Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NAC Thompson Gun


  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#61 hawksnest

hawksnest

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1031 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:central Ohio
  • Interests:Class III weapons

Posted 02 January 2004 - 05:08 PM

Neat aircraft photos. This is off topic but does anyone have a WWII Fiesler Storch?
  • 0

#62 Waffen Und Bier

Waffen Und Bier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Like the name says "Guns and beer" (and really hot chicks who like guns and beer).

Posted 02 January 2004 - 05:14 PM

Weeks' Fantasy of Flight Museum in Lakelend FL has a Fi 156 Storch. Nice piece.
  • 0

#63 Kevin

Kevin

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:western, TN
  • Interests:Airplanes
    Guns
    Hot Rods

Posted 02 January 2004 - 06:50 PM

Nice L4. Flew super cubs, J3s.J4s years ago. Stuck in an Airbus 300-600 now.
kevin
  • 0

#64 Jay Baker

Jay Baker

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Atlanta GA
  • Interests:Firearms, history, science fiction, old movies.

Posted 02 January 2004 - 07:18 PM

Hey, is that the plane that Henry Fonda spotted those panzers from in The Battle of the Bulge? Nice.
  • 0

#65 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 02 January 2004 - 10:12 PM

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.)


  • 0

#66 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 02 January 2004 - 10:32 PM

John, Jr., I don't think anyone can argue with your analysis, but I am fairly certain that someone will. laugh.gif ohmy.gif blink.gif 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. ohmy.gif sad.gif blink.gif smile.gif I enjoy the variations; It makes the hobby more interesting. biggrin.gif smile.gif cool.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#67 PK.

PK.

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CO, USA
  • Interests:Full time gunsmith who loves Thompsons, 35+ years experience.

Posted 02 January 2004 - 10:37 PM

Well done John Jr., I applaud your scholarship!
  • 0

#68 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2004 - 12:53 AM

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 “original”. 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.

  • 0

#69 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:19 AM

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! blink.gif ohmy.gif smile.gif biggrin.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#70 Waffen Und Bier

Waffen Und Bier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 645 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Like the name says "Guns and beer" (and really hot chicks who like guns and beer).

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:31 AM

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. smile.gif
  • 0

#71 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:39 AM

Walter,
You have to be kidding? If it were not for minutia, all that would be left on these boards would be a lot of white space, and an occasional doll.

  • 0

#72 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:43 AM

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!" blink.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#73 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:48 AM

Walter,
This all may be pointless pontificating, but I don't consider it anything other than amusement. Even though you thought John Jr had the definitve slant on this topic.

  • 0

#74 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 01:56 AM

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). blink.gif rolleyes.gif ohmy.gif 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! tongue.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif
  • 0

#75 45wheelgun

45wheelgun

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 33 posts

Posted 03 January 2004 - 07:33 AM

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
  • 0

#76 PK.

PK.

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CO, USA
  • Interests:Full time gunsmith who loves Thompsons, 35+ years experience.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 11:21 AM

The differences between the 1919 and 1921 (stock & sights) are minor and don’t mean squat. You can put a hot rod body on a VW chassis, but it’s still a VW.

You guys enjoy your argument (I see no hate or even serious contention), it is a healthy intellectual exchange and it doesn’t bother me one bit as long as no one takes the elitist attitude.

I am not going to argue that an M1 rifle made by IH is not a “real” M1 rifle, or US&S 1911A1 isn’t “real” either.

My take: If it looks like a dog, barks like a dog and smells like a dog, it’s a dog. Parts are completely interchangeable between all 1921 & 1928 TSMG’s, no matter who made ‘um. While I can appreciate the differences in manufacturing methods employed during the various dispensations of production, I’m a shooter; that the design is sound and they work very well is all that really matters to me.


  • 0

#77 21 smoker

21 smoker

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1333 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West coast ,FL
  • Interests:collecting nfa, old cars, huntin` n fishin`, reloading ammo

    NRA CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR
    MVPA RESTORATION MEMBER
    MARINE CORP LEAGUE PISTOL TEAM MEMBER

Posted 03 January 2004 - 04:18 PM

Well,...now you guys went and did it,... all this talk of NAC tmsgs, I couldn`t take it any more,`I`m mad as hell and I`m not gonna take it anymore!`....just kidding,but this very morning a deal came along on a early Savage #24169 and thanks to all the recent discourse,I had some background to know what I was looking at.I was perfectly happy with my 21 and wh28, but Nooooooooooooo... you guys had to thoroughly discuss the ins and outs of owning an NAC Thompson.Ah ignorance is bliss... but really this board has been a wealth of info...thanks everyone for your input.This particular NAC Tommy is a dewat and is to be rewatted as part of the deal,...I`ll post some pics soon ...British proofed,lower group ser# ground off,,possible military refurb?...another mystery thompson to unravel...Oh boy!KEEPEM`SMOKIN`,out. wink.gif
  • 0

#78 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 04:33 PM

PK is right and confirms what I wrote earlier. These guns all belong to the same family of weapons. Yes, there are 'black sheep', even bastards, but they are all Thompsons. In families one twin child is born a few seconds earlier than the other; Are we going to claim that this first-born child is better, more important, or the 'original' child. In most reasonable families, both are equally accepted and loved. As far as the intellectual arguments between Arthur and John, Jr., perhaps I'm reading too much into the barbs! blink.gif smile.gif ohmy.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#79 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 03 January 2004 - 05:12 PM

Beshides artur youse best come round to our think'in otherwise youse jest might get it too!! Ya,Ya eat lead......Muggsy

Attached Files


  • 0

#80 MP43

MP43

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 38 posts
  • Location:Ohio
  • Interests:Military Sniper Rifles, Lugers, 50s Vintage Ford Ragtops. <br>new into the SMG clan. My SMG is a Reising 55 and now looking to buy a Thompson.

Posted 03 January 2004 - 10:28 PM

Since my original post started this discussion I thought I would chime in here at the end if this is the end. I took a little different approach to this discussion. I'm afraid it was purely selfish and monetary in nature and I'm almost sure true collectors will find it of little interest. Problem is I stuck it at the tail end of the "getting young folks hooked" post and I'm too lazy to type it here. Since this thread went this direction it probably would be just as, if not more relevant here. Please excuse the typo on KAHR. Hank rolleyes.gif
  • 0