Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

Buzz,

 

This argument is not about Auto-Ordnance as a company name. Succession is about the Thompson product.

 

We’ve never argued quality. Quality is what it is, and really has no bearing on succession.

 

West Hurley collectors exist. I’m one, and there are many more.

 

 

 

Arthur,

 

 

Sorry for the delayed response. I typed a response in Word 2 nights ago, and then I encountered a cut and paste issue in the forum text fields, and I just got around that issue. My quick response yesterday was made on my iPhone.

 

I have not seen the 2 TSMG’s manufactured by Kahr. My understanding is that they have now been destroyed due to an issue with multiple locations and different licenses/business entities. I was hoping that they would have appeared at Tracie’s for us to shoot, but that never happened.

 

Regarding Cary Maguire’s reservations about how his father was portrayed in TGTMTTR, there was a specific statement in the book that he perceived as portraying his father in a negative light, and that statement was his objection. It had to do with how the 1939 deal went down, and the words used to describe his father’s business style. I don’t recall the exact passage. You may be able to find it.

 

Regarding the revised version of TGTMTTR, and the almost 6 years that have passed since I mentioned being asked to participate in the project with Bill, I can say that it was submitted to the publisher in December 2013. I don’t have an ETA for the new book. There are supposed to be some scheduling discussions this week in regards to current book projects in the publisher queue. I hope to see it published in the next year, but I will not hold my breath.

 

All,

 

I’ve fully covered the subject in previous posts, particularly in my 3800+ word post on 18 September 2008.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timkel,

 

A marine landing on the beach of Iwo Jima in 1944 with a Savage 1928a1 was holding a replica?

 

A 1944 M1A1 is a replica of what gun?

 

Nice try

 

I've never heard anyone ever refer to any WWII production of any gun as a "replica". Have you?

 

What military contract production of any gun of any nation of any time period is referred to as "replicas"?

 

Like I said, no matter how this thread turns out, these words "original and "replica" have a common, widespread usage among collectors and nobody is going to go along with some random re-assignment of the words.

 

Sorry to offend but Colt made the original Thompson's . The rest are still Thompson's but different. Use whatever word you prefer, replica, copy, generation, version, type, variant, ect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.

 

AO asked Colt to resume production of Thompsons, but Colt was already making BARs and didn't want the work.

 

So Colt gave all the tooling and drawings to Savage, who started production back up again and supplied the US military with their primary subgun, made literally millions of subguns during the biggest war in human history.

 

And per the twilight zone logic of this thread, those guns are "replicas".

 

This is a fun thread and everything but you guys are never going to get anyone to go along with this reassignment of the English language.

 

You'll never hear any guy at a gun show saying, "Look at my 1943 Savage M1A1 Thompson replica."

 

Nor are WWII Remington 1911s called "replicas".

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to add a brain twister to this thread:

 

The M1 was a product improvement of the Thompson design.

 

Simplifying a gun so that more soldiers can have that gun on the battlefield is form of improvement. Quantity is a form of quality.

 

Also, it would be argued that the changes made to the M1 are in fact actual improvements.

 

Removing an unneeded feature to simplify something is an improvement.

 

Apparently the simplification of the gun did not reduce its effectiveness at all.

 

The blish lock is complicated and works no better than just adding mass to the bolt.

 

According to what I've read, the soldiers liked the stick mags better than the drum mags.

 

The 1928 model is a much "cooler", prettier and fancier gun, but that's not the purpose of a weapon.

 

Since the M1 is literally a re-engineered next-generation version of the Thompson, how can it be a "replica" of anything?

Edited by buzz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree why the M1 was designed. The Reising was selling for about $62. Depending on the contract the low price of M1928A1 was $200.

 

The M1 was designed to speed up production and to sell cheaper. The M1 was sold on contract about $43.

 

The bottom line was market competition. Yes it still was a effective gun.

 

Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many times when one sets out to make something cheaper it turns out to be an inferior product. With the M1/M1A1 they really hit a home run. They not only made it cheaper, they also made it more dependable.

A big plus for everyone whose life depended on it never failing.

Jim C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure.

 

AO asked Colt to resume production of Thompsons, but Colt was already making BARs and didn't want the work.

 

So Colt gave all the tooling and drawings to Savage, who started production back up again and supplied the US military with their primary subgun, made literally millions of subguns during the biggest war in human history.

 

And per the twilight zone logic of this thread, those guns are "replicas".

 

This is a fun thread and everything but you guys are never going to get anyone to go along with this reassignment of the English language.

 

You'll never hear any guy at a gun show saying, "Look at my 1943 Savage M1A1 Thompson replica."

 

Nor are WWII Remington 1911s called "replicas".

 

Buzz, this was the only point that I was trying to make 9 years ago when this thread was started, (see first two posts of thread). Now, did we have to go through all this???????

 

Mike Hammer

not_this_shit_again.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, after digesting the hundreds of post here....the overwhelming conclusion I come to is.....what difference does it make? Companies claim shaky historical heritage all the time. Look at Polaris with Indian motorcycles that were out of production for decades. I'm just glad Indians exist again. Same with WH's. I wish Kahr could do the same, even if they had problems.....they would exist. I wish someone would resurrect Packard autos.....that would be cool, replica or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lancer,

 

I am with you all the way. I really don't care what people call any of the Thompson guns. I am happy all of them exist and allowed to remain in private hands. My research started because I knew that what ultimately happened to the corporation that invented the Thompson gun had very little to do with what appeared to be a succession of owners of this great American firearm (spelled corporate product). My interest was seeing if a succession of owners existed and could be documented.

 

The history of the Thompson gun could have easily ended after the last of the AC variation Thompson guns were sold off by George Goll and the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. If Maguire Industries would have made the decision to scrap out all the remaining tooling, gages, drawings, parts, etc. and sell off or destroy the prototypes, it would have ended. But that did not happen. The Thompson gun was treated like a viable corporate asset. Everything associated with it was packed away and stored. Not surprising; Russell Maguire was a shrewd businessman. The proceeds from the sale of the Thompson gun in 1949 to Kilgore Manufacturing in Ohio helped save Maguire Industries from financial failure. All can read the documented transfers of ownership of this corporate product in The Ultimate Thompson Book or a condensed version in Small Arms Review magazine.

 

The line of succession or connection from the Colt guns to the West Hurley guns is a fact. The invention of the successful Thompson semi-automatic rifles is but another chapter and continues today with Kahr Arms. Was there some advertising puffing regarding the products history with Numrich Arms and now Kahr Arms. Yes...but corporate puffing has been a facet throughout the history of the Thompson gun (and most products on the market today).

 

Aside from the Thompson guns that have a historical connection to the Colt era guns, there exists a number of guns that were manufactured outside the documented chain of succession. These include guns from Philadelphia Ordnance, Pearl, completed Richardson receivers and several more makers I cannot recall at this time. Are these guns Replicas? Not in my mind. They are simply Thompson guns with a different history. I bet you cannot tell the difference when pulling the trigger!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

 

I do not believe I have ever said I disliked WHs, just that I did not consider them to be original Thompsons in the collector sense of the word. To me as far as collecting goes they fall into the same category as side plate guns, Erb tube guns, Pearl, Richardson and all the rest. Nice to have and be proud of but not originals. I have a number of sideplate belt feds myself and do no look down on anyone else that owns one but I will never call one original. I do not look down on owners of WHs in any way either. I have no interest in WHs same as I do not the vast majority of firearms manufactured post 1945.

 

I freely admit that I have in past on here expressed a dislike of Kahr products as a whole due to their less than stellar customer service and warranty work. That is based on their products that I have had to deal with in the past that customers have purchased. I had so many complaints I stopped selling them a number of years ago and have no plans to start back.

 

That fact that I refer to original Thompsons as that and WHs as not may irritate some people just as it irritates me when others refer to WHs as original Thompsons but in the overall scope of things a minor irritation.

Lancer is correct.

 

The fact that Buzz and Roscoe Turner dislike West Hurleys has nothing to do with the chain of succession of the Thompson product. Period.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this board is the go-to for Thompson history, information, and thought, someone should create a poll. Come up with a half dozen typologies for the West Hurley Thompsons, and vote. And everyone who votes must abide by the result. End of story. Rust

 

PS: I have no horse in this race...;-)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen a lot of engineers try to win an argument by enlisting a lot of supporters, it's the biggest waste of time.

 

When did the truth about anything ever get decided by a vote?

 

 

If you want to persuade someone of something, present facts and logic.

 

Everything else is just noise. That gets old pretty fast.

 

 

The thing I like about you Thompson guys is you're serious minded and you go digging for facts.

 

Look at all the information that was dug up on Numrich and AO.

 

That's what makes gun collecting interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So anyway,

 

Three batches of Thompsons were made.

 

We're trying to decide which ones should be called "original" and which ones should be called a "replica".

 

 

The word "replica" means a copy of an artwork or an exact copy of an original item, especially if the copy is a smaller scale.

 

Unusually the word is used for copies of stuff that is valued due to a connection with history.

 

Like for example, they made a "replica" of the grand staircase of the Titanic so people could see what it looked like first hand.

 

 

I don't think it would be correct to call something a "copy" or "replica" unless it was made specifically as a copy of an original object.

 

If they stopped making Monopoly sets for a few years because they have too many, and then they start production again when they run short, that wouldn't be a "copy".

 

On the other hand, if they produced a special edition that looked exactly like the original 1920s set, then it would be a copy or replica.

 

 

Colt Thompsons obviously were not a copy, since they were the original product. So that one is easy.

 

 

Savages were not made for the purpose of being a copy of anything. They were made to supply an army with weapons.

 

AO tried to get Colt to resume production, but wouldn't do it, so AO got another major gunmaker to resume production with the original tooling and blueprints.

 

The Savages were not made to be a copy, they made no effort to copy anything. The 1928A1, M1 and M1A1 are copies of what gun?

 

The word "copy" is never applied to wartime production of guns like Remington M1903s or Remington 1911s. They weren't made to be a copy, so it doesn't occur to people to call them that.

 

 

West Hurleys, on the other hand, are replicas.

 

They were specifically made with a single purpose: as a copy of a historical gun for people who appreciate the historical properties of the original guns.

 

That is literally the dictionary definition of a replica.

 

If you have someone paint an exact copy of a Picasso painting, it is literally a replica.

 

Same thing if you have someone make an exact copy of an ancient clock or sundial.

 

 

How could any gun that was specifically manufactured as a copy of a iconic original gun also be called an original?

 

It makes no sense.

 

"Look at the exact copy I had made of a famous original Picasso painting, it's also an original."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above isn't about anything other than trying to use the English language properly.

 

It has nothing to do with hating west hurleys.

 

The world of gun collectors is never going to give a toss for how this thread turns out.

 

The guys driving the price of WHs up to $20K couldn't care less, they just want a Thompson to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think of original Thompsons, I think of Colt Thompsons. I don't think of WWII AO Bridgeport and Savage Thompsons as original Thompsons. I think of them as WWII era Thompsons. I don't think of West Hurley Thompsons as "original" Thompsons. They are another era of Thompsons in the succession of the Thompson product.

 

The argument we have presented details succession of the Thompson product through the years.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buzz,

Your statement that the Savage guns were made without any adherence of any kind to the Colt guns is incorrect.

The early Savages were produced with using the quality of the Colt guns as the guideline, as per Savage"s written contract with AOC.

 

When WWII production started in earnest, the driver then shifted to quantity & cost saving while improving functionality when possible.

 

In my opinion all the Thompsons made under the banner of AOC are genuine AOC guns, even though quality wasn't consistent. over the years

 

Replicas in my opinion are non functioning guns as in display guns. The old adage that opinions

are like a_ _ holes, every one has one, applies to this discussion.

 

I guess the owner's of the WHurley guns are somewhat biased, I own (2) of them :-)

 

My 2 cents.

Darryl

Edited by darrylta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to semantics. The guns are what they are.

 

You can make the same argument about Farquharson falling block single shot rifles. The design arose with John Farquharson's patent of 1872. George Gibbs bought an interest in the patent in 1875 and began production of the rifles, continuing until about 1910.

 

http://rbsiii.com/Guns/Misc/side_l_close.jpg

 

The rifle above is not my rifle. I borrowed the photo.

 

The patent expired in 1889. Shortly thereafter, exact copies of the Farquharson action were being produced in Belgium by Auguste Francotte. These were imported by a number of English gunmakers and finished into complete rifles. A. Francotte was not a successor to John Farquharson or George Gibbs. A. Francotte never had any rights in the Farquharson patent.

 

These later rifles are still called "Farquharson" rifles; and often "PD" (public domain) Farquharsons, as they were stamped "PD" on the face of the action behind the wood. Here is one I own. It was built by Charles Osborne and sold through Army & Navy CSL:

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/DSC_2284_02.jpg

 

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/DSC_2286_01.jpg

 

So is mine a Farquharson? Is it a copy? Is it a replica?

 

Here's how Wal Winfer, a foremost authority on British single shot rifles, wrote up my rifle in his work:

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/Winfer_Vol__6_p__127.jpg

 

Winfer, British Single Shot Rifles, Vol. 6, page 127.

 

You can see he calls the public domain Farquharsons by the name, "Farquharson". He doesn't call it a copy or a replica. In this case he refers to it as an "Army & Navy Farquharson" although it was only retailed by Army & Navy.

 

So what is it? Collectors hold the Gibbs Farquharsons at the top tier, and rightly so. All the others are highly regarded but known to be of a different class from the Gibbs rifles. Making an analogy to the TSMG, the Gibbs is the Colt, the others are Savage/AOC. There is not third tier that would be analogous to the West Hurley.

 

Do I call a Colt a "Thompson"? Yes.

Do I call a Savage or AOC a "Thompson"? Yes.

Do I call a West Hurley a "Thompson"? Yes.

 

So what the hell, boys, what the hell? It's semantics. We know the guns for what they are.

 

Curl

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a Priest, a Minister, and Arthur Fliegenheimer are in a bar. The two men of the cloth get into a discussion about The Holy Trinity and overhearing the conversation Arthur pipes in, "You do realize that two thirds of The Trinity are but replicas?".

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to semantics. The guns are what they are.

 

You can make the same argument about Farquharson falling block single shot rifles. The design arose with John Farquharson's patent of 1872. George Gibbs bought an interest in the patent in 1875 and began production of the rifles, continuing until about 1910.

 

http://rbsiii.com/Guns/Misc/side_l_close.jpg

 

The rifle above is not my rifle. I borrowed the photo.

 

The patent expired in 1889. Shortly thereafter, exact copies of the Farquharson action were being produced in Belgium by Auguste Francotte. These were imported by a number of English gunmakers and finished into complete rifles. A. Francotte was not a successor to John Farquharson or George Gibbs. A. Francotte never had any rights in the Farquharson patent.

 

These later rifles are still called "Farquharson" rifles; and often "PD" (public domain) Farquharsons, as they were stamped "PD" on the face of the action behind the wood. Here is one I own. It was built by Charles Osborne and sold through Army & Navy CSL:

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/DSC_2284_02.jpg

 

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/DSC_2286_01.jpg

 

So is mine a Farquharson? Is it a copy? Is it a replica?

 

Here's how Wal Winfer, a foremost authority on British single shot rifles, wrote up my rifle in his work:

 

http://nitroexpress.info/ezine/CptCurlFiles/Single_Shot_Rifles/CptCurl/A&N_Farq/Winfer_Vol__6_p__127.jpg

 

Winfer, British Single Shot Rifles, Vol. 6, page 127.

 

You can see he calls the public domain Farquharsons by the name, "Farquharson". He doesn't call it a copy or a replica. In this case he refers to it as an "Army & Navy Farquharson" although it was only retailed by Army & Navy.

 

So what is it? Collectors hold the Gibbs Farquharsons at the top tier, and rightly so. All the others are highly regarded but known to be of a different class from the Gibbs rifles. Making an analogy to the TSMG, the Gibbs is the Colt, the others are Savage/AOC. There is not third tier that would be analogous to the West Hurley.

 

Do I call a Colt a "Thompson"? Yes.

Do I call a Savage or AOC a "Thompson"? Yes.

Do I call a West Hurley a "Thompson"? Yes.

 

So what the hell, boys, what the hell? It's semantics. We know the guns for what they are.

 

Curl

 

That is a beautiful Farquharson rifle. The engraving, the wood all first class. What caliber?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of like the sound of West Hurley era Thompson. I shall adopt this. Rust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So a Priest, a Minister, and Arthur Fliegenheimer are in a bar. The two men of the cloth get into a discussion about The Holy Trinity and overhearing the conversation Arthur pipes in, "You do realize that two thirds of The Trinity are but replicas?".

 

Actually, upon seeing Arthur, the Priest and Minister both shouted at the same time:

"At last! He hath come down to visit us!".

 

 

 

 

 

("And he brought several new commandments -regarding some type of gun")

Edited by mnshooter
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...