TSMGguy Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 And another. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 And lastly (wish I could figure out how to post more than one photo per reply!). . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Very nice gun TSMGguy! I only wish I had one like it! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEC46 Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Below is my NAC Thompson. I'll have to admit that I refinished my wood and added a vertical front grip but kept the original horizontal one. I also replaced the 28 actuator with a 21 type since I bought this as a shooter(also keeping my 28 actuator) The only thing that I don't like about it is the late model L rear site. It runs great and have not had a bit of trouble with it since I bought it back in 1990. It came out of a local police dept. along with 2 other Thompsons. One was identical to mine while the third one was British stamped. All three were suffix stamped NAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hawksnest Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 DEC46 and TSMGguy: Absolutely Beautiful! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 DEC46: Beautiful, beautiful! Personally, I like the "L" type rear sight. It is just as functional and historical as the earlier adjustable model. Keep 'em coming, guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walter63a Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 DEC46, That is a great gun! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Thanks for sharing and you can always shop around for the type of sight you like. There are still plenty out there, but they are rising in price! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif Regards, Walter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 1, 2004 Report Share Posted January 1, 2004 Those suffix NAC guns with British proofs and GeG stamps were undoubtedly complete guns imported during the 1950's. The following is a quote from board member Jim Thompson concerning the "NAC" Prefix(NAC-2, NAC-15, etc) Thompson's once owned by Curtis Earl: "This gun is a "FAKE" of sorts, but still a fascinating piece of Thompson history. It is NOT J. Curtis Earl who did the fakery, but he knew and told me the tale. After World War II, Auto Ordnance/Numrich found a handy way to make money off the Thompson's reputation: take "overrun" receivers from the Colt batch or EVEN Savage receivers, remark them, fit them with whatever parts were lying around, and market them as the "gangster gun" M1921. Most of these "factory fakes" (what I call them) bear NAC prefixes. The finishes/refinishes and microscopic examination make it obvious what was done, and this can all be traced to West Hurley." Jim Thompson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The1930sRust Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 And what Jim says is gospel, huh? I would be, and have been, extremely offended if someone referred to my beautiful Thompson as a fake. Arthur, why don't you just think before you post (like I should be now) and be nice? Your constant derision of these modern post war Thompson's serves no useful purpose here and is getting very irritating... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Grrrr, get em, Chris! I have a noted weakness for TSMGs of all stripes. No microscopic examination for me! It has been great over the years of ownership of the above to find out that it is original in all respects, though. The fun is in the shooting. I recently took my left-leaning lawyer brother-in-law for his first ever shoot. What better place to start than a M1928A1. He was fully aware of the history involved; I didn't have to say a word. Watching him load and fire the L and XXX magazines, grinning and appreciative, is never to be forgotten. Of course, he thought that "these things were outlawed!". I have an old L-4 Cub, a 1943 model. There, we say, "Keep 'em flying!" How about, "Keep 'em shooting!". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEC46 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 TSMGguy, I agree with you completely. All Thompsons are a work of art and I'd be more than thrilled with anyone of them. By the way, your Thompson is in great shape. Did you do any work on the wood or is that all original? It looks like the day it was originally manufactured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TSMGguy Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 DEC46, I just got lucky, as we all do from time to time. It is untouched with no sanding or oil to the original wood finish. This is the original stain. It is only good fortune the the wood matches for grain. The original Dulite finish is about 99.9%. The first owner took extraordinary care of the gun, for which I'll always be appreciative. He was a hand loader, though, and there is a little clogging in the compensator from using cast bullets. It is just part of the gun's history; I have made no effort to remove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Chris, There is no offense intended. I still have a West Hurley type Thompson bought in 1976. I knew at the time it was not a real Thompson. This thread was started by MP40 asking what was the origin of "N.A.C Thompson's". I posted info regarding the prefix NAC's. People swear by the Thompson authorities such as Cox, Richardson, Herigstad, Hill, etc, but there are those who get incensed when these same experts focus on the geneology of Thompson history and document the fact that Thomspon production ended in 1944. I don't think the dissemination of this fact was, or is, meant to cause consternation for post WWII subgun owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The1930sRust Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Understood. It's just that your opinion of post war Thompsons differs from many others here, and seems to smack of condescension. Perhaps that is your goal (it works) or just the way your post "come off". I just get a little tired of having my Thompson dragged through the soil. And I do uphold your knowledge! I don't see any practical purpose for your post war Thomspon rhetoric. We all know how you, and Doug, and Gordon (and...) feel. Regardless of whether our Thompsons are regarded by some as replicas, fakes, orphans, or whatever...so what? What purpose is served by rubbing it in our faces, as it were? None I can see, and it just serves to drive a wedge between us and you. When I bought my West Hurley, I was completeley aware of when it was built, and the 'controversy' surrounding them (thanks in part to this board, Subguns.com, and Steave Wayman). It didn't matter in the leats (sorry, wine) to me. I guess I was after the look and mystique of the Thomspon, which undeniably was given additional life by all the Thompsons produced after 1944. Now, if there is any of us out there who bought a Westy and assumed it most definitely had been carried by Capone himself, caveat emptor. But, I think most people who hold one knows it for what it is: a version of the most wonderful weapon ever devised? Why make anyone who owns one feel inferior, when the reason they bought it was for the love of the concept? Can we agree on that? Also, I'd like to take some of your earier posts and and them to the FAQ regarding the NAC's, which I inadvertently forgot to mention, if that is acceptible... (P.S.: I cannot believe AF owns a WH!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Jr Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 West Hurleys are not fakes. All Thompsons that are transferrable are real. You wanna see a fake Thompson? Have a look, this one is a fake and its not real. PS. Arthur you are asking for it dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp40 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Arthur, I started this disscussion? Hmmm? I had to go back after reading your post, and see if I had indeed started it...nope not me...MP43 did...Hey john, heres another fake: (a MGC 1921) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
private_joker Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 I dont know about all of you but the fact is I will prob never own a original 1921 colt thompson. I do not have 30,000 laying around...... Right now im looking at West Hurleys becuase it is all that I can afford Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sig Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Chris I got a good laugh when Arthur said he owns a WH as well! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The1930sRust Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Realistically, all Thompsons are equal to me. I only bought a Westy because, on my state salary, it is all I could afford. Blindfolded, shooting a Colt and a Westy (some bizarre karma aside), there is no practical difference (excepting that, sometimes, the latter just don't work too well at first:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp40 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 As for what makes a "real" Thompson, let's look at what the originator of this wonderful firearm intended..General John T Thompson..A small hand held machinegun, a "submachinegun" Sure, Colt produced the first Thompsons, But they merely machined the parts that where specified and designed by the team that John Thompson assembled,but the fact is...Any Full Auto that is machined faithfully from the original blue prints(1921/28/M1/M1A1) is and should be forever considered a Thompson regardless of the manufacturer! What would happen if Colt industrys suddenly announced that they would produce new Thompsons for law-enforcement? Would any of the Thompson experts say that a newly made Colt Thompson wasn't a true Thompson? Or? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 MP40, Sorry, I mixed up my Schmeissers with my Sturmgewehrs. Just to address your concept that something is what it is as long as it follows the blueprint faithfully, no matter who makes it, is the definition of a replica. Also Ford is making a street version of their 1964 Le Mans GT40. Even though Ford made the original, the current production car is not a real GT40. There are things once made in their own time that can be reproduced today, but not made original. That is the beauty of a bygone era. Chris, That's cool. Thank you for adding the comments to the FAQ board. I won't belabor the point anymore. John Jr, Are you related to John Zogby? Just wondered considering your affinity for polls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PATHFINDER Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 As a historian I find it hard to take something linear like the history of a firearm and just edit out the parts we don't like. 'Only the Colt made guns are real Thompsons' "No real thompson was made post 1944'. History does not stop and start as we like it. This would be like ignoring the history of the Roman empire after the capital was moved to Constantinople because the Roman helmets were no longer 'cool'. When you are standing down range from a post '44 gun it will be just as 'real' as one made at any other time. I remeber when M1s wer poo pooed by purist collectors as not being 'real' Thompsons. Now they are highly saught after. As for the collectability of the weapons that have been reworked, had pieces removed that were relative to indicating to their time of manufacture and altering a guns configurations to look like another model make me shake my head. According to the NRA grading standard most of these are worthless as collectors items. Refinishing > no matter how good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp40 Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 WELL!!! drum roll!!! Chris, the A/F doll picture please!!! Arthur, you didn't address the new made Colt question....The original producer=Well Ok, I guess you did, But arthur, Ford didn't build the original GT-40! it was mostly made in Britain (British chassis/body, German transaxle Ford 225 dual overhead cam engine (for the first cars) etc.) The later GT-40's where made by Kar Kraft with 427's But, even still, they didn't produce them, they are still true GT-40's So you evidently are just refering to the historical era that they where produced, than anything else. Now, when you put together a "kit car" GT-40, it might be considered a replica to some but to almost every one that sees the car on the street, thinks it is a "real GT40" The Thompson is and (was at least for us civilians) being made as close to the original as economically possible at the time, and it still was faithfull to what John Thompson intended.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motorcar Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Whew! After reading that I'm going to need a break for a couple of days! ....somewhere right now someone is arguing online that "It's not a REAL Mustang unless it's a '64 and a half!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted January 2, 2004 Report Share Posted January 2, 2004 Motorcar, Not only that, but a Shelby Cobra and Mustang are not Ford either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now