Jump to content

Chasan Corp Thompsons


Recommended Posts

I was looking at a gun collection today and came across two interesting Thompsons.

 

on gun number 1, the upper receiver is marked 1928 US Navy. the Serial Number is 100000. under the nose of the receiver is the maker's mark "Chasan Corp, S.P.B. FLA." The lower is a Colt lower, serial number 3000. it has a Colt pistol grip and a Colt magazine catch, but the rest of the lower internals and fire control levers are Savage. The upper internals are also Savage parts and the barrel is a Stevens barrel with a WWII compensator. it has a 2 piece ejector. the butt stock is a 28 with the cross bolt. the rear sight is a Lyman ladder sight, but it is screwed in (allen wrench type) and not riveted. the gun is parkerized.

 

on gun number 2, the upper receiver is marked 1928A1 US Army. the Serial Number is 010. under the nose of the receiver is the maker's mark "Chasan Corp, S.P.B. FLA." The lower is an Auto Ordnance military lower. The internals are Savage parts and the barrel is a Savage barrel with a WWII compensator. it has a 2 piece ejector. the butt stock is a 28 with the cross bolt. the rear sight is a Lyman ladder sight, but it is screwed in (allen wrench type) and not riveted. the gun is parkerized.

 

I will post some pictures shortly. Has anybody heard of this maker before? the guns appears to be very well made and the upper receivers are very heavy when compared to other 28 receivers. the guns are in very good to excellent condition. any ideas on value?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DLansky,

An interesting find. I did a cursory search of the Flordia Secretary of State records and found a few possibilities. Without more information, it is difficult to tell if the records I looked at are related to the corporate named etched or stamped on these Thompson guns. These would be in the same class as the PEARL Thompsons or the transferable Philadelphia Ordnance Thompsons. When the patents expired anyone could make a Thompson Submachine Gun (with proper government permission, of course). That appears to be what happened here.

 

Value is always in the eye of the beholder but without more information, I see no connection to the four generations of original Auto-Ordnance Thompsons, nor any defined collectors interest. I would look upon these guns as shooters and value accordingly. If the machine gun ban was to go away, I believe there would be several manufacturers that would begin manufacturing the Thompson again.

 

Finding the lower to Colt NO 3000 is an interesting find. According to Gordon, J.Curtis Earl owned Colt NO 3000; it is currently located at the museum named after Earl in Idaho. The description of NO 3000 indicates it may not be a complete Thompson so possibly the receiver and frame became separated sometime in the past.

 

The pictures should be interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the patents expired anyone could make a Thompson Submachine Gun (with proper government permission, of course). That appears to be what happened here.

 

I see no connection to the four generations of original Auto-Ordnance Thompsons, nor any defined collectors interest.

 

Chasan Corp, S.P.B. FLA has been around since the early 1960's(?). How do we know that this full auto Thompson receiver made from scratch by Chasan, something George Numrich never managed to do, was manufactured after the patents expired? When was this expiration date, exactly? Since the receiver is stamped with the Chasan name. the Thompson name, and bullet logo on the receiver, how does this square with what George Numrich said in the Bearse 1967 Gun Digest article that it is "doubtful" that another company could "produce" a Thompson?

 

A Chasan manufacturedTSMG has as much of a connection to the original AOC as any TSMG made after 1944.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DLansky,

My original post was made prior to viewing the pictures you posted on NO. 100000. I took your statement of "maker" at face value, i.e., manufacturer. The more I review the pictures you posted I now believe it is possible "Chasan Corp S.P.B. FL" may have been the importer of this Thompson. Perhaps Arthur will post how he knows Chasan has been around since the 1960's. I would also like to know who is listed as manufacturer on the ATF Forms and when this Thompson was born on the NFA Registry. It would also be interesting to search United States export records to see if this Thompson was ever exported.

 

Interesting stuff. I look foward to pictures of the second Chasan Thompson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD, thank you for sharing your thoughts. The current owner believes that Mr. Chasan was an engineer for a government contractor and that he built a few receivers on the company's CNC tooling equipment in his spare time. the steel was very hard and it was reported to the current owner that Mr Chasan stopped making the receivers because he kept breaking the cutting tools. the gun is noticeably heavier than other Thompsons.

 

If I recall correctly, the right side of the receiver is blank in the back and up front it says Auto Ordnance Corporation on the top line with New York, USA on the lower line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no Mr. Chasen that was his corporation name . I have owned a Chasen M1 for almost 20 years.I have all his personal information but would rather not post it . As he is a very private person. Will post some pictures when I figure out how to do it on the new board .

Chuck K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DLansky,

This is an interesting story. One that is probably true because it does nothing to increase the value of these two Thompson guns. However, I find it very interesting the Mr. Chasan went to the trouble to duplicate the Thompson trademark. I would guess that Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) redacted paperwork would go a long way in verifying the story you were told. If there have not been too many owners, perhaps all the original paper in unredacted form is with the guns. Are these guns on a Form 4 or Form 3 and eligible to transfer to civilians?

 

Given these are homemade Tommy Guns, I would worry about function. A prospective purchaser may do well to have someone like PK. or reconbob take a look at them to see if they are manufactured within original specifications. Auto-Ordnance West Hurley had a few problems in this area. Perhaps, PK. and reconbob could offer an opinion on why these guns are much heavier than original Thompson guns.

 

Aside from Arthur's claims to the contrary, these Thompson guns have no historical interest related to General Thompson and the succession of the Thompson gun. And it appears George Numrich was right, no other company as of 1967 was able to produce a Thompson gun for profit.

 

Please post more pictures!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am interested in learning more about "Chasan". It appears the guy made a few semi-auto lower receivers for the old AR10's. I have one in hand, and have seen one other (SN002) on the web. The poor guy was sure he had the second AR10 ever made!

http://oi42.tinypic.com/25fm1br.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I can see of these receivers the guy knew what he was doing. Its interesting

that the receivers are noticeably heavier than original receivers. Did you have them apart

and if so, did you notice if the inside was fully machined?

If the receiver is heavy it could be because he rigged it for no bronze lock or only

machined what was necessary for clearance for the bronze lock when he hollowed out

the inside.

I agree that the value here is that of a shooter, not collectible...

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob, i did disassemble gun #1. with one exception, the inside of the receiver is identical in appearance to a Savage or Auto Ordnance receiver. All the cuts seemed to be there. the one difference is that it is tapped for the screws that attach the Lyman sight instead of having concave pockets for the rivets.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from Arthur's claims to the contrary, these Thompson guns have no historical interest related to General Thompson and the succession of the Thompson gun. And it appears George Numrich was right, no other company as of 1967 was able to produce a Thompson gun for profit.

 

What possible "historical" value is associated with the Ira Trast West Hurley Thompson or Kahr Thompson? George Numrich never made a full auto TSMG receiver from scratch. He also did not make use of the bullet logo as the receivers he had in his possession already had the logo stamped on them before 1945. But could you cite the source for your quote that George said no other company as of 1967 was able to "produce a Thompson gun for profit" ?

 

When the patents expired anyone could make a Thompson Submachine Gun

 

Trast had to apply for the THOMPSON trademark that was granted on September 17, 1985. Not only could anyone make a TSMG (with ATF approval) with the appropriate markings before this period, they could market it as well. So where is this exclusivity that George spoke of?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

The history and succession of the Thompson gun from 1916 to 2009 is covered in great detail in The Ultimate Thompson Book. Research continues and more information may be available in the future.

 

I was talking about patents. You are talking about trademarks. These are totally different animals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

The history and succession of the Thompson gun from 1916 to 2009 is covered in great detail in The Ultimate Thompson Book. Research continues and more information may be available in the future.

 

I was talking about patents. You are talking about trademarks. These are totally different animals!

 

While TUTB has errors, the history of the Colt/AOC/Savage TSMG is indeed covered in the book, as is the history of George Numrich's association with the Thompson, Ira Trast's association with he TSMG and Kahr's association with the semi-auto Thompson. What is missing in the chronology is any evidence that the post WWII production of the TSMG or the currently produced semi- auto version has any relationship to the original AOC.

 

Both the Thompson patents and the Thompson trademarks expired before Ira Trast manufactured a completely new TSMG. These patents and trademarks were not important to George Numrich since he never made any newly manufactured full auto TSMGs. Anyone manufacturing a TSMG during this period, as Chasan Corp did, has as much claim to the original AOC as Trast and Kahr. Just because Tracie Hill doesn't cover the Chasan Corp TSMG in TUTB doesn't mean that their Thompson has any more or less historical value than a Trast/WH TSMG or a Kahr semi-auto Thompson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

The history and succession of the Thompson gun from 1916 to 2009 is covered in great detail in The Ultimate Thompson Book. Research continues and more information may be available in the future.

 

I was talking about patents. You are talking about trademarks. These are totally different animals!

 

While TUTB has errors, the history of the Colt/AOC/Savage TSMG is indeed covered in the book, as is the history of George Numrich's association with the Thompson, Ira Trast's association with he TSMG and Kahr's association with the semi-auto Thompson. What is missing in the chronology is any evidence that the post WWII production of the TSMG or the currently produced semi- auto version has any relationship to the original AOC.

 

Both the Thompson patents and the Thompson trademarks expired before Ira Trast manufactured a completely new TSMG. These patents and trademarks were not important to George Numrich since he never made any newly manufactured full auto TSMGs. Anyone manufacturing a TSMG during this period, as Chasan Corp did, has as much claim to the original AOC as Trast and Kahr. Just because Tracie Hill doesn't cover the Chasan Corp TSMG in TUTB doesn't mean that their Thompson has any more or less historical value than a Trast/WH TSMG or a Kahr semi-auto Thompson.

 

Arthur,

The history and succession of the Thompson gun from 1916 to 2009 is covered in great detail in The Ultimate Thompson Book. I understand you do not like or accept the evidence and documentation as presented. But your thoughts and words are meaningless on this subject. We are way past the Roger Cox/Jim Bannan era. I have encouraged you to perform your own research and find something that negates anything I have written in TUTB. That offer still stands. I believe there is more information available.

 

Again, you need to read TUTB. Chasan Corporation is indeed referenced by Tracie Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

The history and succession of the Thompson gun from 1916 to 2009 is covered in great detail in The Ultimate Thompson Book. I understand you do not like or accept the evidence and documentation as presented. But your thoughts and words are meaningless on this subject. We are way past the Roger Cox/Jim Bannan era. I have encouraged you to perform your own research and find something that negates anything I have written in TUTB. That offer still stands. I believe there is more information available.

 

Again, you need to read TUTB. Chasan Corporation is indeed referenced by Tracie Hill.

 

So you do not dispute what I said above? Good for you. Since your specialty in TUTB is what Kilgore did, or more accurately did not do, with the TSMG, there is nothing to negate what you wrote regarding Kilgore.

 

Are you aware that in chapter 33 in TUTB, Keith Hill refers to the NAC/West Hurley Thompson as a "reproduction?" Did you send him an angry email?

 

Could you refer me to the page in TUTB where Hill included a picture of the Chasan Corp TSMG?

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur, you really need to do some serious reading and research. Your stump speech is getting old; you can do much better!

 

 

Rather than repost the familiar 2nd verse same as the first response, could you help out us non "original researchers" by actually answering the questions posed to you? Here they are:

 

1) Since you say that anyone could manufacture a TSMG when the patents expired, could you provide the date these patents expired?

 

2) If AOC did not have a contract with Colt to exclusively make the TSMG back in 1921, could you provide the other firearm manufacturers that AOC contracted with simultaneously?

 

3) If as you say Colt was a subcontractor of AOC, could you provide information of AOC actually making the TSMG during the period Colt was making them?

 

4) Could you provide the page in TUTB where Hill or any contributing author provides a photo of a Chasan TSMG?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Since you say that anyone could manufacture a TSMG when the patents expired, could you provide the date these patents expired? Doug Richardson has a book on the Thompson patents. I suggest you read that if you need actual date information for specific patents. I believe there is also another book on Thompson patents. I am thinking Don Thomas is the author but I am not 100% sure. Suffice to say, once patent protection expired, anyone was/is free to manufacture a Thompson.

 

2) If AOC did not have a contract with Colt to exclusively make the TSMG back in 1921, could you provide the other firearm manufacturers that AOC contracted with simultaneously? Could you please show me where in the Auto-Ordnance/Colt's contract where Auto-Ordnance agreed Colt's would be the exclusive manufacturer of the Thompson Submachine Gun for any period of time. Not that it really mattered, the initial lot of 15,000 guns took nearly 20 years to sell.

 

3) If as you say Colt was a subcontractor of AOC, could you provide information of AOC actually making the TSMG during the period Colt was making them? Contractor or subcontractor, there is no need to argue semantics. Colt's was paid to perform a service for Auto-Ordnance. And they did.

 

4) Could you provide the page in TUTB where Hill or any contributing author provides a photo of a Chasan TSMG? I could but I am going to let you find it. From the above questions, you need to read the works of original researchers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHASAN made more than Thompsons, I have a Sterling 'tube gun' made by CHASAN, ST PETE FLA

 

And BAR's as well.

 

 

DLansky,

My original post was made prior to viewing the pictures you posted on NO. 100000. I took your statement of "maker" at face value, i.e., manufacturer. The more I review the pictures you posted I now believe it is possible "Chasan Corp S.P.B. FL" may have been the importer of this Thompson.

 

Really? But if you were already aware of Chasan's connection with the TSMG (surely you didn't just discover the stainless steel Thompson with Auto-Ordnance Bridgeport markings that Hill says in TUTB was "purchased by Chasen [sic] Corp of St. Petersburg, Florida, where it was completed with standard steel parts") why would you imagine that Chasan was an "importer" and not the manufacturer?

 

 

4) Could you provide the page in TUTB where Hill or any contributing author provides a photo of a Chasan TSMG? I could but I am going to let you find it. From the above questions, you need to read the works of original researchers.

 

I can understand why you are reticent in providing a reference to Hill covering the Chasan TSMG in TUTB. The only mention of Chasan is that they purchased a WWII made MODEL 1928A1 stainless steel TSMG. Why does Hill not mention who Chasan purchased this TSMG from and when this occured? That you consider this coverage of the Chasan association with the TSMG is baffling in light of your preoccupation with Kilgore cap pistols and their 19 month association with the TSMG. Chasan seems to have done more with an actual TSMG than Joe.

 

 

But where in TUTB does Hill show a Chasan TSMG similar to the one that is the focal point of this thread? How did the Chasan TSMG, complete with AOC and bullet logo markings, miss the cut in Hill's history of the Thompson?

 

 

.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

Excellent point about my thoughts on Chasan being an importer. The Ultimate Thompson Book (TUTB) is many pages and I did not discover Chasan was referenced by Hill until after I posted my thoughts on Chasan being a possible importer.

 

I did not research or write the part in TUTB about Chasan. You will have to ask Tracie about this part of the book. But I did research and write about Kilgore and the Thompson gun. Come to next years American Thompson Show and Shoot and I will let you read, TOMMY, by Frederic A. Willis, the first book written on the Thompson Submachine Gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...