Strange US&S markings

[emmagee1917]

Hi all. Got left behind when you all moved. Finally found my way back. I guess the old posts are lost , so a little update would prob'ly be good.
A year or two ago I posted about a US&S I picked up. Out of town gunshow , bad light , no books ( left at home) , etc. I found when I got home it looked to be a 95% plus orig finished gun , mid range ser # , but with two odd features. No inspectors stamp and every part was stamped with the gun's last three digits of the ser.#.
Knowing of the large theft problem US&S had , the lack of the inspectors mark was not suprising , but why the numbering? I thought this might have been an inspection trial pistol ( people here said no) , others here thought it could have been a faker ( but why would a faker do such good work but not know we don't stamp every part?) , others that it was captured and stamped ( never heard of that being done) , and other theories , but none seem to answer all the questions.
Well , I think I found the answer. Reading Dolf's new 50cal BMG book , he talks about a standard manufactoring procedure of the time. They would , at set up , make three guns. One at min. dimentions , one at maximum , and one dead center. They would then mix the parts up between them to make sure that any part made " in spec" would work with any other part made " in spec ". Now , because we are dealing with parts from one mfg. , and the only difference is a few thousandths , it would be wise to mark each part as to which gun it came from. These guns remained at the mfg. , as fitting test beds during production. Also to test parts when they are changed to make sure they will work with all other guns already made. Therefore , because they never left the factory , they were never stamped with the insp. stamp.
So this would explain the lack of an insp mark and the marking of all the parts under what appears to be the orig. exc. finish. Also in the Aug. issue of "Man at Arms" on the back cover is a M1922 rifle just like this ( can't find it now to quote what they call it). The only thing not explained is the mid-production ser # rather than an early one , unless this was made to replace one that had been "lunchboxed". Of course , too , US&S had only a single ser# block issued , so they might have picked early-mid-late numbers (for min-mid-max specs) to stamp these with.
You answer one question , only to find two more:). Anyway , it looks like I fell into somethig they only made three of ( or four , or ?) Chris

[Duane Hansen]

I suppose your theory is possible but I think highly unlikely. If this were true, someone, somewhere would have seen another one like this and wrote or spoke of it on this or other similar sites. You could get out your handy-dandy micrometer and compare parts with another US&S just for kicks. I think maybe we are grasping at straws here, IMO Please show us some close up pictures.

[Duane Hansen]

Another point to consider. I don't believe that US&S or any other maker would tool up just to make a pistol a few thousandth over and then retool again for the under variation. Way too costly especially during war time.

[emmagee1917]

Some points to consider :

1) people do know about these things. The auction I listed had a .22 rifle with " all parts stamped with the ser # ". Dolf's book talks about them in the 50BMG book , and says it was the standard practice of the time. Note he makes no mention of this in his previous three books on the .30 cals.

2) expensive ? Yep , you bet. Look at the prices for the first Garand prototypes and the 80 shop models. But , you need to realize that EVERY part made , in gun or as a spare , had to fit EVERY gun they produced AND every every gun anyone else was producing. They did not want to repeat the WW1 fiasco on 1917 Winchester Enfields , when the first ones did not interchange parts with Reminton or Eddystone. Getting them out quick seemed good at the time , but being out of spec ( which had not been finalised at the time ) prooved different.

3) They took samples of the production run and tested them for endurance and interchangeabillity. It was very important. This gave them three known points of referance to ensure nothing got out of spec in the maching , the tooling , and checking of new gauges , as these wore out and were replaced. Any new changes in material , design , etc. could be quickly checked to be sure it would work in every gun made or at least make them aware it wouldn't and the problems that would lead to. What would happen if several days/weeks/months production had to be recalled/trashed because of this ? There is expence and time wasted.

4) As to being uncommon---well , yes. If they only made three , then only made others when needed , well , that's rare. They were more like the tooling than the production. Most gun books do not go into the machinery , bits , gauges , production steps , etc. Also , the authors may not write about something so rare they haven't seen or even have a photo of , and they sure can't write about something they don't know about.

5) Photos - yes , I'll do some this weekend. I'll need someone to post because I'm not good at this

Gotta go , talk later Chris

[Johnny Peppers]

Prior to WWII the Ordnance Department decided to make a set of inspection gages for the 1911A1. The gages were made from ordnance drawings, but it was discovered that they were different from the Colt 1911A1 pistols that had been manufactured. With the number of Colt pistols already having been made, it was decided to make the gages conform to these Colts. The gages were the basis for all the 1911A1 pistols made. If the other manufacturers could not consistently build a pistol to ordnance standards, no amount of try pistols would help them.
You mentioned that the pistol was serial numbered, but does it have the USP marking?

[emmagee1917]

Yep , it has all the markings it should except the circled RCD . If I had noticed that , I'd have passed on the pistol. It has a serial # of 10590XX , which is about 1,000 below where they started to mark the two " P "s , but this pistol has those "P"s. A collector here before said that was not unheard of , as several are known. It is belived to be pistols pulled from the assembly line for a problem , then fixed and returned to the line and got stamped. For what has been done to this pistol , that sounds resonable. Chris

[emmagee1917]

I pulled the book to check the serial # range refered in my last post , and just read about the EXP # pistol ( pg 64 ). Seems like enough parts were made pre-production to build appx 100 pistols that were given away. The orig. three shop sample pistols were prob'ly assembled from those parts.

With the presence of the Ps , I'd say this was made mid-production , so I would guess ( and this IS a guess) that this was made to replace one of the orig. that was stolen , lost , worn out ( maybe no longer in the min-mid-max spec becauce of constant disassembly/reassembly ) or for some other reason no longer good.

Again , you have to think of these more like master gauges. When a machine was reset up or added or adapted , a sample of it's production was installed in these to make sure in fact that the part was in spec and would fuction in any gun made or to be made. If a part did not work / fit , they knew a problem existed even if the other gauges said " pass".

Oh , one more thing , with the pistol assembled , the extra numbers do not show . You could see one , and not know it.
Chris

[Johnny Peppers]

The only problem is the the EXP pistols are made out of a mix of parts. Some show the P proof which was not added until about mid production, and others show defective forgings. The most plausible explanation for the EXP pistols is that they were made up after WWII from rejected and left over parts. Some show where the original markings were removed.
As to the pistol having the serial number and USP, the pistol had to be accounted for once it was serial numbered, and they would not have duplicated the serial number.
A production line pistol would not have taken the place of the gages made expressly for that purpose.

[emmagee1917]

I brought that up ( the EXP) because Clawson said they were pre-production parts and another had posted he did not think there was much waste during factory set-up , that's all.
If they needed another one to replace the old one , where would they get it but off the assembly line? Someone would have had to pull it , then make sure every part was one of the three specs (ie all min , all mid , or all max , depending on which one was being replaced) , the parts would have to be tried in the other two , the numbers put on , then hand carried through the rest of the process to make sure it didn't get sidetracked or shiped. It was then pulled before the final inspection , therfore no final insp. mark.

Rarely were all numbers used in a block. And yes , there were duplicate numbers made , but those are errors. As an aside , the .22 for auction also has a serial number ( of three digits or more). You've got to have a serial # if your going to use the last three digits of same.

Chris

[Johnny Peppers]

1041405 to 1096404 equals exactly 55,000 US&S pistols, and the 55,000 pistols shipped is verified by US&S records. All the assigned block of serial numbers issued to US&S were used. The only time the complete block of 1911A1 serial numbers were not used was when the contracts were cancelled before the complete block was used.
Since some of the receivers and slides on the EXP pistols were P proofed they were not from initial set up, nor would they have had complete markings as some of the EXP pistols do. No one knows for sure what they are, but many being made from rejected or incomplete parts strongly suggest they were made up from the scrap box.
How another gun is serial numbered has nothing to do with how the 1911A1 was serial numbered. Colt serial numbered the slides for a brief period, but none of the other 1911A1 contractors did.

[emmagee1917]

Very good point . I had read that , but did not know if it was correct. You see, I also read that US&S had quite a " five-finger discount" problem. I assumed they were talking about stolen , complete pistols. What were they serial # with? If the above is true ( that they shipped a true 55,000 using 55,000 numbers with no duplicating among them ) , then they would of had to duplicate serial # some guns to fill the government's order (to replace the ser # that were stolen). If the government did not recieve any duplicate numbers in thier shipments , I think they would have been happy. The strict serial number laws we have today did not go into effect til '68 , so the manufactures could do just about what they wanted to before that , so making two with the same serial # would not be a crime and it was for a good cause.

I do know it was usual ( for carbines ,1903s and garands as example ) to NOT use all the number in a block , and sometimes overrun into other mfg. blocks and to even not use thier assigned blocks in order or jump from one block to another and back. But , as you said , that's those guns and may not apply to 1911s.

Oh , and I finally found the M at A issue. It is a 1922 rifle ser # 284 , and is called a " production control rifle " , if that helps anyone.

Thanks for the imput , it means a lot. Chris

[Johnny Peppers]

We only have the records of US&S and the Ordnance Department to trust that there were indeed 55,000 US&S pistols shipped. Is there any evidence to the contrary?
What evidence is there that a lot of US&S pistols were stolen? Is this fact or just what someone thinks? If US&S didn't know large numbers of pistols were being stolen, who did?
The military pistols were not serial numbered to satisfy some Federal Government regulation or law. They were serial numbered because this was a requirement of the Ordnance Department and the manufacturer did not have the option of whether they serial numbered the pistols or not. That is the reason each 1911A1 contractor was issued blocks of serial numbers. When this block was completed, another block was issued. Ordnance used the serial numbers to identify each pistol as being identifiable from the one made just before it and the one made just after it.

[emmagee1917]

I only have Clawson's small book. He states in there that thievery was a big problem there. That's all I have to go by. He also says 55,000 shipped in a contract block 55,000 big. Being serial #d was part of the contract , my point was that as long as the govt. recieved 55,000 guns with 55,000 different # in the correct block , they were happy. But if several were stolen and those numbers noted as being short ( yes , US&S should have known) and duplicates made of those numbers , then there would be no big deal to them ( US&S )to stamp one off the assmly line for thier internal use , that's all. If Clawson's wrong , then I'm wrong. Won't be the first time , won't be the last nither .

Got 32 pics of the gun. Camera's old and cheep. Pictures arn't the best , but they'll get the idea across. Got them loaded into photo bucket album. What's the best way of letting people here see them without causing bandwith problems ? Will someone help? Thanks , Chris

[Scott Gahimer]

...If Clawson's wrong , then I'm wrong. Won't be the first time , won't be the last nither .

Got 32 pics of the gun. Camera's old and cheep. Pictures arn't the best , but they'll get the idea across. Got them loaded into photo bucket album. What's the best way of letting people here see them without causing bandwith problems ? Will someone help? Thanks , Chris

Keep in mind that Mr. Clawson doesn't have to be wrong for you to be wrong in your thinking about what this pistol is.

Mr. Clawson is supported with documented evidence that applies to the specific pistols he addresses in his books.

It appears you are relying on much speculation to reach your conclusions. The fact that Mr. Clawson states a number of lunchbox pistols made it out of the plant does not imply anything about a pistol having all of its parts serial numbered.

I'll look forward to seeing photos of your pistol, but will be surprised if I see anything that leads me to believe your parts were serialized at the factory, or by the authority of the factory.

It is easier for me to believe someone serialized the parts later...for whatever reason. I will not draw any conclusions before seeng your pistol, but as for now, you've not made enough of a case for me to believe the pistol is anything except altered.

Thanks for sharing the photos with us.

[Johnny Peppers]

It has always been know that parts and pieces were smuggled out of plants making weapons, and some were assembled into pistols in an unfinished state, but if serial numbered pistols started disappearing off the assembly line, drastic measures would have been taken. This would be the same as stealing weapons from our military, and would have been dealt with.

[emmagee1917]

Ok , thanks Johnny. We got a little cross-wise here , so let me re-state what I said. We really don't have a big difference here.

The USG assigned US&S a block of numbers- US&S delivered exactly that number of pistols to the USG. To me , a stolen lunchbox pistol would mean a complete pistol stolen from US&S before the USG accepted it and put thier final mark on it and paid for it. It was stolen from US&S , not the USG. The bean counters at US&S would find one missing , and US&S would have to make another to replace it , out of thier pocket , and would have to re-use the serial # to do so. Therefore , duplicate serial numbering would have been something they did , so doing it here would not be a big deal.
I never stated that Clawson said that the stolen arms were all marked on every part like this one. I never said that.
I never said Clawson said anything about pistols with most every part marked. Even Dolf did not say that. Only the auction listing says that.I am saying , that backed with the auction listing , it would be a resonable way to keep these parts separated from the thousands of simular parts at the factory. I have no info on what method the auctioners used to make thier statements. I just know I have an example in my hand that sounds like what they are selling.

As far as me relying on much speculation to reach my conclusion...well , you hit it right on the head. All I have is an example , some related info and a theory to tie them together.

But , lets look at the other side. Why would a person take an unpitted ( so prob'ly in very good to mint condition) example , strip off all the orig finish ( if any was left) , put the last three digits of the serial # on most every part ( including PINS ! ) and then refinish it , duplicating the orig. finish? Seems like spending a lot of time and money to make something less valuable than you began with , but people do strange things.

I did not expect this to end in a yes/no , real/fake to begin with ( still don't) , I'm just letting people know about this. Just shaking the tree to see what falls out. I've got the photos in photo bucket , just need to know the best way of posting them here. Chris

[Johnny Peppers]

That's the great thing about collecting. It is your pistol, and it can be anything you want it to be.

[Scott Gahimer]

Lunchbox pistols are generally accepted to be those pistols stolen by employees before they were serial numbered or had a final acceptance mark, because once a serial number was applied, the pistol could be and was tracked and accounted for.

Maybe somebody got a new die set for Christmas. Who knows why someone might do it? To make it mysterious or interesting?

You either need to provide a link to the album at the hosting site, or link the pictures here through the hosting site. You could even e-mail them to someone and let them post them for you.

[emmagee1917]

First try at this.

http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0033-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0033.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0032-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0032.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0031-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0031.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0030-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0030.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0029-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0029.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0028-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0028.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0027-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0027.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0026-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0026.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0025-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0025.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0024-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0024.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0023-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0023.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0022-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0022.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0017-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0017.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0016-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0016.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0015-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0015.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0014-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0014.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0013-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0013.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0012-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0012.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0011-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0011.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0010-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0010.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF0008-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF0008.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00071-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00071.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00061-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00061.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00051-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00051.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00041-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00041.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00031-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00031.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00021-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00021.jpg)
http://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2009/08/th_DSCF00011-1.jpg (http://s296.photobucket.com/albums/mm185/emmagee1917/US%20And%20S/?action=view&current=DSCF00011.jpg)

Can you see anything?

[Scott Gahimer]

Finish does not look original to me in the photos. Surface prep looks too smooth...perhaps beadblasted and redone.

The slide stop is not original. That is an M1911 part, not a US&S M191A1 part. The triggers were bright, plished blue at US&S. Trigger does not look original either.

I'm not saying anyone faked anything. To disassemble a pistol, mark the parts, refinish it and then reassemble doesn't fake anything.

Maybe someone was refinishing more than one pistol at a time and the parts were marked to identify which pistol they went with.

I don't see anything that suggests something the factory would have done. Thanks for the photos.

[Johnny Peppers]

Well , I think I found the answer. Reading Dolf's new 50cal BMG book , he talks about a standard manufactoring procedure of the time. They would , at set up , make three guns. One at min. dimentions , one at maximum , and one dead center. They would then mix the parts up between them to make sure that any part made " in spec" would work with any other part made " in spec ". Now , because we are dealing with parts from one mfg. , and the only difference is a few thousandths , it would be wise to mark each part as to which gun it came from. These guns remained at the mfg. , as fitting test beds during production. Also to test parts when they are changed to make sure they will work with all other guns already made. Therefore , because they never left the factory , they were never stamped with the insp. stamp.
So this would explain the lack of an insp mark and the marking of all the parts under what appears to be the orig. exc. finish.
You answer one question , only to find two more:). Anyway , it looks like I fell into somethig they only made three of ( or four , or ?) Chris

The 1911 slide stop pretty well rules out making a minimum, maximum, and spot on part for tolerance test pieces.

[emmagee1917]

:crying:Well pooooooooooo! How did I not notice the slide stop ???:lol:

:surrender::surrender::surrender::surrender:

Ok , Ok. Like I said , the trigger looked like it didn't belong ( not marked , not blued) . But the stop finishes it. Oh well , you don't see the markings when it's together. Now I can take it out and shoot the snot out of it with no worries about breaking a rare numbered part.

Thanks guys:super: , this place is STILL awesome. Chris