturers that their product is the end all, be all, of lubricants and made with special space-age secret ingredients that will withstand metal to metal contact for eternity? You could probably pick one up cheaper than a large spray can of space-age lubricant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Sergeant Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 Yep, use the oiler. What could it hurt to use it? You can still use the space age lubricants Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueline541 Posted August 1, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 (edited) The spare frame allows for absolutely no play but slides on and off just fine. It overlaps the rear of the receiver just a little bit but the gun seems to function fine. Edited August 1, 2007 by blueline541 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adlake Posted August 1, 2007 Report Share Posted August 1, 2007 As far as the breech oiler is concerned, the gun was designed with one for a reason. Irrespective of improvements in lubricants, oil is oil, in my opinion. The gun likes oil and the breech oiler is an integral part of the internal workings of the 1928 Model. With the availability of the 1928 parts kits in recent years, why not pick up an extra breech oiler instead of relying on the claims of gun lubricant manufacturers that their product is the end all, be all, of lubricants and made with special space-age secret ingredients that will withstand metal to metal contact for eternity? You could probably pick one up cheaper than a large spray can of space-age lubricant. AMEN! I think that oil companys have been saying this thru the decades. Remember all the fly by night companys in the auto stores that dissappear after a short bit of time. ie: Dura-lube. Gun wise its kinda a cool feature. How many other guns have this feature? Just a thought-adlake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueline541 Posted August 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 I had asked before about the necessity of having one and got the impression that it was good to have but not a deal breaker if the gun went without. The last thing I want to do is cause unnecessary damage to a rediculously expensive toy/cool piece of history. A few questions: How much oil do you put on the pads? I'll just assume non-sperm whale oil is okay. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif How does it go in the receiver? How long are these 60+ year old felt pads good for? Can I get modern day replacements if need be? Thanks for the help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Sergeant Posted August 2, 2007 Report Share Posted August 2, 2007 blueline The oiler wouldn't be a deal breaker unless by not using it the gun was damaged. Sounds like yours is running fine now so that doesn't seem to be a problem. Your parts kit should have an oiler, if not there is one on Ebay right now. The oiler fits in the rear of the reciever with the longest leg down (when the reciever is upside down) I normally saturate mine with any good gun oil and it lasts for long time. The felt doesn't seem to be affected much by age. Sportsman's Guide had replacement oilers some time back but the word ws they were not military spec and weren't a drop in replacement. Hope this helps. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/First...t/100_6305a.jpg Sorry about the quaility of the pic. Good luck Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueline541 Posted August 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 Thanks for the advice. Also, the picture helped. Next time I take it out to shoot I'll put the breech oiler in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philasteen Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 You are going to put different wear contours on the receiver by swapping the original lower for a tighter one and paradoxically you may increase the free play with the original by using the replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 QUOTE (philasteen @ Aug 4 2007, 12:11 PM) You are going to put different wear contours on the receiver by swapping the original lower for a tighter one and paradoxically you may increase the free play with the original by using the replacement. philasteen Are you referring to the actual act of installing and removing the lower? It would seem to me that any new wear patterns caused by this would be minimal. I use a spare lower on mine just to save the wear and tear on my matching numbered lower. Is this bad idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philasteen Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 Not by taking it on and off. Rather, think of it this way -- the old lower and upper have had the benefit of working together for a while and where there were higher spots on one vs. the other they've worn already. By putting a new lower with it's own protrusions and irregularities, there may be now new spots on the upper that will become worn. IMHO a lower is indestructible in all normal use and there's no reason to swap it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueline541 Posted August 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 This is definately something to think about. I swapped out the matching lower with the intention of preserving the condition it is now in. I'd really like to hear the opinions of other members on this line of thought. Anybody... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancer Posted August 4, 2007 Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 philasteen I'm a bit confused here............once installed, there is no physical interaction between the receiver and the the lower frame(internals, yes). How can there be any appreciable wear patterns between the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philasteen Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Wherever there is metal on metal contact, even if static and not part of an operating unit, vibration will cause movement of the surfaces against each other and gradually cause wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpanda4 Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Philsteen is correct. Metal wears. I have a lower laying around that has (I assume) an arsenal fix for the sloppy fit between the upper and lower. It was a series of swages from some kind of press, then I assume it was opened back up to min spec and refit. I can get pics later if I remember! 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