Colt/Savage/AOC "British Proofed" Yet sold Directly from AOC

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Colt/Savage/AOC "British Proofed" yet sold directly from AOC to U.S. police department. Anyone have additional information as discussed in this thread: "Returned "british" Thompsons" http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2321&hl=%2Bbritish+%2Bproofs&do=findComment&comment=19702

Edited November 20, 2015 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[TD.]

Arthur,

Excellent subject. I have been collecting information on this subject for a possible future story. Can you provide the serial number for the Thompson shown in the pictures you posted. I would like to see if it is one I have previously noted with British markings.

 

Regarding the number of Colt's used by British forces in World War II, pages 107 & 108 of my book, Great Britain - The Tommy Gun Story, would be the most current, complete and verified information to date. Pages 8 -10 document the first use of Colt's by the British military in World War II.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Arthur,

Excellent subject. I have been collecting information on this subject for a possible future story. Can you provide the serial number for the Thompson shown in the pictures you posted. I would like to see if it is one I have previously noted with British markings.

 

Nitro Marked Colt Navy #7101

 

Did you discover the name of the British inspector(s) working at AOC who proof marked TSMGs that were intended for export to GB?

[TD.]

Arthur,

Thank you for the serial number - a new one to me. I also noted this number it is not listed in my edition of Gordon's book. Perhaps someone can check Gordon's last edition.

 

Chapter 2 of my book, Joint Inspection Board of the United Kingdom and Canada, contains a lot of previously unpublished information about the British inspection process in the USA during World War II. Hats off (again) to James West (Mk VII) for his meticulous research in finding this information.

 

I doubt very seriously there were any British Inspectors at AOC prior to the outbreak of World War II. The proofing for NO 7101 and the other Colt's with British Proof markings was most likely done in Great Britain. Based on the information known thus far, it is most likely the great majority of British Inspectors were US citizens employed by the British government. Upon the passage of Lend-Lease in 1941, most/all of these Inspectors were hired by the US government and continued on with their duties.

 

I feel certain you would find the information in my book interesting. I just noted Amazon.com has run some great prices of late. Buy yourself an early Christmas present.

[Gio]

In Gordon's new book 7101 is listed as 1921A Mexican Consul General, Brownsville,Texas (1 of 100: shipped3/7/29)

 

Frank

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

"Based on the information known thus far, it is most likely the great majority of British Inspectors were US citizens employed by the British government. Upon the passage of Lend-Lease in 1941, most/all of these Inspectors were hired by the US government and continued on with their duties."

 

@Tom,

 

The nationality of the inspectors is not the issue. That there were indeed TSMGs stamped with British proofs at the AOC/Savage factories is the issue. That any number of these stamped TSMGs were never exported to GB is an obvious extension of this fact. Back in 2004, board members were incredulous, and even indignant, at the prospect of any TSMG picking up such stamps in the colonies and not in GB.

John Jr, on 05 May 2004 - 14:18, said:

AF

 

QUOTE

The presence of a British proof does not necessarily mean that the gun ever left the U.S. though.

I read that statement somewhere too, perhaps in Hill's book, but I think thats a crock of shit. One question: WHY would the US or anyone in the US stamp british proof marks on a gun (with british roll stamps, I might add)in this country that was never over there. The british stamped the guns when they were done using them and PRIOR to shipping them back. So I question the validity of the statement that there are guns that are british proofed that never left the US. I bet one of our Thompson experts saw a gun that was brit proofed and assumed it never left the country or was told it never left the country, but couldn't really prove it.

PATHFINDER, on 25 Jun 2004 - 22:10, said:

QUOTE (Balder @ May 27 2004, 04:30 PM)

 

Even if a Thompson has British proof marks, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a Lend-Lease gun.True but, these proof marks would have been applied in a British proof house........... by British inspectors........ in England. So AFs claim it may never have left the US goes right out the window.

Or Ian Hogg is daft and Robert's your uncle

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2139&hl= savage british proof marks

 

Frank Iannimico stated in American Thunder:

Guns that were made under contract for the British military were subjected to inspection and were often stamped with prolific British military marks. It is believed that British inspectors were assigned to the Savage factory in Utica, New York to inspect and stamp the Thompson guns that were being made for them under contract. British military acceptance marks were a a crown over a letter/number combination that indicated who inspected the weapon, and additional letters indicating where the inspection took place.

Now we have come full circle. Perhaps it is ironic that the NAC suffix TSMGs with British proof marks are the examples that were undoubtedly sent to GB during the war as Numrich had to import them to the U.S. in the 1950's.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[TD.]

I don't think there is an example of a Thompson being "stamped with British proofs" at the Savage or Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport factory during World War II.

 

There is a big difference in British proof, inspection and government Broad Arrow or ownership markings. You cannot easily lump these markings together, especially if you are trying to determine the location the markings were applied.

 

The proof markings on the pictures you posted, reported to be Colt NAVY NO 7101, were most likely applied in Great Britain at the Birmingham Proof House. There was no British contract for Thompson guns prior to February 1940. The British military had to scrounge around to find six Thompson guns to issue to the British Expeditionary Force in late 1939. There would be no reason for a Birmingham Proof House employee to travel to the USA for proof testing. And no Auto-Ordnance factory for them to work out of. The inspection and ownership markings of the Thompson guns purchased by the British government during WWII are much different than found on NO 7101, above.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@Tom

 

1) Board member Greg Fox has a Colt TSMG with British proofs that was sold directly from AOC to a police department. He has the original invoice/shipping papers as well. Would this be an example of a British inspection mark by one of those Americans employed by the British government working at AOC?

 

2) At first it appeared you were in agreement with Frank Iannimico regarding TSMGs with British markings applied in the U.S. that were never shipped to GB while your only quibble was about the nationality of these surrogate British workers doing the inspection marking at AOC or Savage for Birmingham or London House. After your last post it seems you do not agree with Frank at all. Could you be more concise in what you concluded in "Great Britain-The Tommy Gun Story regarding the British inspection process in the USA during WWII. Could you post pics of the these markings that these workers used on TSMGs that were designated for export to the U.K.?

 

3) Munitions sent to the G.B. under H.R. 1776 that came back to the U.S. post WWII with the broad arrow marks (signifying Commonwealth Property) is not of concern in this discussion. This is only about those TSMGs that were British marked but remained in the states.

[TD.]

@Arthur

 

One subject at a time.

 

Show me a Colt Thompson with British "proof" markings that can be documented as being British proofed or marked in the United States (and remained in the United States).

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@Tom

 

Greg Fox, board moniker 1921A, has/had such a Colt TSMG with "British Proof" markings. Perhaps he can indulge you with further info.

 

Now can you explain and or provide pics of what type of stamps these surrogate British inspectors used at AOC/Savage on TSMGs during WWII?

[TD.]

@Arthur

This is the problem with our discussion. You just assume Greg Fox has or had a Colt Thompson that is documented to have been proofed in the United States by an employee of a British Proof House - and never left the United States. Before I am impressed with your discovery, I want to see pictures of the Colt and documentation the proofing was done in the United States. This is your subject; do your own legwork and present your findings. Statements and assertions made on the Internet, even between you and John Jr. in 2004, are not documentation or evidence. However, it can be the start of a detailed research project as those who have read my stories or book will attest. Right now I am researching another part of Thompson history. But I am open to viewing and reading what you can find out on this subject.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I don't think there is an example of a Thompson being "stamped with British proofs" at the Savage or Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport factory during World War II.

 

 

 

Based on the information known thus far, it is most likely the great majority of British Inspectors were US citizens employed by the British government.

 

@ Tom

 

How do you reconcile your two quotes? I want to see pics of the stamps that the American surrogates for Britain used on TSMGs destined for G.B. during WWII. Did you or did you not cover this in "Great Britain- The Tommy Gun Story" Chapter 2 Joint Inspection Board of the United Kingdom and Canada ? If you would rather not get into specifics from your book released nearly a year ago.perhaps another board member familiar with your book can chime in.

 

My thread subject is actually any TSMG that has "British Proofs" applied by some entity working for AOC/Savage in the USA during WWI that were never shipped overseas.

[TD.]

@Arthur

The US citizens employed by the British and assigned to the Savage Arms plant were Inspectors. They applied an Inspection mark or stamp to identify the product was one to be used for a British contract.

 

I have never seen a Savage Arms or Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport (AOB) manufactured Thompson that was proof tested and marked under the auspicious of the British military or government in the United States. I would assume all proof testing was performed as part of the manufacturing and inspection process by Savage Arms and AOB employees.

 

I don't know of "any TSMG that has "British Proofs" applied by some entity working for AOC/Savage in the USA during WWI {sic} that were never shipped overseas."

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@Tom

 

Frank Iannimico agrees that "British inspectors were assigned to the Savage factory in Utica, New York to inspect and stamp the Thompson guns that were being made for them under contract." But he goes on to describe these marks as "a crown over a letter/number combination that indicated who inspected the weapon, and additional letters indicating where the inspection took place." Did your research for your book uncover exactly what these "inspection marks/stamps" were as used by these surrogate British inspectors? Frank says the markings are like the ones in the first photo in the initial thread post. Where are these Savage TSMGs with these much different marks that you identify as a "stamp to identify the product was one to be used for a British contract" ? Can you post a pic of a TSMG with this unique stamp?

[TD.]

@Arthur

The research performed by James West removes all doubt Inspectors employed by the British government were assigned to the Savage Arms factory. However, this did not happen immediately, especially for the first orders placed by the British Ministry of Supply. Shown below is the only mark we are certain was applied by Inspectors employed by the British government on the Model of 1928 Thompson gun at the Savage Arms plant - the Woolwich stamp.

 

 

I am familiar with the other marks you describe and provide a collage of these British markings applied on Savage Arms Thompsons along with the British Broad Arrow mark. We believe these markings were applied on the early British cash and carry purchases. We found nothing to suggest these markings were applied in the USA. I agree with Frank that the markings from the Birmingham Proof House he described indicate where the inspection took place - the Birmingham Proof House. I have also seen the Enfield mark and probably others.

 

You would know all of this and much more if you had a copy of my book. It would make an excellent Christmas present. And I will offer a money back guarantee if you are not 100% satisfied.

 

Happy Thanksgiving

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@ Tom
It is now apparent why you didn't initially mention the Woolrich ROF stamp at the beginning of this thread instead of referring to it with your deceptive description "a stamp to identify the product was one to be used for a British contract." The well known Woolrich "Crown W" stamp is a steel quality stamp or proof for forged steel. In other words, a "British Proof" mark that can be found on British Purchasing Commission weapons stamped in the USA. The notion that that a British Proof always denotes where the inspection took place is invalidated considering that Woolrich is located in south-east London and the inspection/proofing stamp was applied in Utica , New York.

 

This British stamp that adorns board member Mark Leighton's Savage #79878 (see pic) and mentioned by board member Alan David of Australia back in February, 2013 as being applied by British inspectors in the USA, who also referred to it as an inspector's mark.

 

You may be interested in the February 23, 2011 American Rifleman article 'The Tommy's Thompson" by Martin Pegler. This predates your book by 4 years. He also manages to come to the logical conclusion that TSMGs with British Proofs wound up staying in the USA in police department arsenals. Perhaps it is you who would know more if you read Martin's article and this board more diligently.

 

"With the election of Winston Churchill as prime minister in 1940, things began to move quickly. Churchill, an ex-soldier and an arms enthusiast, was also a believer in the Thompson, publicly paraphrasing the “Time” magazine comment that “General Thompson’s gun may be, pound for pound, the most devastating weapon devised for war.” He immediately sanctioned the acquisition of Model 1928 guns, and the British Purchasing Commission, based in New York, placed the order in February 1940.
At first the commission ordered only 450 guns, and the subsequent contract did not actually specify a number—Britain needed all the guns it could get. Ordnance inspectors were sent from Britain to check and stamp all export guns destined for Europe, and many of the guns that never reached England bear their inspection stamps."

 

[TD.]

@Arthur,

Feel free to write you own book using the terms proof marks and inspection stamps interchangeably. And cite the Internet and your opinion as your sources. I much prefer the the paper documentation found at the British National Archives for accuracy, clarity and insight by the people involved in the actual process during World War II. That you demean someones work without reading it again demonstrates your true value on this Board.

 

I assume that quote is from Martin Pelger's 2011 American Rifleman story. If so, it is full of misinformation. The British Purchasing Commission did not place the first order. The first order was actually for 750 Model of 1921AC Thompson guns, not "Model 1928 guns." The first order was changed to the Model 1928AC, which was made in two parts, the first for 450 guns, the second for 300 guns. The second order was for 2000 guns and every subsequent order was for a specific number. (The British Ministry of Supply awarding an open ended contract to Russell Maguire's Auto-Ordnance Corporation. Yea, right!) The process of placing Inspectors at Savage Arms and other American factories for war products was very slow. The Joint Inspection Board of the United Kingdom and Canada did not have its first official meeting until November 15, 1940. Unfortunately, a lot of misinformation about the Thompson gun and Great Britain was published over the years that became accepted as fact. That is why my book cites a source document for everything claimed in the story; 358 footnotes along with a few authors notes. You will not find that in Mr. Pelger's story because all he (and you) are doing is rehashing misinformation with your "logical conclusions." What is truly unfortunate is the actual documents that enabled James West and me to tell what actually transpired was readily available.

 

Again, I don't know of "any TSMG that has "British Proofs" applied by some entity working for AOC/Savage in the USA during WWI {sic} that were never shipped overseas." And neither do you.

 

______________________

 

Amazon.com has a "Look inside" feature with my book that lets you read quite a bit of the story for free and see the cited documentation I spoke about, above.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Britain-Tommy-Gun-Story/dp/1502977818/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448585212&sr=8-1&keywords=Great+Britain++-+The+Tommy+Gun+Story

 

 

[21NAVY]

In order to further muddle this, My 28 overstamp, #3684 "George Wallace" Thompson out of the Birmingham, Al P.D is Birmingham Arsenal proofed and shipped from AOC to the P.D..

I think I recall TD finding a few of the Birmingham proofed Guns finding homes along the southeast and southern US Police Dept's. Almost sounds like a sales trip thru the Southeast by someone resulted in selling these guns.

 

 

Perhaps someone took some guns to England for inspection/potential sale in the later twenties? I have no idea, just asking.

[DLansky]

I own 3344 and 3482. Both are 28 Navies and both were shipped in 1934 to the Atlanta police department and are marked APD on the upper and lower receivers. both are british proofed -receiver and internal parts--actuator, etc. if these were shipped to Atlanta in 1934, several years before WWII started, how, where and when did the proof marks get applied? very interesting topic.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@21 NAVY & DLansky

 

Tracie Hill in TUTB mentions the Colt TSMGs with British Proofs that remained in the USA. Who wielded the stamp and what actual location in the USA the inspectors did their work on these Colt TSMGs Hill does not speculate.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

@Arthur,

 

I assume that quote is from Martin Pelger's 2011 American Rifleman story. If so, it is full of misinformation.

 

Again, I don't know of "any TSMG that has "British Proofs" applied by some entity working for AOC/Savage in the USA during WWI {sic} that were never shipped overseas." And neither do you.

 

No need to assume as I provided the author and source material for the quote in my post. You were compelled to find one post of mine where I erred posting WWI instead of the obvious WWII and yet you missed the name and magazine in post #16. Ok.

 

Considering you do not recognize the Woolrich "Crown W" stamp as a British Proof mark your powers of observation are questionable.

 

You can denigrate Martin Pelger all you want, but he has authored books on other subjects such as "Out of Nowhere: A history of the military sniper, from the Sharpshooter to Afghanistan" and "Winchester Lever-Action Rifles." But if your rubric is to disregard any author who published mistakes in their works on firearms, you can dismiss Roger Cox, Tracie Hill, Frank Iannimico, Gordon Herigstad as well. That you believe your publication is error free is quite a boast.

 

BTW: Frank Iannimco acknowledged that in "American Thunder" I & II he misidentified the "Crown W" stamp as identifying TSMGs shipped to the Netherlands believing the "W" was for Queen Wilhemina .

[TD.]

Martin Pelger's American Rifleman article was published in 2011. The source material he used was most likely taken from previous misinformed stories. My book was published in 2015 correcting much of the misinformation about the British acquisition of the Thompson gun. The reader can choose what to believe. Actual British military documents authored by real people during a war in which the outcome was far from certain. Or stories published over the years based on...? I have often wondered what these stories were really based on. Given Mr. Pelger's stature as a present day historian, I feel certain his story would be much different today after reading my book. Maybe I will get a chance to discuss the subject with him at the 2016 NRA Convention.

 

I doubt my book is error free but so far no one has been able to point out a substantive mistake.

 

I do wish to thank those members and guests who have purchased my book during this banter between Arthur and me. I feel certain you will enjoy the read. Take note of the information posted by 21NAVY and DLansky, above. There is a story there, but not one that can be written on known information today.

 

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

I do wish to thank those members and guests who have purchased my book during this banter between Arthur and me. I feel certain you will enjoy the read. Take note of the information posted by 21NAVY and DLansky, above. There is a story there, but not one that can be written on known information today.

 

TD., on 23 Nov 2015 - 16:46, said:

@Arthur

This is the problem with our discussion. You just assume Greg Fox has or had a Colt Thompson that is documented to have been proofed in the United States by an employee of a British Proof House - and never left the United States. Before I am impressed with your discovery, I want to see pictures of the Colt and documentation the proofing was done in the United States.

 

Am I also assuming that 21NAVY and DLansky have British Proofed Colt TSMGs that never left the USA? Why is it when you are confronted with tangible evidence that runs contrary to your conclusions reached in your book you dismiss it as a "story" ? What possible documentation would there be that would accompany these board members Colt TSMGs other than the usual chain of ownership record that they have? You can make substantive mistakes just by omission. How you whiffed on even a mention of these domestic British Proof marked Colt and Savage TSMGs that remained in the USA in your book is a rather glaring oversight. But that's ok as other credible authors have broached this subject in their publications.

[ron_brock]

 

 

I do wish to thank those members and guests who have purchased my book during this banter between Arthur and me. I feel certain you will enjoy the read. Take note of the information posted by 21NAVY and DLansky, above. There is a story there, but not one that can be written on known information today.

TD., on 23 Nov 2015 - 16:46, said:

@Arthur

This is the problem with our discussion. You just assume Greg Fox has or had a Colt Thompson that is documented to have been proofed in the United States by an employee of a British Proof House - and never left the United States. Before I am impressed with your discovery, I want to see pictures of the Colt and documentation the proofing was done in the United States.

Am I also assuming that 21NAVY and DLansky have British Proofed Colt TSMGs that never left the USA? Why is it when you are confronted with tangible evidence that runs contrary to your conclusions reached in your book you dismiss it as a "story" ? What possible documentation would there be that would accompany these board members Colt TSMGs other than the usual chain of ownership record that they have? You can make substantive mistakes just by omission. How you whiffed on even a mention of these domestic British Proof marked Colt and Savage TSMGs that remained in the USA in your book is a rather glaring oversight. But that's ok as other credible authors have broached this subject in their publications.

Arthur,

 

Are you emplying that someone fired a proof load and stamped these guns? You keep using the term proof, but I do not see any information confirming the Woolwich stamp was for proof acceptance.

 

It's probably more correct to say stamped until information is uncovered that would confirm this mark was used when a gun was proofed.

 

Ron

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

 

Arthur,

 

Are you emplying that someone fired a proof load and stamped these guns? You keep using the term proof, but I do not see any information confirming the Woolwich stamp was for proof acceptance.

 

It's probably more correct to say stamped until information is uncovered that would confirm this mark was used when a gun was proofed.

 

Ron

As far as the Savage TSMGs at Utica, New York, the Woolrich "Crown W" stamp is indeed a British inspection stamp. While it is not a firing proof as it is not placed on the barrel, it does denote steel quality as stated in British & Colonial ordnance manuals list of various proof marks and the codes for identifying the arsenals or proof houses that applied the proof mark. Sometimes I place the proof moniker in quotes in connection with these British stamped Savage TSMGs.

 

As far as the Colt TSMGs in this discussion, they are indeed British proof marked on the receivers and some on the barrels as well with the Birmingham nitro smokeless proof for military firearms "Crown over BM". The photo in post #20 shows a Birmingham proof stamp and Birmingham date stamp indicating 1922-23.

Edited November 28, 2015 by Arthur Fliegenheimer