Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Kahr Thompson M1a1 Sbr


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 43FordGPW

43FordGPW

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 40 posts
  • Location:Zionsville, Indiana
  • Interests:I've a 1943 Ford Jeep, it took me 2 1/2 to restore and I <br>like to duck hunt.<br>

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:41 PM

biggrin.gif The Kahr Thompson M1A1 SBR. I'm new to this and checked to see if anyone had asked this question and did'nt come acros it. I would rather buy a semi-auto than pay a large amount for the full-auto. Plus I can afford it.
Is this a good buy or a bad buy, Any input would be gratful.
Thanks......... biggrin.gif
  • 0

#2 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 23 April 2004 - 08:55 PM

43 Ford,

I haven't heard any feedback about the SBR's as to function, but the Kahr Tommy's are not know to shoot reliably out of the box. A few have purchased some that did.

My 27A1 had feed problems but they were not very difficult to remedy.

I'm do not regret my purchase!
  • 0

#3 DC Chris

DC Chris

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD

Posted 23 April 2004 - 10:14 PM

I have a Kahr M1 in my collection as well. Its on a form one for short barrel.

I had no problems with it out of the box (not even an extractor broke) and it is quite accurate at 25 at 50 yards. I have probably put over 1500 rounds through it with no faults on the gun itself. I can respect not having the money for full auto, so get what you can afford and enjoy it. Its honestly a fun little piece to shoot and I don't regret picking it up a few years ago. Of course that is my opinion, even though some people here think if you don't have a Colt, you don't have a Thompson. I disagree, but I find most Kahr/WH semi/full auto bashers have never even owned one. But thats okay - its all about doing whats right for you, plus the debate is always fun.

IMHO the thing to not skimp on with this generation of semi M1's is getting good quality 20/30 shot magazines. I have no problems with the parked 30 round Seymour that came with it, but do have some feed issues with the 20 round AO's I picked up at a show. This was the fault of the magazines feed lips being out of spec(which I learned from this fourm) and questionable springs. I haven't invested the time to rebuild them yet ... might just send them out for refurbishment to PK with some other work I have. But mags are cheap and plentiful, so I am not really crying over it.

You might also want to consider replacing the magazine catch to use stock full auto magazines. Unfortunately, the mag that comes with it was modified for semi auto (see the FAQ for more info) and trashed a pretty nice stick for use in my full auto.

I say go forth and have fun. Remember that the SBR is an NFA item, so make sure your state and local laws permit this and your Chief Law Enforcement Officer in your state will sign off on the paperwork. You will not be able to get the gun without it. Otherwise, its the nasty 16.5" barrel. Most states will permit this, but make sure you add in the $200 federal tranfer tax into your buget if you go the SBR route or decide to convert it to SBR later on.

Let us know if you have any other questions!

Chris.

Edited by DC Chris, 23 April 2004 - 10:14 PM.

  • 0

#4 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 April 2004 - 11:32 PM

Chris,
It is not opinion that dictates there were no Thompson's made after 1944, it is the documentation. As far as Kahr being a poorly made Thompson replica, that seems to be the consensus of numerous owners who have shared their views on this board. It is not a conspiracy to condemn the replica, but rather honest appraisals by consumers with no axe to grind. What would PK do without all the work he gets from owners of WH's and Kahr's wanting more than the factory delivered?

  • 0

#5 DC Chris

DC Chris

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD

Posted 24 April 2004 - 12:31 AM

"Arthur"-

Somehow I knew you would respond to this but I like intelligent debate, so here goes. Please consider the following:

First- You are not PK. I think its rather presumptious for you to say what his workload break out is. I have seen many a Colt 21 and Savage/Bridgeports that could use his touch - both in finish and function. As examples, see the Vito Colt and that really bad Bridgeport from the Guns America/Gun Broker dealer with no finish left on it and how it sometimes spits two bullets in semi mode. Unless you are the Dr. Jekyll of the Mr. Hyde, his co-worker, accountant, or best friend, please don't speak for the man or his business because you are 100% not qualified to make these statements.

Second- There absolutely are Thompsons made after 1944. The rights have changed hands as has which company has created them, but it is still the same form, operating principle and function in NAC, WH and Kahr models. In fact, you can easily interchange parts from a 1928 Savage made in WWII to a West Hurley made in 1986. You can make the same analogy with cars. Its like you saying its only a Volkswagen Beetle if it was made in Germany in the 1930s under a socialist regime. But that can't be because my neighbor has a 2002 Beetle sitting in her driveway. Both are Volkswagens made by different groups in different locations in different eras. Both titles say ,anufacturer Volkswagen and model Beetle, just as the ATF paperwork would for a Savage 1928 or a West Hurley 1928 - Manufacturer: Auto Ordinance, Model: 1928. I also have a couple of ATF tax stamps and spare parts interchanges with Savage units that contradict your documentation as well. They sure seem to fit well in my "replica" stamped with the words "Auto Ordinance" and "Thompson Sub Machine Gun" all over it.

Third- I have given this thread an honest review of my experiences of a current model semi-automatic M1. Bottom line is I have had no problems with it. There are other owners on other fourms who have had little or no problems as welll. Sorry my opinion doesn't fit with your idea of the consensus, but it seems you have the axe to grind. Ever own one? You probably have not (correct me if I am wrong, please), so that makes you even more non-qualified to talk the merits of this generation of gun.

Truth be told, there are problems with pretty much any product that people buy these days brand new. Houses, cars, computers and yes, even guns. Just because my Dodge truck has a problem or my hard drive crashes in my PC doesn't mean that I don't own a car or use a computer.

The internet is a wonderful thing - just because 6 people come here over the year and are vocal about their problems with their Kahr Tompsons, there are probably thousands of others that don't because they are satisified and don't need RMA's (I base this on serial number progression). If Kahr only sold 10 Thompsons a year, simple math might prove your "consensus" argument that the majority don't work out of the box. Again, unless you know the RMA rate per gun produced by Kahr (and you probably don't, please correct me if you do), you are failing to take into account satisified owners which probably make up the majority of sales. Truth be told, all you seem to care about and attempt to make "consensus" arguments knocking "replicas" is based on is the vocal minority with an internet connection and a web browser because thats all you see.

Think about it.

Chris.

Edited by DC Chris, 24 April 2004 - 01:35 AM.

  • 0

#6 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 24 April 2004 - 09:57 AM

43FordGPW,
Here is the conclusion that I came to on this subject. An MGC model Thompson would cost you $400 To $700 and they only fire caps. A dummy from Kahr would be couple hundred more but they still don't shoot anything. For a few hundred more than that you can get a real firearm from Kahr. Even if there not perfect out of the box you still have a Thompson and that, my friend is pretty neat. Thompsons are all about what you can afford and there is something for everyone.

Lancer
  • 0

#7 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2004 - 11:44 AM

Chris,
The history of Auto-Ordnance is not in dispute. The company ceased to exist in 1944 and Magurie never sold, lent, deferred, assigned, passed on, consigned or transfered through osmosis the Thompson name or bullet logo trademark to Numrich. This historical fact is also supported by Cox, Hill, Richardson, Helmer, Herigstad and anyone else with even a passing acquaintance with the Thompson story. The MGC toy gun also sports the name "Thompson," but that doesn't make it one. ATF is not an arbiter of what can be called what when patents and trademarks have expired. If you derive personal satisfaction that a Kahr is a legitimate Thompson, because it says "Thompson" on the gun so it must be so, then enjoy the feeling of believing in a misapprehension. The fact that parts are interchangeable with legitimate Thompson's does not further advance the notion that any gun calling itself a Thompson after 1944 isn't a knock-off.

I am the owner of a WH Thompson bought back in the 1970's. I never had problems with it jamming so I don't have a grievance with its performance, even though I knew it wasn't a legitimate Thompson when I purchased it. I have never owned a Kahr; this is true. But there are way more than 6 people who have posted on this board that the Kahr is a car wreck. Just because the general public mistakenly thinks that Kahr produces a "Thompson" that has any association with the weapon of yesteryear does not buttress the notion that they make a legitimate Thompson. Ignorance is not a persuasive motivation to render fiction into fact. Kahr is just the only game in town for the time being. If your Kahr runs flawlessly out of the box then congratulations are in order. Does that change the fact that it still isn't a Thompson? No.

Vito's boat anchor Colt TSMG is indeed an example that shows the wear and tear of 80+ years of handling, shooting, and probably indifference in up keep. But the gun did not come from the factory that way. If you think PK's "Thompson" end of his business (of course their are other gunsmiths working on Thompson's and their replicas), predominately deals with refurbishing Colt TSMG's instead of tinkering with WH/Kahr's to make them more reliable and massage their appearance to make them look less like replicas then I suggest emailing him yourself for confirmation.


QUOTE
Thompsons are all about what you can afford and there is something for everyone.


Lancer,
I have never heard that the sine qua non of a Thompson was their "affordability." It is true that there is something out there for everybody which is why the replicas were made to accomodate that demand.

  • 0

#8 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 24 April 2004 - 01:43 PM

and a hey non nonnee and a hot cha cha!!! groucho marx.......


folks buy what you like,and can afford.................show off any tommygun to 98% of the public................replica's mgc.model's kahr's,moonee's..............wes -hurlee's..........





and you know what they will say time and time again......."darn thats a thompson,tommygun,chicago typewriter,piano,full auto gat,and whatever.................


i have a replica samurai sword over my desk..........{you know why}i sold my original{1400 century} years ago for fairly big buck's......and replaced it with that........because nobody cared,and i did not want $5,000.00..........{value of sword}hard earned cash.................sitting over the desk to gaze at.....the cheepie did the job................

and that is why i don't have a safe full of colt thompson's anymore,"weep"

one is enough..................and a 1928a1 military to shoot..........whenever that might happen again....


so don't get too hung up on affordability,somebody comments on what you own..............hey man!! even ole saddam had a nice m1a1,.............now look what he's doing now.....................ya think he care's..........

buy and shoot what you like. can afford,or want to afford!!and be done with it......................

because it does not make any difference in the whole scheme of thing's............really it doesn't.

take those few word's......from somebody who know's.wink!!

enjoy, go in peace.and get yourself a 20 rd mag and be happy!
ron, colt 21a when i feel in the mood........
  • 0

#9 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:01 PM

QUOTE
i have a replica samurai sword over my desk..........{you know why}i sold my original{1400 century} years ago for fairly big buck's......and replaced it with that........because nobody cared,and i did not want $5,000.00..........{value of sword}hard earned cash.................sitting over the desk to gaze at.....the cheepie did the job................


Ron,
The dictum is that "you" never confused the replica with the original even though they both seemed to serve the same aesthetic purpose for you.

  • 0

#10 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1055 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:29 PM

Arthur,
I was only trying to convey to 43FordGPW that he should buy what he can afford and enjoy it. I'm not interested in debating abstact philosophical views on what is and is not in the character of an inanimate object. (I know, I know, when your dumping a 50 round drum it would seem a Thompson is very animate biggrin.gif ) I understand your views and don't really have an opinion on them. I just want to encourage everyone who has an interest in our hobby regardless of what kind of a "Thompson" they can afford.

I must say I have read alot of your posts, you have alot of interesting points of view.

Lancer
  • 0

#11 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:39 PM

Much obliged, Lancer.
  • 0

#12 Ron A

Ron A

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 641 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Helena, Montana
  • Interests:Collector of Thompson guns & items<br>Colt single actions<br>Native American items - pre 1900

Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:53 PM

Arthur - different strokes for different folks!
  • 0

#13 DC Chris

DC Chris

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD

Posted 24 April 2004 - 02:53 PM

Arthur-

I am simply asking you to back up what you have claimed with some proof. You haven't done so.

1) You asserted that PK's business was primarily fixing WH and Kahr Thompsons. You turn it around by asking me to email him and ask. I don't have to do that. You made the statement, you back it up.

2) You stated that there have been many more than six people complaining about Kahr created Thompsons, and you are correct. But the numbers are not the sticking point (they were used as an example). Lets try this again. If 6 people complained about the 10 Thompsons sold, then 6/10 = 60% and thats a majority of owners having a problem. Obviously, Kahr has created many more than 10 Thompsons over the last 5 or so years. I am simply asking you to provide proof to your consensus. If 4000 were made and 100 had RMA's, that is simply not a majority. You are only taking into the account the vocal minority who have found these forums and have stated as such and completely ignore the owners (such as me) who have positive experiences. You also don't take into account these guns being used with poor condition accesories (drums, sticks, ammo) etc which could easily be blamed on the firearm by the novice shooter. Its very common to misplace blame (ex, yell at the cashier because the cook forgot to make your dinner) in this country. Again, backup what you claim and I will eat my words and concede this point.

3) As far as replicas go, the MGC Thompson is not a Thompson in my and not in any ones point of view. While it may (losely) have the *form* of a Thompson SMG, it does not have the *function* or *operating principles* of a full or semi automatic Thompson SMG - regardless of the vintage or maker. Ex, the function of a Thompson gun is to discharge a round of live fire. These are not designed to do that and cannot be made to do so.

4) With the other Thompsons, you simply cannot sit here and tell me that a Colt never had a problem off of the production line. Why were they shipped with parts kits? I don't own a Colt and not as famailar with them as some here, so please enlighten us with some facts as to why you think a mechanical device couldn't have a problem due to human error. Got any data to back that claim up? I want to understand why you think these 1921's are infallable, pristine centerpieces of mechanical engineering that are devoid of any human error. You seem to feel strongly about it and I just don't buy that these guns are perfect of the assembly line, as human beings who make mistakes, made them. This issue is really not provable, but I want to know why you make your claims the way you do.

With replicas, just because Bell Labs patented the telephone way backwhen does not mean the phone on my desk is not a telephone. In fact, if a patent has expired, the information can be used in the public domain to allow other companies/individuals create identical product for proft. That is what happened (in a nutshell) and thats just the way patent law is. I still fail to see why you consider this rendering fact to fiction.

Chris.
  • 0

#14 43FordGPW

43FordGPW

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 40 posts
  • Location:Zionsville, Indiana
  • Interests:I've a 1943 Ford Jeep, it took me 2 1/2 to restore and I <br>like to duck hunt.<br>

Posted 24 April 2004 - 03:43 PM

biggrin.gif Guys I just wanted to know if it was a good buy.......
I could care less if its a Ford or Chevy. Thanks
Joe............ ohmy.gif
  • 0

#15 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2004 - 04:32 PM

43ford,
It's cool. This is just about recalcitrant owners of post WWII replica Thompson's and their struggle with reality.


QUOTE
You are only taking into the account the vocal minority who have found these forums and have stated as such and completely ignore the owners (such as me) who have positive experiences.



Chris,
I don't have a dog in the fight as to whether Kahr's shoot or don't shoot. You can dismiss the fact that some owners ship their Kahr's out to gunsmiths to make them look and function like the gun they are emulating. But how is it that those on this board who express negative experiences with Kahr are the "vocal minority," and therefore, your support of all things Kahr is the silent majority? By that logic only disgruntled Kahr owners are gregarious, while gruntled owners, other than yourself, are phlegmatic and never venture fourth into gun board websites. You only look at the sales figures, not the number of guns returned to Kahr for fixing. Do I have these numbers? No. Do I really care what they are? No. Were Colt TSMG's sent back to Auto-Ord for new features, rebarreling, rebluing or whatever? You betcha! Whom ever disputed that? My point of embarkation (substantiated with the reasearch of the whose who of the Tommy Gun), regarding post WWII replica Thompson's is just that, they are replicas. Whether they need modification to make them work or they shoot out of the box doesn't have anything to do with this simple fact.

Auto-Ordnance under Thompson, T.F. Ryan or Maguire neve manufactured a semi-auto Thompson. The model 1927 Colt TSMG was a full-auto converted to fire semi, but still from an open bolt. So what Numrich did in 1975 when he made his replica closed bolt semi-auto version is again another clue that the WH/Kahr semi-auto has anything to do with the original Auto-Ordnance company.

This is not a slight on your SBR Kahr M1. But you shouldn't postulate that now that your Kahr looks more like an Auto-Ord Thompson it actually is one.

  • 0

#16 The1930sRust

The1930sRust

    Respected Member and Board Donor

  • Moderator
  • 1939 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Confederate, Kentucky
  • Interests:Thompsons, obviously. Proud West Hurley 1928 and Savage M1 owner, cave explorer, and KSP trooper (retired). Also interested in 1920-1930 American history. I appreciate all Thompson models and their owners.

Posted 24 April 2004 - 07:51 PM

"Gentlemen! You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!"
  • 0

#17 Motorcar

Motorcar

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 620 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2004 - 10:30 PM

Once again Aurthur.....right or wrong....you are most certainly worth the price of admission! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif
  • 0

#18 427sohc

427sohc

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 29 posts

Posted 25 April 2004 - 07:20 AM

buy the khar,i have one and its alot of fun.ive put many rounds down the tube without a problem.
  • 0

#19 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 25 April 2004 - 09:53 AM

I agree 427!

The "only" problems I had were magazine related, and easily remedied.

I decided to go with PK's modifications to more closely resemble the FA, but still staying way low of the price of a FA. I went the SBR route, bolt hold open, EZ frame removal, re-shaped actuator, GI paddle selectors, .5" grip mount. Soon a Deerslayer grip.

Sue I'd love a Colt, Savage, AO or for that matter a Kahr FA. But the semi is within my budget..... I enjoy it and use it whenever I get the chance. (raining here today sad.gif ) I also find pleasure in collecting Thompson related items, I've amassed quite a few printed ads from the early days as well as the various little trinkets that Ira Trast placed into manufacture.

Bottom line as mentioned earlier get what you can legally own, and afford, and have a blast with it.
  • 0

#20 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 April 2004 - 10:31 AM

QUOTE
There are numerous minor variations. But not one of these post-1939 guns is, or can possibly be considered, a "replica" of the Colt. It didn't happen.


Phil,
Who said anything about the year 1939? I said post WWII. I didn't even mention Colt. It is about the company Auto-Ordnance that owned the Thompson. What didn't happen? Your usuallly verbose posts missed the entire point of why post 1944 samples of "Thompson's" are replicas. You can't pray at the temples of the Thompson gods like Helmer, Cox, Hill, Herigstad, Richardson et al, but then become an atheist when it comes to their collective commandment that all Thompson's made post 1944 are replicas, facsimiles or copies. Look at that Group Industry submachine gun. That company didn't stamp "Thompson," "Auto-Ordnance" or the bullet logo on the receiver, but they might as well have since West Hurley and Kahr had no more right to stamp those names on their replicas.

  • 0