1919 A4 Forums banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi, all.

I was just re-reading a thread I posted way back in July of 2012. I didn't want to necro a decade-old thread, but I'll point to it here: First time out with the 1919A6 - good news and bad news

Towards the end of that thread, there was some discussion between @Lucky#13 and @kkkriverrats regarding whether or not it was known that parts used for production guns were not marked with drawing numbers or plant codes, while parts used for repair/maintenance were marked with drawing numbers, plant codes, etc. In this specific instance the part in question was the bottom plate from my Saginaw produced M1919A6 - it was suggested that not having the drawing number or Saginaw manufacturer code is a likely indication that this plate was part of the gun as it originally left the factory.

It's been ~10 years since the last posts on that thread, so I was just wondering if any new information may have come to light in that time that could help answer the question.

Cheers!
 

·
PhD in Over-Engineering
Joined
·
12,243 Posts
I don't know where kkkriverrats is these days, but I should give him a holler. I know he more or less resigned from the board due to the corporate owners burying his m1919tech website and data.

Nothing new on that theory. That originated from a late member of the forum, who posted as Lorenzo. I met him in person only once, but we corresponded on and off the forum quite regularly before his passing. He told me he had the opportunity to study a large qty of guns before de mil, and his observations based on guns with and without rebuild markings led him to those conclusions. He had a notebook full of his detailed observations, but I never got to see it. I don't think there is any way to learn any more, as it was all based on actual guns observed. That is not a likely scenario to occur again. This was a working theory from one man, not absolute proof. In re reading kkkriverrats' post, he makes very good points and I can't prove him wrong, nor is Lorenzo around anymore to argue based on his observations. Many details of manufacture were never put on paper, and no one is living that worked in the manufacturing of these that I know of. Nor would your average factory worker necessarily have answers beyond the specific parts he or she worked on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I don't know where kkkriverrats is these days, but I should give him a holler. I know he more or less resigned from the board due to the corporate owners burying his m1919tech website and data.

Nothing new on that theory. That originated from a late member of the forum, who posted as Lorenzo. I met him in person only once, but we corresponded on and off the forum quite regularly before his passing. He told me he had the opportunity to study a large qty of guns before de mil, and his observations based on guns with and without rebuild markings led him to those conclusions. He had a notebook full of his detailed observations, but I never got to see it. I don't think there is any way to learn any more, as it was all based on actual guns observed. That is not a likely scenario to occur again. This was a working theory from one man, not absolute proof. In re reading kkkriverrats' post, he makes very good points and I can't prove him wrong, nor is Lorenzo around anymore to argue based on his observations. Many details of manufacture were never put on paper, and no one is living that worked in the manufacturing of these that I know of. Nor would your average factory worker necessarily have answers beyond the specific parts he or she worked on.
Yeah, I pretty much assumed that would be the case. But sometimes you never know... someone stumbles across a bunch of books and documents in great grand pappy's attic and suddenly our knowledge on a given subject expands threefold. Was hoping that might have been the case. :)

But in any event, thank you for the follow-up. Cheers!
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top