Jump to content

NAC Thompson Gun


Recommended Posts

Looks like I got everybody riled up again with my ignorance. Jerry's NAC gun sold a couple days ago and my Thompson ignorance is on the mend. I did not buy the gun. I have my eye firmly fixed on a 1928A1 Savage with early features. It's an early war baby. It is my opinion that guns that went to war or could have gone to war early got chewed up and are just a bit more scarce than guns issued later on. At least that's my theory for German guns. I don't know if that theory holds any water for Thompsons. As a Luger collector I can appreciate the fine quality of older guns but I really like military weapons. Commercial guns hold very little interest for me so 21s and West Hurleys are out. At this stage of my enlightment I still can't fall completely in love with the gun. It is a weapon from the days when ships were wood and men were steel. I sure wouldn't want to carry one very far. The gun seems a bit overbuilt and the design seems a bit dated. I slung one over the back of my chicken plate but I dreaded having to carry it far if I ever went down. The gun must have been made for giants. I'm only 5'6" and the Thompson has a length of pull of over 17". That's long, even for a shotgun. Why so long? I know, it is seldom shot from the shoulder. Anyway I have decided I only "need" one. After I get it I may be forced to reconsider my "needs." Thanks again for all the great knowledge. Hank PS Why does Arthur write in such BOLD flaming colors?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Arthur, The Mustang isn't made by Ford? Hmmmm...The original Shelby mustang is all ford production based too..very few aftermarket parts..But, say isn't this about Thompsons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speakin' of WWII L4's.....here's my father in law's 1942 L4. It even had the GI style manufacturer's plate designating it an L4. It was fun to fly. He sold it a few years ago. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif My one chance to ever own a warbird....gone. As bad as my dad trading a '67 Chevelle Malibu for a frickin' Pinto station wagon one year before I could drive (that's definitely one of those "What the f#@* were you thinking?!?!" moments) http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/mad.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif

Cub1942.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
Looks like I got everybody riled up again with my ignorance.       

 

Hank, are you kidding? This was a great thread.

 

QUOTE
PS Why does Arthur write in such BOLD flaming colors?

 

Arthur is very soft spoken. Sometimes he needs a little help to stand out in this crowded room we have here http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (PATHFINDER @ Jan 1 2004, 10:05 PM)
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....History does not stop and start as we like it....I remeber when M1s wer poo pooed by purist collectors as not being 'real' Thompsons. Now they are highly saught after.... The Thompson has a long rich history that started while the initial production run in 1921 and has yet to end. The NAC, WH, Colt, Savage etc (full and semis) are ALL Thompsons alike and all should be trasured for thier many diferences and the snobery about who owns what, when was it made and looking down on guns because of some misconcieved notion of history is detrimental to the hobby.

Pathfinder. Wow. Very well said; thanks. This will be a topic to keep in the Book. Heck, I am tempted to pin it! As moderator however, I must reprimand you for using the phrase "poo pooed" on the board... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we're back to the only true Thompson is the first ones made, then the Colt 1921 is a copy. After all you all forget there was a model 1919 made wasn't there? yes. Not many. Only 5 to known to exist in public hands and Tracie Hill has 4 of them and a guy in Florida has the other. Others are in museums. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/huh.gif So that would make the Colt's, AOC, Savage, Westy, and anybody inbetween a copy wouldn't it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (The1930sRust @ Jan 2 2004, 06:52 AM)
As moderator however, I must reprimand you for using the phrase "poo pooed" on the board... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

Sorry for using such strong language, but it is from the French for 'you can't seriously expect me to buy this crap'. so I thought I could slip it through

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

 

The idea that Colt 21's are copies of the 1919 does not track. Every weapon had a prototype. Their were 24 protoypes of the 1919 by 1918. Eventually there were 35-plus hand fabricated examples. But even so, the 1919 was not the final design elected by John T to be mass produced. Since the same engineers who developed the 1919 for Auto-Ord were the same that finalized the 1921 design, the 1921 could not be considered a replica/copy, but merely the final extension product as constructed by the original principals involved.

 

QUOTE
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.

 

Pathfinder,

 

Historical relevance always has a begining and an end. The Roman Empire is of historical interest regardless of what the capital was. But even that dominant civilization did come to an end. Just because college fraternities revitalized toga parties in 1978, after watching "Animal House", does not mean that there was an historical resurgence of Roman civilization. What makes the Colt 1921/28 historically relevant is that it was the cutting edge of technology for its time. When West Hurley and Kahr came into the picture, it was now the nuclear/space age. What could be historically relevant about companies making copies of an obsolete weapon, whether that weapon is lethal to living critters or not? This could only be an homage perhaps to an earlier period. That is not history; it is novelty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JUST EXACLY WHAT IS AN ORIGINAL THOMPSON?

 

After becoming involved in Thompson Submachine Guns about 3 years ago, I discovered that there are many schools of thought on the famous gun John Thompson designed after the turn of the last century. Not the least of which was any given Tommy guns originality. I decided to look up in the dictionary (online of course) what this word meant. Here is what I have discovered:

 

o·rig·i·nal

(click to hear the word) ( -r j -n l)

adj.

1. Preceding all others in time; first.

2.

a. Not derived from something else; fresh and unusual: an original play, not an adaptation.

b. Showing a marked departure from previous practice; new: a truly original approach. See Synonyms at new.

3. Productive of new things or new ideas; inventive: an original mind.

4. Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made.

n.

1. A first form from which other forms are made or developed: Later models of the car retained many features of the original.

2.

a. An authentic work of art: bought an original, not a print.

b. Work that has been composed firsthand: kept the original but sent a photocopy to his publisher.

3. A person who is appealingly odd or curious; a character.

4. Archaic The source from which something arises; an originator.

SOURCE: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

After reading the books available to me regarding the subject (which I will quote later) and reading the various opinions of Thompson collectors like myself from all over the US and abroad, I decided to write this brief opinion.

 

 

 

Upon reading the great work by Tracie L. Hill starting on page 19, he discusses the first Thompson Submachine Guns. In the first paragraph of page 32, Hill refers to the first 15,000 as EXAMPLES. Examples are defined as follows:

 

ex·am·ple

(click to hear the word) ( g-z m p l)

n.

1. One that is representative of a group as a whole: the squirrel, an example of a rodent; introduced each new word with examples of its use.

2. One serving as a pattern of a specific kind: set a good example by arriving on time.

3. A similar case that constitutes a model or precedent: a unique episode, without example in maritime history.

4.

a. A punishment given as a warning or deterrent.

b. One that has been given such a punishment: made an example of the offender.

5. A problem or exercise used to illustrate a principle or method.

 

SOURCE: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

Beginning on page 37 to pages 43 of Hill’s book are the words of the contract between Auto-Ordnance and Colt’s Patent Manufacturing Firearms Company are shown, and pictures of the Model of 1919 number “26” are available for viewing. I contend that this model of 1919 number “26” is the ORIGINAL Thompson Submachine Gun. I also contend that this Thompson is the ONLY original. The rest are EXAMPLES. Here’s why:

The model of 1919 number 26 was specified in the contract between AO and COLT’S thus fitting the definition of both the adjective and the noun uses of the word “original”. The guns that Colt produced were examples of the original based upon the definition supplied above.

It is also interesting to note that under the definition of “original,” under the adjective version number 4, which states: “Being the source from which a copy, reproduction, or translation is made,” makes all Colt 1921 Thompson Submachine guns copies or reproductions of the original. Therefore I am of the opinion that there are no such things as “original 1921 Thompson Submachine Guns”.

A REDESIGNED Thompson

On page 101 of Mr. Hill’s book, Oscar V Payne redesigned the actuator at the request of the US Marines. Here is the definition of redesigned:

 

re·de·sign

(click to hear the word) (r d -z n )

tr.v. re·de·signed, re·de·sign·ing, re·de·signs

To make a revision in the appearance or function of.

 

 

 

SOURCE: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved

 

Thus the 1928 Thompson was born. Since the Marines are a department of the US Navy they were called the US Navy Model of 1928. In comes Russell Maguire. He purchases the then worthless Auto-Ordnance Corporation and the remaining guns, equipment, and tooling in storage. He then contracts with Savage for production of the 1928 guns. Now read the last paragraph in Hill’s book on page 172. Turns out Colt’s did not produce the entire gun like some fanatical collectors would have you to believe. Other companies supplied major components for the Thompson. Maguire changed this so all work could be done in house. It also turns out that Savage built the 1928 Thompson on the same equipment that Colt’s used to turn out their 15,000 copies. Now read the last paragraph in Hill’s book on page 177 and the first 4 paragraphs on page 179. So then I contend that all 1921 Thompson Submachine Guns and 1928 Thompson Submachine Guns produced by Colt’s, Savage or AO are copies or facsimiles of the ORIGINAL.

 

 

At this time I do not care to get into the M1/M1A1 Design.

 

John Titsworth, Jr.

 

 

(I have the word version if anyone wants it.)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, Jr., I don't think anyone can argue with your analysis, but I am fairly certain that someone will. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.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 http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif I like to think that each version is part of the same family. And some families have 'black sheep', or, dare I say it, bastards, like the semi-automatic versions by West Hurley and Kahr. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.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/smile.gif I enjoy the variations; It makes the hobby more interesting. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Jr,

Not wanting to dissapoint Walter here it is. Now that you have had ample time to defer to encyclopedias for your dissenting opinion, let's look at the results.

 

 

QUOTE
On page 101 of Mr. Hill’s book, Oscar V Payne redesigned the actuator at the request of the US Marines. Here is the definition of redesigned:

 

 

Philip P. Quayle designed the "Slowed Down" actuator, not Oscar Payne, who accepted the credit for this design.

 

 

Of course Auto-Ord and Colt out sourced parts like stocks from Remington, compensators from Cutts, etc. That does not make the final result any less a viable representation of a Colt manufactured firearm.

 

QUOTE
The model of 1919 number 26 was specified in the contract between AO and COLT’S thus fitting the definition of both the adjective and the noun uses of the word “originalâ€. The guns that Colt produced were examples of the original based upon the definition supplied above.

 

The first working prototype of the TSMG was the "Annihilator." It also had the distinction of having the serial number 1. This may be the "original" "original". Does that mean that the 1921/28 guns produced by Colt are copies?....No, because that was a different gun. The 1919 is also a different gun from the 1921, since it did not have a buttstock provison, or any sights. These are both examples of the offspring of Thompson's idea of a "Trench Broom" that he used to test the consumer market. These guns, and the 1921/28 guns, are not only "authentic" but they are also "genuine" (which I think is a term you might also want to research) Thompsons, as ordered into production by the man whose guns bear his name. John T was actually physically alive to make the decesion what was to become of his design. In the end, he decided that 15,000 1921/28 Thompsons were to be produced by Colt and then sold by his company Auto-Ord to the public.

 

The word "original" can and does refer to an item that is one of a kind. By that token, any subsequent offering by an artist, engineer, designer, or what have you, would also be a copy regardles if their creation had no relationship to their initial effort. That is of course not the way art historians, appraisers, or archivists interpret the meaning when applied to completed works by a seperate entity authorized by the founder/architect. All paintings redone by the same artist with his/her signature are indeed originals. However, in the world of manufacturing, machines take the place of an actual hand when it comes to producing the requisit parts. If John T had actually personally signed each gun by hand, then there would be no discussion today. That is why the serial numbers are important in determining the first and only run of Colt 1921/28's. If there were duplicate serial numbers (and I beleive there are one, or two, examples of duplicate Colt TSMG serial numbers) then that would bring into question the "genuineness" of one or both of the guns, even though they both appear to be "authentic". . What makes the Colt numbered guns "originals" is that they represent the concerted attempt by John Thompson to manufacture the 1921 version of his 1919 "Trench Broom" by Colt Firearms of Hartford, Connecticut. The 1919 guns are their own "originals" and in no way conflict with the "originality" of the 15,000 Colt produced 1921/28 guns. There were even 40 Thompsons produced before they began recording the inital gun with serial number 41.

 

QUOTE
It also turns out that Savage built the 1928 Thompson on the same equipment that Colt’s used to turn out their 15,000 copies

 

Tracie Hill's exact quote from the book reads, "on 'much' of the same machinery as Colt's had used." Not all the same equipment. And if Savage were using McGuire obtained machinery, you could hardly say that Savage was not relient on an out source of sorts. Hill goes on to say on page 178 that, "A Savage Commerical Thompson was built up any time a police department or accredited Institution would order one. Most policeman thought they had ordered a Colt Thompson, only to receive a Savage receivered gun with Colt-manufactured parts inside."

 

Why would Hill even bother to make this distinction if the cops were not being deceived by Savage when they delivered non Colt receivered guns? I mean if indeed its all the same thing?

 

In the end, the historical legacy has less to do with the fact that John Thompson happened to strike a deal with Colt to mass produce his submachine guns, (obviously, Auto-Ord was not up to this task themselves as proven by the few model 1919's they managed to produce), but rather that it is the 1921/28 Colt's themselves that own the history associated with the pejoratively termed "Chicago Typewritter." Obviously, the WWII Thompson guns have their own indominitable history. I don't see the conflict here. The post WWII guns are decidedly different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, Jr. and Arthur, I have followed your dispute(s) and I must say that what you are arguing about is minutiae. I respect both of you as intelligent and knowledgeable Thompson afficionados. Please, try to enjoy the hobby! I guess what I am saying is, don't take yourselves too seriously. Sometimes, it is wise to just step back from the canvas and take a good look! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.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/smile.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walter is right. It's kinda semantics. Yes, there are original 1919 prototype Thompsons, original Colt Thompsons, original Savage Commercial Thompsons, original WWII Auto Ordnance/ Savage Thompsons, original NAC prefixed serial number Savage manufactured British proofed Thompsons, original West Hurley Thomspon, and so on, and so on.......at any rate, weren't we talking about L-4's (the little airplanes which one could carry Thompsons in and fire Thompsons from?) It's been many years since I saw Battle of the Bulge. It was a small observation aircraft, but I can't remember what type. Gotta get it one of these days. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur, yes the details are important, but I don't think it is worth it to argue to the point of enmity. Let's be friends! Or, in Rodney King's immortal words, "Can't we all just get along!" http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/blink.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif 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 Regards, Walter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur, I really just dislike seeing people hating one another over something so transitory and, ultimately, impermanent. John has expressed the same sentiment to me, regarding his disputes with you (that he finds it amusing). 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/ohmy.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif Regards, Walter

 

P.S. Hell, you guys should be the best of friends, since you are getting your respective jollies from each other. Maybe you are and don't know it! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/laugh.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well hasn't this all been rather entertaining. Reminds me of school children fighting over who's dad is better then the rest. Remember children, we all have something that everyone else in the world wishes they had. A Thompson Sub Machine Gun. Colt, WWII, NAC, WH, or Airsoft, we all have them because we love the weapon. I am sure I speak for most when I say that I have the Thompson I can afford.

 

In a way I am happy I have a WH, as it "runs" flawlessly, I shoot the heck out of it, and I love just having it in my lap to watch "The Longest Day" with. If I had Al Capone's Colt Thompson, other then watching movies with it, I don't think I could shoot it for fear of hurting a historical piece. I have not noticed Mr. Hill out shooting Colonel Thompson's, Thompson recently.

 

I note that many owners of Colt Thompsons, actually replace functional parts with WWII surplus in order to protect the colt parts. One would have thought if the colt parts were so superior, that they wouldn't want to "junk up" their Colts with mere Savage parts.

 

I would also note that never, not once, has anyone who doesn't own a Thompson ever asked, or commented on mine being a WH. They are all just amazed/thrilled/honored at getting to see/hold/fire a "real" Thompson Sub Machine Gun.

 

So, enjoy your Thompson, shoot it, let your friends shoot it, turn on others to the wonders of gun collecting, because you are a member of a very small group of people who own one of the coolest guns every manufactured.

 

Happy New Year to all.

 

Dave

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...