Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

Arthur,

It is inconceivable that Saeilo Enterprises, Inc. purchased Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York, thinking it was the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. Basic due diligence would have uncovered any attempt to misrepresent the history of these two corporate entities. I suggest what Saelio purchased, among other corporate assets and rights, was right to be in the line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun. It is quite obvious Saeilo Enterprises did not fall into the trap of following the corporations, but instead followed the Thompson business all the way from General Thompson to George Numrich/Ira Trast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being a newcomer to Thompsons and the full auto world, I must admit I was quite surprised to see what I initiated back on Dec. 3 with this "replica" business. However, it has been extremely interesting and educational, and would like to thank all who have participated. It is obvious that many of you are very well read on this subject and posess quite a bit of information regarding the Thompson. After having read all the posts, I can't imagine there could be any more to say on the subject that would sway one's opinion one way or the other. That being said, it is Sunday morning, and I'm going to load up the truck, go shooting, and have some fun. The one that I enjoy the most is my "replica" WH. Good day to you all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

I've got a Kahr M1 Carbine. Fired 50 rounds through it, and other than a re-parked GI mag that had the dentents worn out, it performed flawlessly. I'm just praying that when I take my semi-auto Kahr-Thompsons to the range they perform equally well.

 

Dep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DougStump @ Aug 23 2006, 02:46 PM)
Dep,

Does yours have the early style "L" rear sight and no bayonet lug, or the later style adjustable sight & lug?

Doug

Doug: Later style adjustable with bayo lug and round bolt. I tried ordering an early style, but NOBODY had one and they had no idea when they could get any.

 

Dep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread keeps popping back up. I expect to see it back at the top every couple of months or so, given its history to date. I anticipate that it will continue doing so.

 

The line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to current day, in my opinion. You can say whatever you want about Kahr Thompsons, but I do grant them a legitimate link in the Thompson chain, all quality issues aside. Other intriguing chapters exist to the TSMG story.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (dalbert @ Aug 23 2006, 09:24 PM)
The line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to current day, in my opinion. You can say whatever you want about Kahr Thompsons, but I do grant them a legitimate link in the Thompson chain, all quality issues aside.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

By any universal measure and understanding of what constitutes an end to a thing, concept, or event, the original AOC company that manufactured the Colt, Savage and AO TSMG came to a definite and unequivocal demise in 1944. By the time that Trast resurrected the newly applied for Bullet logo, Thompson and AOC name and patents for his 1927A1 it was 31 years later after the last TSMG as produced by the original AOC(that only made Thompson smg’s, not semi auto’s), rolled off the assembly line.

 

I can't understand how the 1916 to current day AOC "unbroken chain" gang continually dismiss quality from their insistence the company that made TSMG's in the 1920's and 1940's is the same one that made them in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's and makes them currently. Why would the "same" company lose the formula for making a good as, or better product, than was produced by the "same" company" 31 years earlier? Why would the "same" company completely abandon quality and verisimilitude from their production techniques?

 

An entrepenneur recently purchased a thriving neighborhood pizza restaurant. He hung a sign outside that said “under new management.†The sign should have said “under new ownership.†But the entrepreneur wanted to absorb the reputation of the original pizza place by keeping the same name. Is the pizza as prepared by the new owner the same as the original owner? Not even close. Same name, much different pizza. But in this case, the entrepreneur actually bought the name of the existing pizza place at the time it was still making pizzas. Contrast this with Maguire’s AOC that ended 1944 with Numrich’s purchase of crates in 1951 (but who never made a TSMG from scratch), to Trast’s 1975 1927A1 and 1928 & M1 smg, to Kahr’s 1999 1927A1.

 

Dave,

Since Kahr Arms does not even produce a TSMG. How can the “unbroken chain†of TSMG’s from 1916 even stretch to 2006?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure glad I'm bald. Never saw so much hairsplitting in all my life!!! If quality decides whether a product is what it says it is, then things like American automobiles are in BIG trouble!!! guess will have to think up new names for Ford, Chrysler, and GM. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

 

 

Why would a company not be able to duplicate the quality of the product made DECADES ago? I can think of three reasons right away...

 

1)Not cost effective. 2)Skilled labor no longer available. 3)The public won't pay the price that such a product would cost.

 

Dep

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dep,

 

The reason I asked which carbine you had is I'm looking for a "real" report on the new "early" M1. If they work OK, then I might get one to blank adapt for p-raids in the Jeep. I just can't bring myself to blank a nice original M1. Right now I borrow a friend's M1917 or 1919 Browning and use the Win '97 trench gun for backup. The next batch of 12 gauge blanks I make up I'm going to fill the shell with mylar confetti.

 

Doug

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Deputy @ Aug 25 2006, 09:14 AM)
Sure glad I'm bald. Never saw so much hairsplitting in all my life!!! If quality decides whether a product is what it says it is, then  things like American automobiles are in BIG trouble!!! guess will have to think up new names for Ford, Chrysler, and GM.  http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif  http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif


Why would a company not be able to duplicate the quality of the product made DECADES ago? I can think of three reasons right away...

1)Not cost effective. 2)Skilled labor no longer available. 3)The public won't pay the price that such a product would cost.

Dep

Your attempted analogy doesn't track. Did Ford, GM, or Chrysler stop production of all cars for 31 years and then attempt to make the same car that they stopped making 31 years ago? Does the Ford Mustang of today resemble the 1960's Mustang? I guess externally to some degree. Does it sell? Extremely well. Is it made by the same company that made the 1960's Ford Mustang (excluding the Shelby made ones) ? Yes. Was the Ford company making cars for the last 60 years? Of course.

 

Please explain again the correlation between auto manufacturers and the AOC that ceased to exist in 1944 and the one that appeared in 1975?

 

 

If Trast didn't have the necessary "skilled" workers, and the whole idea of making a replica TSMG was "not cost effective," why bother in the first place? As far as "the public wouldn't pay the price that such a product would cost," do you have actual figures that substantiate the difference between what Trast allocated for the quality of his West Hurley and what extra costs would be necessary to bring that product up to WWII standards?

 

Devlin,

Were you also thinking the same thing about fake parts boxes, fake cleaning rods, reproduction cases, fake Cutts, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought?

 

So if Mr. Thompson took his company public and it was still intact today and the company could no longer manufacture machine guns in any way to sell or export and the only option was to make the 1927 a1 and such would it not be considered as a Thompson then? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif And then had the audacity to make different calibers and limit all magazines to 8 rounds. And during all the push button roar of the 50’s they replace the trigger with a chrome push button. Would it not be considered a Thomson then? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif Would the company not evolve to save its self? Lets say great great grandson’s greed was running the company and they let the quality slip a bit over the years would quality alone exclude it from being a Thompson? And maybe, just maybe, the longer barrel and because it is harder to build a semi-auto gun that could be marketed as product improvement, ( like a chrome and wheel package on a car). You know, improve accuracy and have more control over the weapon…. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/dry.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ponder this......Louis Chevrolet was a race car driver, never made a car even teamed with Durant when they started Chevrolet. And then Chevrolet bought out GM who had previsiouly kick out Durant! So if there never really was an original Chevrolet, what does that make all copy/replicas? Wouldn't that make them all originals? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/huh.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think AF is correct.

 

If the AOC stopped making guns in 1944, and then someone else just starts making them again (even with original tooling), that makes the newer guns replicas. The company was never purchased.

 

If I obtain a lot of money, and start making the DeLorean DMC-12 again, does that mean that I am making DeLoreans? No. It means that I am making replicas of the DeLorean, even if I obtain a new copyright for the name. Quality is a moot point. Even if my cars are better and the parts interchange with the old original DeLoreans, it is still a replica. The DeLorean name died with the companies demise (even though a place in TX bought all of their spare parts.)

 

That being said, there is nothing wrong with replicas. The WH Thompson is a great gun once it is tuned up by a pro, and there is no shame in that.

 

My gun is "bottom-of-the-barrel" for full autos; it is a converted 27A1, but it is legal!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Norm,

It is all a matter of how you define replica. Given your definition, the WW II Thompson’s were replicas of the Colt's (I am not even going to try to figure out the Warner & Swasey Thompson’s). I am not sure how to define the early NAC guns are since many of them used Colt and WWII (replica) receivers/frames. I guess the early and late NAC manufactured receivers would be replicas. Of course, your reasoning fails to take into consideration the Thompson (the Ordnance Division and one other Division of Maguire Industries) was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. No interest in the Thompson gun or name Auto-Ordnance was retained. It went as a package deal. That is the lineage; simple as that. The original company still exists. It proudly claims it heritage back to 1916 and specifically references the Tommy Gun. However, that was long ago. The Thompson part of the company found its way to Numrich Arms in 1951. Replica. I prefer Thompson. Some with a direct lineage to company General Thompson founded and others, like Pearl, with no link to anything but a good machinist. However, as long as any Thompson is in the Registry and runs, life is good!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (TD. @ Aug 25 2006, 09:09 PM)
Of course, your reasoning fails to take into consideration the Thompson (the Ordnance Division and one other Division of Maguire Industries) was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. No interest in the Thompson gun or name Auto-Ordnance was retained. It went as a package deal. That is the lineage; simple as that.

TD,

All common sense and reasoning are at fault in your opinion whenever interested individuals consider the final analysis that :

 

1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949.

 

2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974.

 

3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975.

 

4) Leaving out the quality issues, what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention.

 

5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2 were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with. Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver. Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Aug 25 2006, 09:41 PM)


All common sense and reasoning are at fault in your opinion whenever interested individuals consider the final analysis that :

1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949. 

2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974.

3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975.

4) Leaving out the quality issues,  what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention.

5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2  were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with.  Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver.  Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson.
[/b][/color]

 

Arthur,

 

Here is what I will say about each of your points:

 

"1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949. "

 

- O.K. There's a bit more to this, but I will agree with the statement in general, with specific minor reservations I will detail in the future.

 

"2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974."

 

- Numrich Arms of Mamaroneck, N.Y., and West Hurley, N.Y. manufactured many Thompsons during this time, and also made significant numbers of barrels and other small parts. They also engaged in at least 8 years of R&D for the 1927A1 Semi-Automatic Thompson, producing a protoype that was rejected by ATF as being too easily converted to full auto in 1967.

 

"3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975."

 

- Not quite. We have discussed patents before in this same thread, but I will review. The last Thompson patent (for the Model 1928 modification, patented in 1931) expired on August 4, 1948. Anyone could have manufactured the Thompson after that date, and could have begun to produce the Model 1921 Thompson around 1936-1938. Patents were good for 17 years at the time. (I have original 1930's legal documents that detail potential patent infringement issues between the Hyde 35 SMG and the Thompson that talk to this very issue, including foreign Thompson patents) The M1 Thompson was never patented.

- No one would have wanted to assume the financial risk of manufacturing the Thompson without first obtaining what represented the TSMG at that time, which was the goodwill, jigs, fixtures, equipment, parts, and paperwork including blueprints that were bought from Maguire Industries, from whom they were purchased with the intent to manufacture using the Thompson name. The bullet trademark was good for 20 years after it was registered until it had to be renewed. I have never seen any research to indicate whether the trademark was renewed around 1941. Considering the date, it probably was renewed by Maguire, and was never an issue. Trast did not have to apply for any existing Thompson patents for the 1927A1, as they were all long expired, and were not renewable. Trast produced the first 1927A1 that was certified by ATF in 1974.

 

"4) Leaving out the quality issues, what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention."

 

- Documents do exist to support the contention that NAC at Mamaroneck and West Hurley produced Thompsons in the 1950's. I will post them soon for all to see, and many folks saw them at the TATA Show.

 

"5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2 were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with. Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver. Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson. "

 

- I'm not arguing quality, or BAR's.

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...