Replica

[Mike Hammer]

Well it's been interesting and informative to say the least of the progression of this thread which originally started as a discussion of the use of the word "replica" in terms of later produced Thompsons. It's now become a full blown investigation into rights ownership, trademark name, mfg. rights and patent rights. It seems all the "cloudy grey areas" need to be fully revealed once and for all and it will take some doing to tie up all the loose ends that apparently exist here. No doubt documents exist pertaining to all the transactions discussed here, filed away in the musty cabinets in the basements of who knows where. This story will continue...................... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/popcorn.gif

 

Hammer

[Chromebolt]

as someone who has read all the posts and enjoyed most of the intellectual discussion and even the banter, I think it boils down to 2 issues/sides.

 

1. Statements are made by Numrich, et, al and since they have not been refuted, they are accepted as fact. And the facts are then used to substantiate a position.

 

2. Statements are not accepted as any indication as fact. Only written documents are acceptable as fact. If no documents are presented, it did not happen.

 

I'm a Detective by profession. In a court of (criminal) law both can be accepted in evalauting the evidence.

 

Keep up the debate, but keep it on an intellectual plane.

 

You have convinced me I need a 1928 to accompany my WH M1. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[TD.]

Chromebolt,

Excellent overview. I am glad you enjoyed the posts. Everyone needs a 1928 Thompson!!!

 

Phil,

Yes, we will remain friends. You have authored some of the best posts on the board. I understand your position. I could profess it without missing a beat. However, I happen to think it is incorrect. I don't understand your last ditch argument statement. I believe I also encouraged Arthur and 1921A to continue their research. Question: Have your read the 1967 Ray Bearse Gun Digest article?

[Chromebolt]

Heresay is when an individual states someone else said this. And it is allowed in rebuttal and sometimes in other circumstances. Or when an opposing attorney opens the door for this kind of testimony.

 

But it is considered in a court of law,

[Guest hardrede]

Phil, I guess I am confused as to the whole point of this thread.

 

1) The Colt guns were a contract, not made by AOC, correct???

 

2) Many of the AOC guns were contract, and not made by AOC, (Savage) nor were they manufactured to the original specifications set out by the 1921 patents. (War exigencies and War Department request for changes.)

 

3) The post-war guns are parts kits, slap-togethers, half-machined, or outright completely new weapons that are in no way the same in fit and function as the originals. (The semi's, all inclusive.) The WH's I have seen are very poor in quality, and are a poor imitation of the first 2 iterations of the Thompson.

 

So.....does it really matter who owns the Thompson name??? If I owned the Copyright to the Sphinx, and I were stacking shit and straw bricks along the Nile River, am I producing another Sphinx???

 

The Thompson name could have been legally transferred and trademarked on toilet paper. (FWIW that is what the "new" Thompson's seem to resemble.) Does it matter? In all essence, the "real" Thompson's died when the last one came off the assembly line during WWII.

 

Just a series of reasonable questions. Let me know what you think Phil!

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

The Gun Digest Ray Bearse article, while superseded by future works, is a fascinating encapsulation of Thompson history at a time when interest was almost non existent in NFA items. But as far as this article being touted as the Rosetta stone of proof of George Numrich, Jr.’s “ownership†of all things Thompson, it is definitely a mixed bag of facts, contradictory statements, out right errors, and revealing motivations of Numrich himself.

 

As to the question whether Numrich ever manufactured any Thompson Submachine Guns, Mr. Bearse, using Numrich as his informational source, says no.

 

“During the 1950’s Numrich Arms ASSEMBLED Thompsons from spare parts. Assembly of M21/28 was discontinued in early 1961.â€

Later in the article Bearse says,

 

“A FEW Thompsons have been made up by Numrich since the early 1950’s.â€

 

“Today (1967), Numrich sells ASSEMBLED M1a1’s to law enforcement agencies and department of state approved foreign customers.â€

 

In regards to those intentionally misleading photos in Numrich’s catalogs of racks of hundreds of “newly†1950 manufactured Thompsons, Numrich stated,

“We sell 10 to 12 guns per year.â€

A demand easily accommodated by those existing TSMG’s in the Willis crates from 1951.

 

In 1967, Bearse says,

“In 1951, George Numrich, Jr. ACQUIRED the name “Auto Ordnance†and a large stock of guns and parts. In 1963, Thomas B. Nelson, when describing this 1951 transaction, used the word “ABSORBED.†George didn’t have any problem with these ambiguous terms until the Bearse article was about to go to press. That's when George yearned for the more definitive "purchased," "owned," "sole rights to," and "monopoly over" characterizations of his NAC enterprises regarding the Thompson.

 

When Numrich discovered that Bearse was going to include in his history of the Thompson article two other gun manufactures, George contacted the editors of Gun Digest, just before publication, to add his statement that he believed nobody other than himself could make a Thompson in any form.

 

In 1963, John Martin of Tri-State Tool & Die Company, who unlike Numrich up to that time, was going to make his own receivers and frames and use surplus Savage/AO parts for his "Guerrilla" semi-auto Thompson. And in late 1964, Eagle Gun Company also had a version in the works. Both entrepreneurs claimed they had ATF approved designs for a semi -auto only Thompson with a 16 ½ inch barrel.

 

Bearse did include Numrich’s claim, but went ahead and cited these firearm makers and their proposed single-auto Thompsons in the article anyway. Got to love that.

 

 

While Tri-State Tool did indeed make 100 M1 Carbines from salvaged GI parts. They used welded GI receivers, Universal receivers, and commercial barrels. What ever became of their semi-auto TSMG is unknown, but they did run afoul of ATF for selling a complete M2 kit. Perhaps that discouraged them from any further pursuit of the semi-auto Thompson.

 

What this article does indicate unequivocally is that nobody in the firearm community, whether they be manufacturers or magazine publishers, had any knowledge Numrich owned anything other than Thompson parts. Why would they when any reference to NAC regarding the Thompson name, AOC name, patents, trademarks, etc was described in terms of "ACQUIRED" and "ABSORBED."

 

Ray Bearse references an unnamed source for this tidbit:

 

“For many years the federal government forbade the manufacture or importation of any arm, even a single shot, if it resembled the classic Thompson……This ruling has been rescinded.â€

 

Is the reader to infer from this that it was the government that restricted firearm manufacturers from making Thompsons post WWII and that it had nothing to do with Numrich’s claim of exclusive proprietorship? When was this law enacted? When was it rescinded?

 

It is interesting that Numrich became possessive of claimed rights to all things Thompson only when a firearms company would get their semi-auto Thompson into production before he could. The funny thing is, Numrich lost interest in producing his own version of the semi-auto Thompson by 1969, and left it up to Trast to manufacture it in 1975.

 

Numrich attempted to claim in this article that the name “Tommy Gun is a registered trademark of Numrich Arms Company.†Since the original AOC only managed to trademark the “Tommy Gun†name because they stamped it on the requisite number of their Thompsons, how could Numrich assume this trademark when he never used it himself on newly made Thompson Submachine Guns?

 

Mr. Bearse’s own reporting in some instances contradicts his own previous passages. For instance, he states:

 

“In November, 1939, Russell Maguire presented Gen. C.T. Harris with the 250,000th M1928A1.â€

 

But pages before, Bearse does get the April, 1940 initial production date for the Savage Thompson correct.

 

But the real corker is that Bearse, for some inexplicable reason, does provide specific attribution for the bizarre contention that a 1928 TSMG can function without a Blish lock.

 

“During tests in 1928, the British discovered no one could tell when firing whether the Blish lock was in or out of the gun.â€

 

Bearse never corrects this easily debunked assertion in his text. Of course he never challenged Numrich’s assertion that he owned all things Thompson either. Maybe Bearse was the inspiration for Fox News' motto, "We Report. You Decide."

[Bob]

Think you will find that Tri-State Tool build up M1 carbines not Thompsons. Many companies jumped on the M1 carbine band wagon when the barrel length went to 16".

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

Bob,

 

Yes, they were M1 carbines. Unfortunately, I didn't make that clear. I have amended that for clarity. But that does not change the complexion of the situation in the 1960's when nobody thought the Thompson firearm was off limits to new designers.

 

Phil,

 

The fact that Tri-State was pursuing a semi-auto only Thompson in 1963 speaks for itself. Whether they ever went further than prototypes for ATF is unknown. But it sure doesn't seem that any meaningful discouragement to these Thompson entrepreneurs came from Numrich, but rather from design teething problems or just general lack of consumer interest at the time.

[blueline541]

I used to think us uzi fellers had a good debate going between converted semi IMI uzis and Vector factory smg uzis. That tiny disagreement has now been put into perspective.

[TD.]

blueline541,

This is not a big issue in the Thompson community. Most everyone I know understands how the Thompson moved from General Thompson to Numrich Arms and all the parties in between.

 

Phil,

I stopped reading when you mixed up Thompson’s and M1 carbines. However, I am sure my response to Arthur will cover any questions in your post.

 

Arthur,

I never said the Bearse article was the definitive proof regarding the succession of the Thompson after it left Maguire Industries. However, I did state the remarks by George Numrich in the article have never been contradicted by anyone. I commend you for finally taking the time to acquire and read the Bearse article. First off, let’s forget about the manufacturing question on this thread. It is a great issue and worthy of discussion – but it only clouds the main topic of succession – and the two areas are not related.

 

In 1967, Bearse says,

QUOTE

“In 1951, George Numrich, Jr. ACQUIRED the name “Auto Ordnance” and a large stock of guns and parts.

I don't think George acquired the name Auto-Ordnance in the 1951 deal with Willis. However, since that name was abandoned when the corporation changed names in 1944 to Maguire Industries, the name was available for use. The rest of the statement is true.

 

QUOTE

In 1963, Thomas B. Nelson, when describing this 1951 transaction, used the word “ABSORBED.”

This is a true statement.

 

QUOTE

George didn’t have any problem with this words until the Bearse article was about to go to press. That's when George yearned for the more definitive "purchased," "owned," "sole rights to," and "monopoly over" characterizations of his NAC enterprises regarding the Thompson.

This is your interpretation of something. Please tell us how you know what George was thinking and yearning. I doubt George ever gave this issue you seem to be obsessed with a second thought.

 

QUOTE

When Numrich discovered that Bearse was going to include in his history of the Thompson article two other gun manufactures, John Martin of Tri-State Tool & Die Company, who unlike Numrich, was going to make his own receivers and frames and use surplus Savage/AO parts, and Eagle Gun Company, both of whom claimed they had ATF approved designs for a semi -auto only Thompson with a 16 ½ inch barrel, George contacted the editors of Gun Digest, just before publication, to add his statement that he believed nobody other than himself could make a Thompson in any form.

The article does not state George contacted the Editor of Gun Digest with his statement of ownership rights. How do you know who contacted who? How would George know when Gun Digest was just about to go to press? The story reads as if the Editor contacted George regarding the ATF approved Numrich Arms designed semi-auto Thompson and comments about the semi-auto Thompson and ownerships rights were discussed and recorded.

 

QUOTE

Bearse did include Numrich’s claim, but went ahead and cited these firearm makers and their proposed single-auto Thompsons in the article anyway. Got to love that.

It is a very minor point but I don’t think Bearse had anything to do with George’s statement of ownership. The story reads as if this part was done by the Editor of Gun Digest, John Amber, to make the story complete.

 

QUOTE

Tri-State Tool did indeed make 100 Carbines from salvaged GI parts. They used welded GI receivers, Universal receivers, and commercial barrels. What ever became of their semi-auto TSMG is unknown, but they did run afoul of ATF for selling a complete M2 kit. Perhaps that discouraged them from any further pursuit of the semi-auto Thompson.

Again, speculation on your part. I encourage you to track down the owners of Tri-State and see if you can find out what exactly “discouraged them from any further pursuit of the semi-auto Thompson.”

 

I do agree there are some inaccuracies in the Bearse article. There are also inaccuracies in every published work involving the Thompson. However, all and all, the Bearse article for its time period was an excellent article that imparted new information. The great majority of the information reported has survived the test of time and it is required reading for all Thompson enthusiasts. Well, that about wraps up everything you have posted regarding succession and ownership rights. I find when I remove your speculative remarks that you have not contradicted anything George Numrich (or Thomas Nelson) have stated and published regarding the Thompson succession. Thank-you for your contribution to this ever evolving story.

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

TD.

Most everyone you know understands how Numrich took it upon himself to claim ownership of all things Thompson? Now that's funny!

 

Now you want to use the Bearse article, the very one you championed as incontrovertible proof that Numrich was an integral part of the chain of AOC ownership, as an ala cart menu to satisfy your particular craving for Numrich AOC succession. Anything on the Speisekarte you find unpalatable, such as the fact that both Bearse and Numrich are in agreement that NAC never manufactured any 1921/28 or M1/M1A1 TSMG's, you send back to the kitchen.

 

As far as George Numrich and the Thompson are concerned, we all have to be Donninger to figure out if George could prove ownership of the rights to all things Thompson.

 

"As the gun Digest goes to press, word has reached us that Numrich has designed, but is not in production, a semi-auto Thompson."

 

A. You would like to interpret a phrase that leaves no room for interpretation. The Gun Digest editor did not contact Numrich. Not unless we have now corrupted the English language to change "word reached us" to "after we inquired." There was nothing active about the editor's obiter dictum.

 

But one does not have to be Kreskin to figure out it was George, or one of his minions, who made sure this information made it into the article.

 

 

Did you think it was a carrier pigeon that brought forth this message? Who the Hell else knew the info contained in this article besides Bearse, the editor and Numrich? Since Bearse and the editor didn't know about Numrich's attempt to enter the semi-auto Thompson design, by process of elimination, George is the only possible source for this "word."

 

 

B. No where does it say that ATF approved any Numrich designs in this article.

 

C. The publication's editor clearly makes the point that after "word " reached them, "Numrich states he holds all the patents, trademarks, etc..." Numrich had all the time in the world to make his pitch for rightful owner of all things Thompson, and his also ran semi-auto design, during the extended period he spent with Bearse. Why the burr under Numrich's saddle at this juncture? Obviously because he did not like the impression in Bearse's article that true gun manufacturers could beat him to a semi-auto Thompson. So was Bearse the catalyst for Numrich's last minute plea? Does it matter? The fact is George made a special effort to get this "word" out before the article went to press.

 

Why would I want to contradict Nelson? He was never on board the Numrich chain of succession train. As far as contradicting Numrich, I have presented as much evidence that George did not buy anything other than crates as he ever presented to the contrary.

 

 

 

[TD.]

Arthur,

There is nothing funning about how the Thompson moved from one party to another after being sold by Maguire Industries. Incontrovertible proof - again, these are your words, not mine. I am not even making an argument about Thompson succession; I am just stating facts. If I was making an argument, I doubt I would use the Bearse article.

 

I find this fact much more compelling than George Numrich's statement of ownership: Maguire sold everything related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. Two and a half years later, Numrich acquired everything Maguire had sold related to the Thompson Submachine Gun. Of course, this fact also supports George Numrich's claim of ownership. The Thompson business was but a small part of George Numrich's total operation. Years after he purchased the Thompson, he and his Vice-President, Ira Trast, decided to expand the Thompson business. They created a new corporation and named it the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. The name Auto-Ordnance had been available for many years. They also transferred all the Thompson assets to this new corporation. This is when I believe Numrich and Trast discovered that Trademarks need to be renewed every so often (17 years?) and they promptly re-registered the Thompson bullet logo Trademark.

 

There is much more to this story. Bill Helmer did just enough research on this area to point us in the right direction. I only use the Bearse article with Numrich's statement of ownership to see if anyone can present any evidence that contradicts Numrich's direct claims. Thus far, no one has presented anything that shows Numrich was not an owner in possession of the Thompson business for a great many years. General Thompson's dream did not end in 1944 when the last of the M1A1 Thompson's came off the production line. It has continued on...and now rests in the hands of Kahr Arms.

[Guest hardrede]

That's funny Ron, my GMC was assembled at the Flint Plant. (Next to I-75)

 

Problem is, the aluminum wheels are clearly marked "Hungary!"

 

Maybe we have a "Lend-Lease" jobs program. Or, this might be the "New" Marshall Plan!

 

Enjoy the weather out there. It was 22 this morning, Wind Chill about 10, and there is over 2 inches of new snow covering the flowers that came up last week.

 

Gotta Love that Lake Michigan!!!

 

 

 

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

There may be some (TD, dalbert, Trast, Moon, etc) who will not embrace Doug Richardson's new website that accurately represents the historical truth behind the Thompson name and the original AOC business, but at least those interested can now easily find the facts at:

 

http://www.auto-ordnancecorporation.com/

 

"The name “Auto-Ordnance Corporationâ€, which had been abandoned in 1944, was re-registered in New York on June 14, 1974 by Numrich Arms Corp. of West Hurley, New York. The new “Auto-Ordnance Corp.†had no connection with nor was it a successor in interest to the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation of Thompson, Ryan, Maguire, and “Tommy Gun†fame although its literature, catalogs, trademarks, and “Thompson†gun patterned to look like the original Thompson fools consumers into believing otherwise. Kahr Arms purchased the new “Auto-Ordnance Corp.†from Numrich Arms in 1998, apparently believing that they were actually buying the original Auto-Ordnance Corp., not the one created by Numrich Arms." D.R.

 

Now all D.R. has to do is apply the same scholarly approach to accurately identify his "Colt Navy" buttstocks.

[dalbert]

Oh My God! It's....

 

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y204/mbsennett1/threadwouldntdie.jpg

 

Norm,

 

As per your request...

 

David

[Norm]

[Bill in VA]

So did we ever figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

[Zamm]

Good Lord!

It's back!

Z

[Norm]

Good Lord!

It's back!

Z

 

Zamm! Where have you been- first post I've seen from you in months!

[Zamm]

"Zamm! Where have you been- first post I've seen from you in months! biggrin.gif"

 

Hey Norm and all, Just been busy keeping the Art World safe for gazillionaires!

Can't wait to read Tom's piece.

Best, Z

 

 

 

 

[dalbert]

So, a lot of the blanks are finally getting filled in for those who doubt that Thompson succession extends from 1916 to the present day. If you are still skeptical after reading Tom Davis' Kilgore article in the September 2008 issue of Small Arms Review magazine, I would encourage you to attend Tracie's Show and Shoot in a few weeks in Ohio. The other part of the picture that was not included in the SAR article will be covered at that time, and its details are extraordinary.

 

Any more comments on the Kilgore and the Thompson article?

 

Willis is the thread that weaves through it all, from 1939 to 1951.

 

Helmer wrote the SECOND book on the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

Great job, Tom! Firepower is Peace Power!

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

 

 

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

So, a lot of the blanks are finally getting filled in for those who doubt that Thompson succession extends from 1916 to the present day. If you are still skeptical after reading Tom Davis' Kilgore article in the September 2008 issue of Small Arms Review magazine, I would encourage you to attend Tracie's Show and Shoot in a few weeks in Ohio. The other part of the picture that was not included in the SAR article will be covered at that time, and its details are extraordinary.

 

Any more comments on the Kilgore and the Thompson article?

 

Willis is the thread that weaves through it all, from 1939 to 1951.

 

Helmer wrote the SECOND book on the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

Great job, Tom! Firepower is Peace Power!

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Dave & TD,

 

Since SAR is seemingly is no longer available from magazine/book stores, or firearm stores, which leaves a subscription as the only access to SAR, and the current issue, apparently, has not arrived yet to subscribers, why not spell out just what this "new" info is and how it changes the complexion of the AOC ending in 1944?

 

All this breathless hyperbole makes for good PR for SAR & Hill, I guess, but it doesn't really advance your and TD's argument without providing the specifics. I remember when you graciously provided those pictures of Numrich's old catalogs supposedly showing his machine shop activity, yet they were actually lifted from Maguire's AOC publicity from the early 1940's.

 

How about a little actual info posted on a TSMG info board to persuade the Doubting Thomas hoards?

Edited August 1, 2008 by Arthur Fliegenheimer

[Arthur Fliegenheimer]

So, a lot of the blanks are finally getting filled in for those who doubt that Thompson succession extends from 1916 to the present day. If you are still skeptical after reading Tom Davis' Kilgore article in the September 2008 issue of Small Arms Review magazine, I would encourage you to attend Tracie's Show and Shoot in a few weeks in Ohio. The other part of the picture that was not included in the SAR article will be covered at that time, and its details are extraordinary.

 

Any more comments on the Kilgore and the Thompson article?

 

Willis is the thread that weaves through it all, from 1939 to 1951.

 

Helmer wrote the SECOND book on the Thompson Submachine Gun.

 

Great job, Tom! Firepower is Peace Power!

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Dave & TD,

 

Since SAR is seemingly is no longer available from magazine/book stores, or firearm stores, which leaves a subscription as the only access to SAR, and the current issue, apparently, has not arrived yet to subscribers, why not spell out just what this "new" info is and how it changes the complexion of the AOC ending in 1944?

 

All this breathless hyperbole makes for good PR for SAR & Hill, I guess, but it doesn't really advance your and TD's argument without providing the specifics. I remember when you graciously provided those pictures of Numrich's old catalogs supposedly showing his machine shop activity, yet they were actually lifted from Maguire's AOC publicity from the early 1940's.

 

How about a little actual info posted on a TSMG info board to persuade the Doubting Thomas hoards?

 

I just bought two copies of last months with Davids article in it at my local News and Smokes... JFYI

 

Oh and the owner said this months should be in today... I need to go check....

 

When you pick-up your September issue, perhaps you can share this info for those less fortunate when it comes to SAR availability?

[TD.]

The September issue of Small Arms Review is available at:

 

Long Mountain Outfitters

631 N. Stephanie St #560

Henderson, NV 89014

(702) 564-0948

 

 

[Mike Hammer]

Z, you might have a point, he owns at least one Colt Thompson and he won't shell out a fews samolas to read the article. Well, maybe he just can't make it down to the corner newsie, can't fault him there. Perhaps someone could help Artie out and just copy and paste the article here for him and everyone else to read. This thread just keeps on going.....and going..........

 

Mike Hammer