Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

143 profile views
  1. I don't have a dog in this hunt, and I don't have any evidence that Mattel made M16 handguards. However, it makes sense that Mattel could have made plastic M16 hand guards. They made plastic toys. Government contracts can be lucrative, and if a company can get one to easily run in parallel to their normal product, all the better. If you think the government would never let a toy company make hand guards, let's dispel that myth with a WWII example. Strombeck-Becker was a toy manufacturer that contracted to make Thompson Submachine Gun horizontal foregrips during WWII. The wartime product was easily adapted to their core competency of manufacturing wooden toys. They were given the marking code "M," which they applied to the rear of the grip. Here is a picture of one. Here is a Strombecker (same company) toy catalog from 1981 that I have in my collection. As can be seen, they later adapted to make plastic toys, like Mattel. For the alleged Mattel hand guard to be marked in a non-visible area is really inconsequential. Handguards were assembled during production, and a component marking would have been obvious prior to assembly. If a quality issue existed with a component like a hand guard piece, it more than likely would have been caught prior to assembly into the completed hand guard, and the marking would have served to provide appropriate quality feedback to the subcontracted part manufacturer. There was really no immediate reason for a soldier to be able to identify all the component manufacturers of their rifle parts at a glance. If something failed later in the field, it could be disassembled, and any component issue reported based on the failure. With things like plastic parts, they were likely tested in batches, and inspected for things like correct color mix, etc. I know of batches of stocks for current military contract rifles being rejected because of incorrect plastic color. Anyway, marking a component in an obvious spot was not necessary, and an example from the Thompson world can again serve as an example of such. Savage vertical foregrips were marked inside the grip hanger channel, which is where the grip attached with a long screw to the grip hanger under the barrel. The marking was not visible unless you took the grip completely off the Thompson. I've heard the Mattel story since the early 1980's. I lean towards the Mattel hand guard being real, but again, I don't present any evidence specific to it. But if you're on the fence because you don't think a toy company would make a product that easily dovetails with their manufacturing processes, or you doubt that manufacturer marks might be hidden, then I hope my examples provide food for thought. Thanks! David Albert
  2. I took these photos of a fellow member's M1E7 display at a meeting of the American Society of Arms Collectors last year in Springfield, MO. Perhaps this will provide the information sought by the original poster. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  3. Looks like a 1980's era 81mm or 4.2 inch Mortar ammo box. I'm leaning toward 4.2 inch, but I'm certain that others on this site will ID it specifically. I have a couple of 81mm boxes that are slightly different. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  4. crazyfingers, You should consider taking the class, and getting whatever licensing is required now in MA to own firearms and ammo. I would hate to see the ammo thrown away. I would also think that whomever is the executor of the estate may have special rights and/or timeframes regarding disposition/resolution. You could potentially research this subject further, locally. It looks like much of this was changed by a law that was enacted in MA in 2014. According to one of your state's websites, "In August of 2014, Chapter 284 of the Acts of 2014 was signed into law. This action amended the Massachusetts gun law and made changes to many of the law's provisions." In May 2013, I was inducted into the American Society of Arms Collectors at a meeting that we held in Sturbridge, MA. We are always sent a summary of the local gun laws prior to traveling, as we bring firearms for display at meetings around the country. I don't recall the MA ammo and firearm laws that you mentioned, and was interested to learn that major changes took place in 2014. This is truly unfortunate. I hope you are able to resolve the issues, and keep these items in your family collection. Happy New Year! David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  5. I have the 1963 manual that covers the M1 Garand and M14. I think mine is a reprint that came from the U.S. Government Printing Office. I also have a similar, 1974 publication for pistols used by the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit. Here they are: David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  6. My military Model 11 has a serial on the barrel, not visible unless completely disassembled, as it is marked on the area where the barrel and magazine tube ring are welded together. It also has a serial on the stock, which is visible on the wood under the receiver extension, under the wrist. Be careful taking the stock off to reveal the serial number, as it could potentially crack the wood surface if you torque the receiver extension while taking them apart. In the case of my Model 11, all 3 serials are different. I started with a military receiver that I acquired quite inexpensively, and over the course of the last 12 years, I found an original barrel and stock, and almost all the other parts. I still need a few small internal parts to finish it out. It's been a labor of love to return the original receiver to action, but if I had it to do over again, I'd be better off having bought a complete shotgun. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  7. Here are the original instructions for the Kerr Adjustable Sling: Happy New Year! David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  8. Charlie and I corresponded about an H&R Reising Model 165 Rifle today, and the subject of this S&W Victory revolver came up. The reason it came up was a Model 165 sold at auction recently that featured what appears to be the same markings and finish of the Victory revolver featured here. For those who may not know, I have an affinity for Reisings, particularly the .22 rifles, such as the Models 65, 165, 150, 151, and MC-58. The Marine Corps adopted the H&R Reising Model 65 as their M1 Garand training rifle in 1943, and repeated so in 1958 with the MC-58, again for the M1 Garand. They did not adopt the Models 165, 150, and 151, which were all branded as H&R's "Leatherneck" series of .22 rifles. Just to clarify, the USMC did not adopt any of the "Leatherneck" branded rifles. I've been working on a book on Eugene Reising's Firearm Designs for several years now, and when I saw a Model 165 available at auction that featured similar USMC markings, and a unique serial number, I wanted to see it. I placed an auction bid that ended up being less than half of what the rifle sold for, which was about $1400. In placing the bid, I let my guard down a bit, based on the overall appearance of the USMC marked Model 165, and thought that just maybe, H&R gave the USMC a rifle or two to evaluate, or for some kind of special presentation. Based on the appearance of this S&W Victory revolver that Charlie pointed out, I am now convinced both were faked. Here is a comparison of the markings and finish of the Victory, and the Model 165. Both firearms were refinished similarly. I want to thank Charlie for remembering, and forwarding this post to me. Happy New Year! David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  9. Illinigander, Do you still have copies of the factory photos and letters? David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  10. Did the wrap that they put on the stock to simulate the wood grain fully cover up the sling cutout? When I looked at a sample at the NRA Convention in Indy in April, it had a spot that got missed. I was thinking about ordering one, but wanted to see what the latest ones looked like. The serial number on the one I observed was #000000027. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  11. Charlie, Here are some photos of an MG52 on various mounts. Looks like the shoulder hook, and M67 mount is the same in one of the photos. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  12. I believe the white magazines in the first post are Rodman conversion magazines, used by the Air Force. I used to see them for sale at swap meets and gun shows back in the 80's in Hawaii. I've seen a few since then, but remember seeing quite a few when they were actually in service. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  13. It is definitely a Reising Model 50 in the photo. Canada adopted the Reising. The British tested the Reising, and may have purchased a few, but no large orders are known. In 1944, any number of scenarios could have placed a Reising in the hands of a Belgian soldier. Keep in mind that the sling mounting position shown in the photo on the side of the stock is fairly normal, based on the action bar position under the stock. I have a first model, early "Commercial" Reising Model 50 that has the same sling mounting. It's not to say that slings weren't mounted on the underside of the stock, like with most other weapons, however that sling position could potentially interfere with operation of the action bar, which is recessed into the bottom of the stock. It's much better to side mount a sling on a Reising, in my opinion. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  14. Brian, Glad you like the link. If you have more interest in the TSMG, we would enjoy having you visit the site again. BTW, both your mags are WWII manufacture. David Albert dalbertsturmgewehr.com
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.