Kahr Thompson M1a1 Sbr
Posted 25 April 2004 - 01:20 PM
is any of them thought of as a REPLICA???
I think not. The SMGs are all "Thompsons"...........and they add variety and I think some excitement to our hobby; not to mention all the support we have by others who join in with a west hurley or a Kahr or whatever.
I have a Colt 1921...and I really like it ....but I like my Group Industries thompson a lot too and will buy some more of these wonderful american made wonders, including west hurley and military guns.
If it looks like a duck....walks like a duck...quacks like a duck......it isn't a replica....its a duck.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 02:11 PM
|is any of them thought of as a REPLICA???|
Colt did not own the rights to the Thompson. Auto-Ordnance did. If Colt didn't find any problem with other manufacturers making knock-offs of their Colt Government .45, then there isn't a problem. But neither the Thompson family nor Maguire ever gave Numrich their permission, never mind their blessings, to call his guns Thompson's. When you use the word "support" (in the context of more peolpe buying firearms, therefore it is a good thing), you change the discussion from one of de jure to one of politics. That duck analogy makes for nice persiflage, but it hardly applies in a situation where replicas do indeed mimic their target. Does a copy of a Rolex watch look like a Rolex?.... does it tell time?....does it tick?....But is it indeed a Rolex?....You get the picture.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 05:00 PM
|QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Apr 24 2004, 02:01 PM)|
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.
yes arthur true:and i don't know too many collector's.......who have $10,000 to $20,000 samurai swords over the desk...........as prop's.......or $500.00 german helmets' of course there is the exception to every rule...............
as gun collectors go:
and true collector's never part with anything............dealer /collector's...........of course sell off, trade.barter and exchange items over the year's........
in my remaining year's i plan on selling everything off...........so the jackal's and vulture's.............do not present my widow................with that ultimate........"this is my best offer"and all its worth.........B.S.story
hopefully tho...........the whores of the gun world..........will have that happen to them...............gun rich,cash poor.....
wink!! way off topic i know but had to add the ditty......... take care,ron
Posted 25 April 2004 - 05:25 PM
The anology to the Colt 1911 pistol isn't accurate in my opinion. The only reason the U.S. Governament contracted with Remington, Ithica, Union Swith & Signal, etc. was the demand for WWII production. None of the contractors you mentioned made the 1911 pistol between the wars. The only reason Savage made the Thompson prior to WWII was to fill orders from the countries already engaged in the war in Europe. Auto-Ordnance didn't just license any manufacturer that wanted to make the gun for commercial sales. It is well documented that no licensed Thompson submachine guns were made since production ended in 1944. Arthur is correct in his citations from the accepted researchers.
In other words, WWII production demands caused many manufacturer's to make guns at the request of the Government. This wasn't the case when Numrich bought the remaining assets in the 1950's and started production of newly made receivers in the late 1960s and '70s. The Auto-Ordnance trademark was never licensed to them and the guns they made were knock-offs of the originals.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 06:20 PM
Carefull! You might be accused of heresy. But so was Galileo, Copernicus, Ptolemy (even though he was confused on the earth and sun thing),and others who seek truth in the face of those in denial.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 06:40 PM
If the guy digs shooting that model then so be it.Just be happy you are still able to shoot one.(Thank god)!Man i went through all that same bullshit when i had my harley.(My harley is more authentic than yours blah ,blah blah!
Hey to me they all are of the thompson family even though they are not exactly like the colts. They are cousins of the colt. Good enough!
I would rather shoot a replica or cousin of a tommy than any other real mcoy gun .(Except of the colt tommy itself).
Edited by chitowngangster, 25 April 2004 - 06:44 PM.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 07:28 PM
Posted 25 April 2004 - 09:46 PM
Posted 25 April 2004 - 10:04 PM
|But you know what? The $35 Asian electronic "replica" of the $4000 Rolex is superior in almost every way...slightly thicker, more durable, virtually indistinguishable appearance, but keeps PERFECT time, unlike the Rolex! So not all replicas are bad just because they are replicas.|
You keep confusing quality (as dubious as that may be in WH/Kahr versions), with simple honesty. As crazy as it may seem to you, some people actually expect that the merchandise they buy is indeed what the label says it is. I wonder how you would feel if you bought that $35 Asian replica for $4000, even if it did keep better time? The way that purveyors of knock-off watches keep out of trouble is that they change a letter in the brand name of the company they are ripping-off. Numrich never had a twinge of conscience to call his version the "Thimpson." This may be of negligible interest to you, but even though it is a tiny injustice in the grand scheme of things, it is still a bone of contention to those who notice little things like the theft of a person's reputation and honor. Even a "Thompson agnostic" must appreciate the injustice and imorality of the appropriation of Thompson's name and company to adorn firearms that neither he, his family, or any member of his company authorized. While it is perfectly natural for some gun enthusists to not see beyond their own muzzle flash, one would hope that during a lull in their lives they might consider that maybe there is more to their firearm than just steel, plastic and wood.
Posted 25 April 2004 - 10:35 PM
If so, then it would be legal for anyone with allot of spare cash to buy all the machining equipment and start producing more replica Thompson's, and Kahr couldn't do anything.
Then the new manufacturer could actually build a better gun. Perhaps even place a working knock off Lyman style site on it.
Then if you really want to be a "true" purist, the only true Thompson would be the ones manufactured by the original AO, once they got on their feet. Given the fact that Colt did a fantastic job making them, they are not original Thompson's..
Gee, this topic sure grew a life of it's own, from the original request as to if a Kahr M1A1 SBR would be a good idea...
Posted 26 April 2004 - 07:30 PM
Posted 28 April 2004 - 12:30 PM
Anyway, I'm happy with mine, I have had work done on it like Grey Crow, and that has made it more appreciable. To me. To hell with anyone else, its not their gun
Posted 28 April 2004 - 05:09 PM
Anybody want to adopt me?
Posted 28 April 2004 - 06:30 PM
Bring those two coward US military deserters back with ya, and you can live in the basement room here. I'll even give you the combination to the safe!
Posted 28 April 2004 - 08:02 PM
I just wanted some opinions on the weapon and thought this would be the sight for it. Anyway thanks for the info and I'm thankful that I was able to buy one. God Bless America and 2nd Amed. Look forward to talking more about the guns.
My wife just roles her eyes.
Posted 28 April 2004 - 08:13 PM
Congrats! Welcome to the club. Now, don't fret. You're not the first person who has had a post morphed by the tired rant about what constitutes a Thompson. Enjoy yours! Oh, and this IS the site for Thompson questions, they be old or new...
Posted 28 April 2004 - 08:42 PM
LOL, first modification the mag catch! And get a bunch of GI mags.
That in itself, in many cases will cure feed problems. If you have any.
Keep it clean and oiled that also assists in feed problems.
You'll love it........
My wife STILL has no idea how much I have invested in the 27 and original Thompson items.
Although I do maintain a spread sheet of values should I kiss off.
Posted 28 April 2004 - 09:26 PM
I think the market supports you. otherwise, a Kahr SBR semi (rebuilt by PK-mine) would be worth the same.
I also have learner much from you and would consider you one of the best resources for information on the Thompson. BUT.....
The fact is, I cannot afford a FA Thompson, and if I bought one, would have to use it to shoot the divorce lawyer my wife would hire in order to prevent it from being sold to spite me. I would not be shooting it on auto at the range, so it would serve no useful purpose other than to inflate my ego while depleting my wallet.
I can get just as much of a thrill shooting mine and not worrying about my insurance co refusing to pay replacement value on a 60 year old firearm, so for those of use without means to join the purists, I say your assertions while valid, are just so much elitist BS.
Rangers Lead the Way!!
Posted 29 April 2004 - 08:18 AM