New Auto Ordnance M1 Carbine
Posted 02 February 2004 - 10:33 PM
The problem is that Kahr uses the Thompson name, therefore there is an expectation from buyers who believe they are getting a heritage weapon. If the company called it the "Kahr .45 Caliber Carbine" then you might have a case. It is not as if this design was not fool-proofed a long time ago. Indifference in manufacturing and assembly by the maker is a sign of contempt for the consumer.
Posted 02 February 2004 - 11:46 PM
|QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Feb 2 2004, 10:33 PM)|
It is not as if this design was not fool-proofed a long time ago. Indifference in manufacturing and assembly by the maker is a sign of contempt for the consumer.
Arthur, I unreservedly agree with you on your point about contempt for the consumer, on the part of Kahr. Regards, Walter
Posted 03 February 2004 - 09:30 AM
For those of us without the means to buy a FA, Kahr is the only option, and I amvery glad to have someone like PK who can turn it into something you can have a lifetime of fun shooting. I do however agree that Kahr raising their prices a little and producing better quality weapons would create a lot of good will. JMHO
Posted 03 February 2004 - 09:50 AM
|For those of us without the means to buy a FA, Kahr is the only option|
I understand that the NFA Thompson's are cost prohibitive, and may not be legal in some states, however, I don't see how the Kahr version represents a suitable alternative. Considering the Kahr price tag, and its only nodding acquaintance with the weapon it is attempting to replicate, they really do not represent an option at all. The difference between the military weapons you used, bought with tax payer dollars, and a weapon you purchased as a private citizen, is that you have choices, and if you feel there is only one choice, you have an obligation to hold that manufacturer's feet to the fire.
Posted 03 February 2004 - 10:02 AM
I bet the workers at Kahr, avoid telling anyone where they work, in which this has a sub-conscious negative effect on their attention to detail on the job; Hence, we the consumer 'buy' shoddy work........dr.jw
Posted 03 February 2004 - 10:03 AM
Posted 03 February 2004 - 02:42 PM
I guess it comes down to what you are willing to put up with to get what you want. I really wish Kahr did make a quality weapon that I could brag about right out of the box, and you are right, for 8-900$ I do have a right to expect it to work. I also own several Rugers that I have run thousands of rounds through and wish the A2's I used were as reliable! The problem with Kahr like other problems involves human behavior which doesn't change overnight. My question is, how we force Kahr to make something that is worthy of the name?
(Short of lots of nasty letters and a total boycott-maybe its the only way) In the meantime, PK has mine and I look forward to using it when it gets back!
Posted 03 February 2004 - 03:37 PM
Perhaps, and not confined to guns alone. I have some cowboy code here that cost a good deal, like 50 times more than a Kahr, and it has far more stoppages than a Kahr. Myself, though I am not that old, would be ashamed to have sold such muck, but I am not that young either.
I don't expect guns, newly made, to work well, there just doesn't seem to be many that do. Well my Remington 700 holds 1/2 moa and sometimes better, but it was lucky lucky. And i'm sure it could do with a bit of professional finishing, but it already shoots better than me. Before buying my 27, I knew, thanks to this board, what to expect, and who to send it to if it proved beyond the remedies suggested here. I never intended giving Kahr a crack at it. I suppose that enables them, if everyone follows that course. So it goes.
As to not being a Thompson: it's not a Thompson. End of that discussion. I, rather, PK, Dan and Phil, made it look outwardly somewhat like one. It does shoot well, and trouble free, which is more important to me than looks, or I'd buy a dummy.
Posted 03 February 2004 - 07:50 PM
Posted 03 February 2004 - 08:10 PM
As far as Kahr using the name Thompson on the gun, I suggest you read the NAC Thompson thread on this board. Anyone could have used the name "Thompson" on a facsimile when the trademark name, as owned by Maguire's Auto-Ord, expired after 1944. Your AR-15 might have been junk, but at least it was a relative of the M-16. When you cast your gaze on a Kahr, it is immediately apparent that there is no family resemblance to Thompson.
|As to not being a Thompson: it's not a Thompson. End of that discussion. TAB|
I can't improve on that!
Posted 03 February 2004 - 08:56 PM
Posted 03 February 2004 - 09:52 PM
Posted 03 February 2004 - 10:15 PM
Those rules don't apply to inanimate objects. Unless you know of a gun with feelings?
Posted 03 February 2004 - 10:50 PM
I am with you. Colt, Savage, West Hurley, Kahr - its all the same design and I also consider them all Thompsons for what its worth.
I cannot speak to the quality, but the important part is if you like the gun and it makes you proud to own and shoot it then don't worry about it.
People have to realize that not everyone can plunk down 15K+ for a Colt 21 at todays prices, so you do what you can on a working mans salary. I can respect that. Now, if I hit the lottery.... thats a different story!
Fire it. Take care of it and enjoy it. Don't worry about what other people think. Talking smack about someone elses Thompson is pretty immature if its all the man can afford.
Just my .02-
Posted 03 February 2004 - 11:11 PM
Posted 03 February 2004 - 11:12 PM
Posted 04 February 2004 - 07:05 AM
Posted 04 February 2004 - 11:00 AM
|QUOTE (Sgt @ Feb 3 2004, 11:11 PM)|
|Universal has a good M-1 carbine repro. Does Kahr intend to do one that's more authentic?|
Why not buy the real deal for about the same price and have a piece of history AND something made of better materials!