Print Page | Close Window

IBM AO 3906262

Printed From: The Carbine Collector's Club
Category: The Club
Forum Name: Carbines of the Collectors
Forum Description: Share Your Carbine
URL: http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2777
Printed Date: Dec 16 2018 at 11:34pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: IBM AO 3906262
Posted By: NewScotlander
Subject: IBM AO 3906262
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 11:26am
This carbine is in original, as manufactured condition. It was stored improperly at one time and has some oxidation in various locations.

The stock was made by Sprague Carleton and is made of Birch. It has a crack on the right side between the oiler slot and the butt plate, but otherwise it has the original finish and is unsanded.

The slide is an E379 type and is marked AOB EE on the inside of the inertia block (slide box). It has the increased dwell (D7160091) modifications discussed in CCNL 364, pages 4-6.










]








Replies:
Posted By: m1a1fan
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 12:23pm
Nice! Have never seen the additional documentation provided with the data sheet. Seems easier than writing everything on the back.


Posted By: Marty Black
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 3:02pm
That Newscotlander fella is a thorough guy! One of the very best!   For new collectors - note how IBM had difficulty with their leading 3 in the serial number. This is actually quite common, and because of this, the old Carbine Club received a number of data sheets on 8 million range IBMs! But all of them, as far as I know, were later noted as just bad stampings of a 3.

The rust on the muzzle reminded me - NEVER put one of those canvas muzzle protectors on your carbine. The one with the little strap that you snap on.

They attract moisture (humidity) like a sponge and will ruin a muzzle. I once owned a 24,000 range Inland that was factory-original and gorgeous, almost mint....with that beautiful blue-dulite finish. But alas, the entire muzzle and front sight area was toast! Really ugly! If I hadn't been so anxious for a representative 1942 Inland, I should'a passed on it.

Patience pays....MB

-------------
Marty Black


Posted By: NewScotlander
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 3:52pm
Marty, Thanks for the compliment, but I still owe you a few beers.

The Supplement for the data sheet is just something I made up. If someone wants to use it, here is a blank copy. I just print it on the back of the data sheets.



Posted By: m1a1fan
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 4:11pm
Captured. Thanks!


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 4:55pm
Motion to add to data sheet PDF.


Posted By: eestes
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 9:07pm
Thank you for sharing this. This is priceless information for new collectors such as myself.


Posted By: RedSpecial
Date Posted: Feb 09 2017 at 9:16pm
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:

Motion to add to data sheet PDF.
I just figured out the data sheets, now you're going to add all this stuff to confuse me. Rats.

-------------
-Neil


Posted By: David Albert
Date Posted: Feb 10 2017 at 7:02pm
In regards to the Bridgeport/Maguire manufactured receiver on this IBM Carbine, does anyone know if AO marked the first 3 digits of the serial number, and if IBM added the 4-digit SN suffix? Perhaps this has been covered in a CCNL? The SN appears to be two separate roll marks, with clearly different fonts. I don't want to rehash something that has probably already been covered, but that's my initial impression. I like the AO connection with these IBM Carbines, since I'm a TSMG guy...

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com



-------------
NRA Life Member
Past President, The American Thompson Association
American Society of Arms Collectors
OGCA/TCA/Carbine Club/GCA/IAA
Contributing Writer, Small Arms Review Magazine
Eagle Scout, NESA


Posted By: NewScotlander
Date Posted: Feb 10 2017 at 10:33pm
Seems unlikely, but would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject. I don't believe this subject has been discussed previously.


Posted By: David Albert
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 4:59am
I looked at the AO Carbine chapter written by Larry Ruth in "The Ultimate Thompson Book,"(TUTB) by Tracie L. Hill, featuring AO M1 Carbine receiver serial number 3870580, which is 35,682 earlier than serial number 3906262 shown in this thread. The serial number shown in TUTB (3870580) is as uniform and consistent as can be, and appears to have a different font than 3906262.

I'd like to see more examples of AO Carbine serial numbers to compare to 3906262. I will see if I can get any other photos.

Serial number 3906262, shown here, has fairly apparent inconsistencies in its serial number roll markings. The first 3 numbers are an obviously different font than the last 4 digits. For the sake of discussion, let's call the first 3 numbers "Group 1," and the last 4 numbers, "Group 2." The spacing between the Group 1 numbers appears much tighter. There appears to be a transitional space between Group 1 and Group 2, and then the Group 2 numbers continue in a much wider spacing than Group 1. Also, it appears there is about a 1/16" difference in horizontal spacing between the two groups.

Summary of Differences:

- Two different fonts
- Different spacing between digits in Group 1 and Group 2
- Horizontal spacing difference between Group 1 and Group 2



My opinion, based on the physical evidence, is that 3906262 had two separate roll markings. So now, we need to theorize why two separate markings exist. I suppose it could be some kind of factory anomaly, where there was a problem with a die, and this serial ended up being applied as a "one-off." If other examples like this exist, then that theory is probably unlikely. Another theory could be that the serial was applied at two different factories. Since these receivers were made in Bridgeport, CT, and assembled into Carbines at IBM in New York, perhaps there was some kind of cooperative effort on serial number application. I don't have a very good reason for this...If a serial number could be applied in one manufacturing operation, that would be the most cost effective option. But...the physical evidence seems to lead us down an alternate path.

Your thoughts?

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


-------------
NRA Life Member
Past President, The American Thompson Association
American Society of Arms Collectors
OGCA/TCA/Carbine Club/GCA/IAA
Contributing Writer, Small Arms Review Magazine
Eagle Scout, NESA


Posted By: NewScotlander
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 3:37pm


Posted By: wmmwraghd
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 4:36pm
thank for the great IBM AO thread!!!!


Posted By: m1a1fan
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 6:18pm
Looks like at some point in the 3.9 SN range, the font of the 9 changed.


Posted By: manteo97
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 7:11pm
This is all very interesting. I have been researching S/N stamping for a few years now, looking for reasons why so many S/N's seemed to be either scrapped or skipped. S/N's were stamped prior to heat treatment, one of the very last processes in manufacturing a receiver.

A good review of IBM carbines can be found in NL329, where both IBM and IBM-AO S/N ranges are given. Ruth says AO made 50,000, and they are found in the S/N ranges of approx 3836400 to 3907700, mixed in with non AO IBM receivers. NL 288 has 2 COM IBM's with exact same S/N's, one is an AO, other is not. So some over run or duplications in evidence. However, no mention of what now appears to be prefix stamping of (possibly) 384- to 390- by AO.

I would submit that AO, as a subcontractor, was attempting to have traceability of their receivers, either as heat numbers and/or date of production runs. Easiest way is to sequentially stamp a number on the receiver.

Schmidt made the marking machines that marked Inland and STD PRO, so one might assume that IBM was using the same. As to different fonts, the dies did wear out and were replaced, and more than 1 stamping machine was usually employed during operations.


Posted By: David Albert
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 8:54pm
Looks like the last 4 in the photo montage have the same characteristics. Manteo97's hypothesis seems plausible. We may never know for certain why these serial numbers appear broken into two different roll marks, but it's fun to theorize, and Monday morning quarterback it.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

-------------
NRA Life Member
Past President, The American Thompson Association
American Society of Arms Collectors
OGCA/TCA/Carbine Club/GCA/IAA
Contributing Writer, Small Arms Review Magazine
Eagle Scout, NESA


Posted By: SWANEEDMB
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 10:11pm
Top row 4th one over looks like it's stamped 3888112 if my eyes are seeing it correct, My IBM is # 3888281 but is not stamped with the AO. Had tried to post pics before a few weeks ago but we can't or just do not know how to down size. Still looking for help.


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 10:26pm
Originally posted by SWANEEDMB SWANEEDMB wrote:


. Had tried to post pics before a few weeks ago but we can't or just do not know how to down size. Still looking for help.


http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/pictures-tips-sizing-and-posting-avatars_topic1083.html" rel="nofollow - http://www.uscarbinecal30.com/forum/pictures-tips-sizing-and-posting-avatars_topic1083.html


Posted By: welbytwo
Date Posted: Feb 11 2017 at 11:32pm
looks like the 3 font got changed 4-5 times


Posted By: NewScotlander
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 8:53am
Auto Ordnance receivers must have duplicated serial numbers with IBM receivers. IBM's assigned serial number range was 3,651,520-4,009,999. The highest IBM serial number known to exist is 3,907,689, so it is estimated that production of IBM made receivers ended around 3,909,000. If we consider that IBM used all the serial numbers between 3,651,520 and 3,909,000, that would add up to 317,480 carbines. According to War Baby!, page 475, IBM produced 346,500 carbines. So where did the other 29,000 IBM carbines come from? Either there is a large stockpile of IBM carbines somewhere with serial numbers between 3,909,000 and 4,009,999 or there is serial number duplication.

We already know of a few examples of serial number duplication between IBM receivers and IBM/AO receivers. The lowest and highest IBM/AO serial numbers are 3,835,477 and 3,907,689 respectively. The difference between those two is 72,212. If you add the 72,212 with the 317,480 IBM made receivers above, this adds up to 389,692, and take into consideration scrapped receivers (see CCNL 357, page18-19), the numbers seem to work out.

My opinion is that Auto Ordnance stamped the whole serial number on their receivers. The number font used on the AO receivers is different that that used on the IBM receivers. Now IBM could have had a separate numbering machine that they dedicated solely to the AO receivers that came to their facility, but I just don't think that was the case.

Some interesting things to note on the serial number compilation photo that I posted. The early small serial numbers are mostly straight and clear with one exception (3862782). The change from the early small serial numbers to the later style occurs between 3870858 and 3872240. The first indication of a problem with the first digit (3) in the serial number is at 3885555. The first time the second digit (9) is of a different font is at 3906xxx. Notice how the 7 in 3881374, 3892774 and 3899170 are all the same. Notice that the 7 in 3886076 appears to be hand stamped over a weak 7 below it. I think there was more handstamping going on as well.

The font of the AO on the rear bevel changed as well (see NL345, page5-7), but by 3853685 the changeover to the style seen on most receivers in the photo compilation ad taken place. The style on 3881374 is the earliest style seen. That receiver was probably delayed in being serial numbered for some reason.


Posted By: Ron_brock
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 12:58pm
I'll add my serial number to the discussion. Apologies on the adjustable sight.  Need to get that off and get a replacement.  If these were stamped with one die, it sure had a lot of slop between the  digits to allow for the misalignment seen below.  I would tend to believe the number was applied in more than one hit.  

Ron 



Posted By: Marty Black
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 1:11pm
It IS hard to believe that IBM - which made business machines, of course, before the war - was so sloppy in their serial numbering. Sloppy IBM numbers are the norm, not the exception. We might've expected sloppy numbers from, say - a hardware company -like Std Pro, or a company that made steering gears, but not from IBM. With those awful leading 3's on so many serial numbers, you would've thought that the Ordnance Inspectors would've gotten on their case.

We've seen a few sloppy numbers on the other manufacturers' carbines, reported to the Carbine Club over the years, but those are the exceptions. With IBM, we have come to expect sloppy numbers.

Interesting stuff....MB

-------------
Marty Black


Posted By: NewScotlander
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 2:07pm
I don't think the IBM made receivers have serial numbers which are too bad. It's mainly the later IBM/AO receivers that have the sloppy numbers.


Posted By: New2brass
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 5:00pm
If you ever seen a roll stamp machine in action and consider the following facts:
that it used a rotating number head that received more linear then force then probably designed for.
This is due to the fact that where the serial number goes is not a perfect radius.
More downward force would be applied to insure that the whole number was deep enough.

We have seen serials where it was so deep that the base of the number stamp left a line at beginning and end of number.

AO had some issues going on with parts it was contracted to make. I would bet losses lead management to make cuts where it could.

So they most likely did what they could to keep existing tooling like the number stamp unit going.


Posted By: Marty Black
Date Posted: Feb 12 2017 at 9:26pm




This S'G' makes the average IBM receiver look pretty good!

Enjoy, MB




-------------
Marty Black


Posted By: m1a1fan
Date Posted: Feb 13 2017 at 9:18pm
Originally posted by New2brass New2brass wrote:

Motion to add to data sheet PDF.


Looks like it has been added. Thanks and thanks to Newscot for providing it.


Posted By: 1st M1 88
Date Posted: Feb 14 2017 at 7:09pm
The highest serial number you mention as 3,907,689, is this AO receivers or I.B.M.


Posted By: m1a1fan
Date Posted: Feb 14 2017 at 7:50pm
Originally posted by 1st M1 88 1st M1 88 wrote:

The highest serial number you mention as 3,907,689, is this AO receivers or I.B.M.


According to CCNL 329 in 2005, the highest IBM SN in the club's database:

AO receiver: 3907689

IBM receiver: 3968546


Posted By: RClark9595
Date Posted: Jan 07 2018 at 5:54am
Is it possible, (this is my Monday quarter back mind) since receivers can't be stamped after they are hardened, is it possible that AO had a hardening issue and left it up to IBM to finish stamping and hardening, that's just an idea. I'm not familiar with all the processes so this is just a guess. Adjustments have to be made from time to to time to keep production rolling, this may just have been one of them.


-------------
Ron

USAF 4535 CCTS
F4 Combat Crew Training
Vietnam era Vet.


Posted By: MalteseHawk
Date Posted: Jan 08 2018 at 1:46am
My IBM (AO) #3840195 seems to have the smaller font and is very evenly spaced with all numbers in a straight line.   


Posted By: PIfarmer
Date Posted: Jan 09 2018 at 10:40pm
SWANEEDMB, send it to my email I'll resize it with Microsoft Paint and send back. I'm getting so good at this, I'm starting to scare myself. mmmchall at yahoo  



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net