Rem Umc/ Savage

[tarbaby]

HAs anyone ever noticed that the rollmarks on Rem Umcs and Savage slides look almost (if not) identical? If I remember right, the Rem Umc tooling was stored at Springfield Armory after the war. I know theres a couple of theories on how these "Savage" slides got produced. If the rollmarks are the same, what could some of the possible implications be? Hmm...

[Scott Gahimer]

tarbaby: I don't think we will ever know for sure, but consider the following:

1) there is no record of A.J. Savage being authorized by the Ordnance Dept. to apply ANY markings to the slide or any completed pistols. There is, however, a record of this authorization for other manufacturers.
2) the maker's name (and slide markings in general) on the slide was an Ordnance Dept. requirement for all pistols.
3) Blueprints (for pistols) were shipped to A.J. Savage in August of 1918, probably too late for them to have been able to have delivered any slides before the war's end.
4) there were tolerance problems with some of these slides, which led to some eventually being rejected.
5) there are no Ord. inspection marks on the Savage slides.
6) Remington-UMC "Salvage" drawings and manufacturing process were used by later WWI-era pistol contractors. The problems involving interchangeability and tolerances from using these "contradictory" drawings is addressed by Lt. Col. Julian S. Hatcher on 11/2/1918.
7) Because Savage DID manufacture a quantity of springs and possibly "other parts", they were paid $13,443.69 at the time of their contract termination. The government bought those "parts".

Given the above (all from Clawson's book BTW), I think it likely that A.J. Savage did use the "contradictory" Rem-UMC drawings and apply the patent date markings themselves according to those drawings.

The only other option would seem to be that the patent date markings were applied later after the parts were purchased by the War Claims Board with perhaps the re-claimed Rem-UMC tooling.
If this were the case, I'm not sure the government would have gone to all the trouble to stamp the slides of those that were rejected and reportedly sold on the commercial market later. All the Savage slides I have seen have had the same markings.

[Scott Gahimer]

Interesting hypotheses no doubt. I believe the more likely explanation, obviously, was coincidence. But rather than echo what Clawson has already said, we all as astute little researchers should continue our most noble search for more evidence to answer this most poignant question, moving forward incrementally step by steop toward more stable ground built upon the secure foundation of real, actual evidence. :)

Three posts in a row quoting me? I suppose that's my cue to answer.

I'm sure you're right, or at least could never be convinced otherwise.
So, I guess that ends this thread too, unless someone has real, actual evidence to offer. Silly me for offering just an opinion.

[dsk]

I believe John said he wants this kind of talk to end. What's it going to take?