Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Nac '28a1 For Sale


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#41 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 June 2004 - 09:35 PM

Blishblock - Thank you for your reply on NAC 17. It is quite obvious that NAC 17 is a Savage receiver. The Form 3 lists the manufacturer of NAC 17 as Auto-Ordnance. AZDoug has NAC 15 and the manufacturer is listed as Colt. I have a theory about the NAC prefix guns that I will share later. Hopefully, a few more posts will come in on NAC prefix guns that may give us a little more to go on.

I find it very interesting your AO NAC suffix Model of 1928AC Thompsons show McGuire Industries as the maker. Do you know if Delaware State Police traded them to Numrich Arms in 1981 (prior to your purchase) or purchased them from Numrich Arms in the 1950's or 1960's? PhilOhio has a 1928 marked just like yours without the NAC suffix that he believes was sold directly to a police department by Auto-Ordnance during the war years. Phil - is McGuire Industries listed as the manufacturer on your Model of 1928AC on your Form 4? I would think that McGuire Industries listed as the manufacturer would be a good indication the gun was sold right out of the factory. Who else but McGuire Industries would ever think to put McGuire Industries as the manufacturer? It is just a thought; I certainly don't know this to be true.

As I said before, I will gladly keep the tally. How about contributing to this post if you have or know of a NAC prefix or suffix Thompsons. Very little has been written or recorded on this subject. This can be a great learning experience for all.
Thanks again,

  • 0

#42 blishblock

blishblock

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 June 2004 - 10:52 PM

Please allow me to correct an error in describing the Maguire guns. I was working from memory late last night. The maker on the Delaware guns is stated as " Maguire Industries Inc., Auto-Ordnance Division, Bridgeport , Conn." Model on the Form 3 is "28AC". Serial on the form 3 is "AO 150029X". THe gun is numbered the same way, that is orignal Auto Ord number with an X stamped after the number. US is ground out and the 1 inA1 is overstamped with a C. Same is true of an Auto Ord gun with serial in 38 thousand range.
So these guns aren't Numerich guns at all. They are post war or even ww2 sales by Maguire Ind.
I believe these to be interesting variations of the 28A1.
Sorry to say that they were NAC---they are not.
  • 0

#43 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 June 2004 - 11:54 PM

The reason George Numrich, who, as Roger Cox states, bought the physical assets of the "Auto-Ordnance Company," but not the name from Fred Willis, felt compelled to scribe NAC on Colt/Savage/AO/Maguire Industries Thompson's, is because he knew he didn't own the rights to any guns already stamped "Auto-Ordnance Company." If Numrich actually had owned the company name, why would he want to mark these guns with the abbreviation from his "other" company Numrich Arms Corporation (NAC)?

It is strange that George Numrich never exercised his right to produce "Thompson's" using the WWII physical assets, if not the right to use the name "Auto-Ordnance," or "Thompson." Numrich left that task to Ira Trask. George sold Trask the same physical assets he bought from Willis. Since George did not sell Trask his NAC company (which he believed must have had some indispensable link to the "Auto-Ord" guns he marked with NAC) one wonders why if Trask didn't need to add any additional business name markings (other than the new West Hurley, N.Y. address) to the newly manufactured "Thompson's" in 1975, why did Numrich feel obliged to mark NAC on the numbered, and un numbered "Auto-Ord" guns 24 years earlier if he already owned the company lock, stock and barrel?

  • 0

#44 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2004 - 12:03 AM

Blishblock - thanks for the update on the Delaware Thompsons. We will exclude these from our tally of NAC suffix Thompsons. Again, thanks for the information on NAC 17. I look forward to seeing it on display at the NRA National Firearms Museum later this year.

Phil - You are probably right. As a side note, I think this Thompson would be a perfect candidate for a Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) request similar to the one John, Jr. has recently posted about because it has had what appears to be a small number of owners. This may clear up some of the theory.... or create more questions. Just a thought.

Arthur - I don't see an "Auto-Ordnance Company" in my copy of Roger Cox's book. I do see..."acquired the remaining physical assets of Auto-Ordnance in 1951." Where is this word "Company" located? I also don't see any reference to "the name" in Roger's book. Are we looking at the same reference material?

Is there any more NAC Thompsons out there? Please share so we all can learn.
Thanks,

  • 0

#45 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2004 - 12:26 AM

TD,
My mistake. I should have wrote "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" not "Company" as it is found on Thompson receivers. But the point was why did Numrich add the abbreviated stamping of his other company on a weapon that already had the name of a business he supposedly owned? This nagging NAC marking may be the sine qua non concerning the debated issue as to whether there was ever any legal transfer of the "Auto-Ordnace" & "Thompson" name on guns made aftrer 1944.

  • 0

#46 AZDoug

AZDoug

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 200 posts

Posted 26 June 2004 - 12:42 AM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Jun 24 2004, 09:54 PM)
The reason George Numrich, who, as Roger Cox states, bought the physical assets of the "Auto-Ordnance Company," but not the name from Fred Willis, felt compelled to scribe NAC on Colt/Savage/AO/Maguire Industries Thompson's, is because he knew he didn't own the rights to any guns already stamped "Auto-Ordnance Company." If Numrich actually had owned the company name, why would he want to mark these guns with the abbreviation from his "other" company Numrich Arms Corporation (NAC)?

It is strange that George Numrich never exercised his right to produce "Thompson's" using the WWII physical assets, if not the right to use the name "Auto-Ordnance," or "Thompson." Numrich left that task to Ira Trask. George sold Trask the same physical assets he bought from Willis. Since George did not sell Trask his NAC company (which he believed must have had some indispensable link to the "Auto-Ord" guns he marked with NAC) one wonders why if Trask didn't need to add any additional business name markings (other than the new West Hurley, N.Y. address) to the newly manufactured "Thompson's" in 1975, why did Numrich feel obliged to mark NAC on the numbered, and un numbered "Auto-Ord" guns 24 years earlier if he already owned the company lock, stock and barrel?

OK...

Did Cox interview George Numrich and GN told him he was compelled to do this becuase he wasn't worthy, or is Cox practicing some form of later day psychoanalysis/tranferance and divining what G. Numrich really thought and felt for his reasons for putting NAC on the guns?

Come on, this is crap. I am surprised their isn't some refernce to inadaquacy due to lack of breast feeding or sexual organ size mentioned.

Maybe the simple answer is it was an easy way (adding NAC) to keep track of what was sold.

Doug
  • 0

#47 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2004 - 01:16 AM

AZDoug,
In the interest of accuracy, Cox only went so far as to confirm what Numrich actually got from Willis. I am just superimposing my own interpretation on the existing facts about why Nurmich started the nick nac game. But if Numrich's reason was to "to keep track of what was sold," considering the prefixes, suffixes, and obliterations of "S's," he couldn't have picked a more confusing and illogical method that could only further complicate his books. The existence of this thread pretty much invalidates the record keeping assumption. And we are talking about a number of guns possibly not exceeding a 100 total, and certainly not in the thousands.

  • 0

#48 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 June 2004 - 11:34 PM

Arthur,
I feel your pain. You’re right - it is actually two problems. The first problem has been with us all along - trying to make rhyme and reason with these NAC prefix & suffix markings. This problem only exists because the proper research has not been done to put this issue to rest. Until the price of Thompsons went through the roof, no one really cared about NAC Thompsons. Now, price driven, people care about all Thompsons. And the debates continue. As to the first problem, I think you are reading way too much into what happened at Numrich Arms Corporation when George and staff opened the crates of the former Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries Inc. AZDoug hit the nail on the head when he stated the answer was probably very simple. I feel I know the answer to the NAC markings, but what I believe is also based on interpretation of existing facts. My answer will ring true to some, but more than likely have no impression on those hung up on the second problem. My hope is that someday the proper research will be performed and publication issued.

The second problem as you so eloquently stated is the one of succession. This is the issue that causes all the debate. I feel it is a manufactured problem driven by those who only appreciate the early guns, begrudgingly accept the WWII guns only because of their global success and acceptance and look for any reason to speak with disdain on everything manufactured since. Numrich Arms Corporation is not Colt’s Patent Firearms MFG, Co. Each has different goals. The success (and failures) of each is quite obvious. I do not have any problem connecting the dots from Warner & Swasey to Kahr Arms. The path is clear. Yes, the non-lawyers can make many a quasi-legal argument about the chain of succession of Auto-Ordnance over the years – but at the end of the day the dots still connect.

With all that is said, I must admit I enjoy the conversation. This thread in particular has confirmed a few things I only suspected. Thanks to all for their posts. This is one great board. At this time I have no absolutes for problem number one. But the problem or question that begs a simple answer is - where do the dots go for you?

Any more NAC suffix or prefix guns out there? As I said above, this is one area where the data is still being collected. What can your NAC Thompson tell us?
Thanks,


  • 0

#49 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2004 - 03:24 PM

TD,
If Ira Trask is still alive, it should be a relatively easy task to contact him and have him reveal the documents that he got from Numrich, which he in turn got from Willis, which he in turn got from Kilgore, that he in turn got from Maguire, that stipulates that the owner of the "Auto-Ord" physical assests has the legal right to manufacture "Thompson's" and use of all the names and trademarks associated with the gun. Maybe Trask just trusted his former boss to the point where he never questioned that all Numrich had to sell him was a pig in a poke?

  • 0

#50 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 June 2004 - 10:35 PM

Well Arthur, I can see the dots do not connect for you as easily as they do for me. At least we agree that the crates purchased by George Numrich was the former Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. I guess I look at the transaction between Kilgore and McGuire Industries in a much different light.

It is uncontroverted that Kilgore paid $385,00 in1949 to McGuire Industries with the published intent to resale Auto-Ordnance Division to the Egyptian government because Kilgore thought the Egyptian government wanted to manufacture the Thompson Submachine gun. This deal was done with future manufacturing stated as the pretext. Even today $385,000 is a lot of money; imagine what it represented in 1949. Do you really think Kilgore paid that type of money for a few crates of parts and old machinery? I am sure a contract was drafted. I expect it was a very simple contract assigning all rights to the Thompson from McGuire Industries to Kilgore. To take it one step further, given the amount of money involved, I am sure Kilgore would have expected the Egyptian government to have performed some type of due diligence prior to making any future deal. In addition, I have never heard anywhere that McGuire Industries retained any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun or ever claimed any future rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun.

The other transfers are easy. Willis got what Kilgore purchased. Willis was in or had been in the gun business. Willis certainly would have done some due diligence. And George Numrich certainly knew how to conduct business. Like McGuire Industries above, there is no indication that Kilgore or Willis would have wanted to retain any rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun when it left their respective hands.

No, I don’t have the contracts. But I am not the one that has the problem with all the transfers or has the need to prove something. The lineage from Cleveland, Ohio to West Hurley, New York is complete. Follow the Blish pistol. George ended up with it - and everything else. I suggest you also see an article by Ray Bearse, titled, The Thompson Submachine Gun, Weapon of War and Peace, published in the 1967 edition of Gun Digest. At the end of the story, George Numrich in a discussion concerning the development of a new semi-auto Thompson stated, to wit: “Numrich states that, since his company holds the patents, trademarks, etc. on the Thompson SMG, it is doubtful if any other company could produce a Thompson of any kind.” I have never heard anything that indicated George Numrich was anything other than an honest businessman. Given George Numrich’s statement back in 1967, I think it is safe to assume he acquired the complete Ordnance Division from Maguire Industries.

If you have a NAC Thompson, we would like a report. I am still keeping a tally. Please don't let mine and Arthur's comments scare you away. I am sure this is a non-issue for most folks biggrin.gif
Thanks,

  • 0

#51 AZDoug

AZDoug

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 200 posts

Posted 28 June 2004 - 12:04 AM

It isn't an issue for me.

the part I find interesting is how hard some people try to disavow any realtionship of AOC/thompson on anything after WWII.

I mean, what is the purpose, really? This isn't a claim of some founding child claiming JP Gettys estate, is it? biggrin.gif

Doug
  • 0

#52 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2004 - 01:04 AM

TD,
OK, the problem is that Maguire sold Kilgore the "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," which never made any Thompson's. He did not sell him "The Auto-Ordnance Corporation." That company ceased to exist in 1944. Yes, Maguire did sell the existing "boxed" assets that were produced under the company "Auto-Ordnance Corporation," to kilgore, but that doesn't then revert back to "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" simply because they sort of sound the same. But if Kilgore wanted to sell the equipment and drawings of the "Thompson" to his Egyptian contact, the Egyptians would have been marking the guns "Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," or whatever new name they might want to use since they would have owned that name. But they would never be able to use the "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" name since the Maguire family still owns that name to this day.

How could this not constitute a break down of dot-connecting from a company that no longer existed in 1944 to a new company that was born the same year, but never made any "Thompson's," and then 31 years later, the legitimate company (Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries) that finally went into production on this "new Thompson."

George Numrich proclaimed in a Gun Digest interview in 1967 that he owned the patents, trademarks and name associated with "Auto Ordnance Corporation?" Well, we can see that either the author of the article was confused, or George was indifferent about speaking in precise terms. If he truly believed he had sole proprietorship over anything to do with the "Thompson," then he was also indifferent about the Houston, Texas firm that built dummy aluminum 1928A1's made from a mold of a "real" Thompson. Hell, there was a company doing light years more with the "Thompson" name than Numrich cared to do. Surely this type of flagrant disregard of his "ownership" of all things "Thompson" would have raised his eyebrow, if not his ire. Helmer confuses the "Auto Ordnance Corporation" with "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," when he wrote,


QUOTE
"After years in limbo, the Auto-Ordnance corporation was sold to long-time Numrich employee Ira Trast, whose principle goal in the acquisition was to place M1927 A-1 in production. As President  of the new Auto-Ordnance Corporation, Trast......"


But Helmer does refer to Trast as President of the "new" Auto-Ordnance Corporation. How could the "old" corporation be renewed if Trast didn't own it, Numrich didn't buy it from Willis who didn't buy it from Kilgore who was never sold it by Maguire? This is really an ineluctable point of disembarkation from any semblance of an unbroken chain of transfer of a company.

After a long absence from the board, Doug Richardson's first post recounts his long-suffering battle with immutable collectors/owners who feel slighted when he dares to broach this subject. I can only guess as to why people in the gun community react with imprecations upon those who see this obvious, if not intentional, subterfuge about the WH/Kahr Thompson. They think it has to do with snobbery, elitism, or just malcontents out to make waves for the sport of it. Of course, non of these are the motivations, but it is perhaps easier to regard them as such instead of accepting the inescapable conclusions.

  • 0

#53 SecondAmend

SecondAmend

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 610 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2004 - 12:49 PM

Phil, et al.,

The patents listed by issue date on the 21's and by number on the 28's have all long since expired (14 years from issue).

Trademarks are a whole other thing. A trademark (in the U.S.) is, at the Federal level (not gonna go into the state level) something "managed" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a trademark can be held effectively in perpetuity as long as the dictates of the Lanham Act are followed. One of the requirements "use it or lose it."

Ford Motor had the "Futura" trademark for car stuff from the 60's into the 80's, lost it to Pep Boys, and has tried unsuccessfully at least twice to get it back. There's a fight going on now over the trademark of "White Cloud" for bathroom tissue. The original owner let it drop and now is upset that somebody else has started using it.

As a sort of general rule, at least part of the good will of a company is the trademarks that are validly held by the company. That concept dates back to the days of guilds. Were trademarks transferred as any part of the McGuire, Kilgore, Trast, Numrich, Kahr, etc. transfers? Were the trademarks included in an "and all other good will, rights, and interests" clause? Who knows?

Today, Kahr appears to be the assignee of the "Thompson" and "Tommy Gun" trademarks for gun stuff. How they got there I don't really know.

It does appear that "Tommy Gun" was used on a significant number of WWII vintage guns, presumably to satisfy "use in commerce" requirements for maintaining a U.S. trademark. Did anyone else keep up the requirements afterwards or were "Thompson" and "Tommy Gun" trademarks up for grabs at various times eventually to be grabbed by Kahr?

I guess I've just got more questions than answers.
  • 0

#54 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2004 - 01:46 PM

Phil,
Exactemundo! Isn't it strange that the same year Numrich is quoted as exclaiming sole ownership of the "Thompson," Helmer writes:


QUOTE
For reasons not entirely clear, in late 1967 George Numrich decided to delay tooling and production for the new gun. Perhaps he decided it was just too much of a hassle, considering that Auto-Ordnance had been operated more as a hobby than a business, while the parent company, Numrich Arms, was a booming operation demanding a great deal of attention
.

The NAC business was a growing concern, but the famed Tommy Gun company was merely a "hobby" that never warranted Numrich's full attention. Helmer does a lot of mental gymnastics to explain, justify, reason, excuse, and qualify why Numrich never made any Thompson's from scratch, even at the moment he was set to do exactly that. Could it be that the patents and trademarks, as owned by the Maguire family, had not yet expired, thereby rendering the prospect of newly manufactured "Thompson's" a legally risky proposition? By the time 30 years had elapsed, it was left to Trask to make the "new Thompson's." Coincidence?
  • 0

#55 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 June 2004 - 05:56 PM

AZDOUG – I agree 100%. I guess when you take a position that goes against the mainstream of the gun world you have to vent when you get a chance. As I stated earlier, this question of lineage is such a non-issue. I encourage everyone to read the new NRA publication concerning the present display of Thompson guns and artifacts at the NRA National Firearms Museum William B. Ruger Gallery. All you have to do is turn the pages - it shows the transition from Warner & Swasey to Kahr Arms. However, Arthur really has got it – he just doesn’t realize it…yet.

Arthur – Congratulations. You have got it. You may not understand it completely, but you have got it. Your own words show you got it: “…Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries”….” That statement is all that matters in this simple non-issue. It is not a problem the transaction occurred – it is a fact. It is also a fact Kilgore never made any Thompsons. Keep saying, “Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries” – because this is the fact you need to trace these proprietary and physical assets – for the continuing lineage of what General Thompson started in Cleveland, OH.

Kilgore now owns everything associated with the Thompson Submachine Gun that was formerly owned by McGuire Industries, Inc. EVERYTHING. McGuire is completely out of the Tommy Gun business - lock, stock and barrel. For $385,000, Kilgore got it all. As the new owner, Kilgore can name this newly purchased corporate asset anything they want. They can even turn it back into a new corporate entity if they so desire. They can begin the manufacture of Thompsons. Or they can do nothing. It is their property. The Tommy Gun business in now in Westerville, OH. Absolute ownership. Period. Nothing is reverting back to anyone.

Did Kilgore ever re-name the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries when it became a Kilgore corporate asset? Not that I know of. It apparently sat dormant after the deal to sell it to the Egyptians fell through. However, the proprietary and physical assets remained intact as a corporate asset of Kilgore. Nothing has been recorded to indicate otherwise. Fredrick Willis later purchased from Kilgore this Kilgore corporate asset. Willis later sold this former Kilgore corporate asset to George Numrich of Numrich Arms Corporation. So George now has all the proprietary and physical assets of the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries (and former Kilgore corporate asset and former Willis investment asset). Did George rename the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries? Not at first. The former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries became a corporate asset of Numrich Arms Company (just like it had been a corporate asset for McGuire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing and an investment asset for Willis) The dots now place all the proprietary and physical assets right in the middle of Numrich Arms Corporation, West Hurley, New York. From what I understand, Numrich Arms sold parts and built & sold Thompsons from the assets acquired. George was well known for buying firearm companies. He stated very plainly what he owned in the 1967 Gun Digest article. To speculate he did not know what he was talking about is simply foolish.

To that end, I don’t know what George’s thoughts were on another company building dummy receivers. Perhaps this company had permission. Perhaps, George thought dummy receivers were not real guns so it did not matter. Or perhaps, he thought this was a good thing because the purchasers of these dummy receivers more often than not came to Numrich Arms Corporation to purchase the parts to complete the project.

Later, George decided to incorporate the proprietary and physical assets of former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries and chose the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. Incorporation is a simple process. All the proprietary assets that Numrich Arms Corporation owned concerning the Thompson Submachine Gun along with machinery and parts were transferred to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York from the Numrich Arms Corporation. The dots now take you from a corporate asset to a new corporate entity.

Epilog: I believe the hang-up on this manufactured problem is with the corporate entities. My suggestion is not to follow the names – corporate names can be changed daily with a filing fee. Follow the proprietary and physical assets of what you are researching. McGuire Industries, Inc. went one way (I know this name has since changed), the Thompson Submachine Gun another. McGuire Industries, Inc. can trace its past back to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. And so can Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. However, Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York can continue to trace its lineage back all the way to Cleveland, OH. Again, think about the proprietary and physical assets of what you are researching.

Arthur, as I stated earlier, you have really got it. Just keep saying over and over: “Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries.” Then simply follow the Blish pistol to George.

This is has been a good exercise. It has caused me to review the history of the Thompson Submachine Gun – and that is always a good thing.
Thanks,

No more postings on NAC Thompsons. I am afraid all these lineage questions have affected the input. But we can give it a few more days.


  • 0

#56 RichFitz

RichFitz

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts

Posted 29 June 2004 - 10:32 AM

You guys know way more about thompsons than I do, but I do have "NAC-45" which looks like it started life as a Bridgeport M1 prototype reciever, then built up by NAC as a M1A1 with engraving and polished wood and used as a sales tool.

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image
  • 0

#57 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 June 2004 - 10:56 AM

QUOTE
Later, George decided to incorporate the proprietary and physical assets of former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries and chose the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. TD


TD,
To paraphrase your own ratiocination, to speculate that George renamed "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries" the "Auto Ordnance Corporation," ( the exact same name that adorned the Thompson from 1919 to 1944) simply because he "Incorporated" is foolish. First, it wasn't Numrich who chose the name "Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York," it was Ira Trast. Numrich split the scene by the time Trast built the factory in West Hurley. But to even entertain any other possible explanation why the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" was "chosen" other than to deliberately make a connection to John T. Thompson's original company is really naive.

The original "Auto Ordnance Corporation," as I stated earlier, is still owned by Cary Maguire, Russell's son. This entity is, or was, still in business in Dallas, Texas even ten years after Trask decided to stamp the name on his WH receivers. The name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" has remained a New York chartered corporation since 1916. Regardless of the agreement reached between Russell Maguire and Kilgore, it never included the right to use the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation." The terms of the sale to Kilgore, and even the amount paid, is not "uncontroverted" as you say. It is merely described by Helmer as "reportedly."

As far as me "not understanding completely," I must be in good company since
Helmer and Cox (don't want to leave DR out) all refer to the guns made by "a division of NAC" under the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" as "REPLICAS." I guess they can't trace "these proprietary and physical assets" and arrive at the same destination ("the continuing lineage of what General Thompson started in Cleveland, OH.") that you arrive at.


Does your reverence for all things Numrich extend to Trask? After all, it was Trask who produced these 1927 A1 receivers with the "new" AO Corp name, even though it was still an old and already owned name. Unfortunately, Trask believed the "Auto Ordnance Corporation" name alone would be sufficient to guarantee the traditional quality associated with that entity.

  • 0

#58 SecondAmend

SecondAmend

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 610 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 June 2004 - 11:04 AM

RichFitz,

N.A.C. 45 is a very interesting gun. Lyman sight on an M1! Gorgeous wood! The engraving kind of grows on you. Very nice!
  • 0

#59 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 June 2004 - 10:31 PM

PhilOhio – “The original Auto Ordnance Corporation never legally ceased to exist, and is today still owned by the Maguire family. Maybe.” I too think that is what Arthur means. First time I have ever heard that one. As you can tell, I am not tracking the corporation – I am tracking the Tommy Gun business. I like your remarks about George Numrich. It matches with everything I have been told about him. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure to meet and speak with him. From what I know, he was a pretty smart businessman. If he said he owned it, I have no doubt he owned it. We are all lucky for the Thompsons he put in circulation. He could have simply surrendered all the prototype guns and receivers for government destruction after opening the crates and ended General Thompson’s dream in Mamaroneck, New York.

SecondAmend – Interesting post on the Patents and Trademarks. I don’t have all the answers on this. I do believe that George Numrich of the Numrich Arms Corporation purchased everything there was to purchase as related to the Thompson Submachine Gun in 1951. McGuire Industries sold it all, including the prototypes. McGuire was out of the gun business. Period. Nothing has ever been recorded to indicate otherwise. I really don’t know how Numrich Arms Corporation managed the Patents and Trademarks. However, I don’t believe any of the later manufacturers of the 1928 and M1 type Thompson Submachine Guns (such as Pearl) ever used the Thompson bullet logo, Tommy Gun name or even the Auto-Ordnance name. I may be wrong on this, but I can't recall any newly manufactured Thompsons marked this way. I also don’t recall anyone ever making a semi-automatic Thompson gun or carbine. I have seen some that kind of look like a Thompson from afar, but I don’t recall anything like what was manufactured at West Hurley or now, Kahr Arms. However, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

RichFitz – Thank-you for your post. NAC – 45 is one great looking M1A1 Thompson. I bet most everyone on this board would love to own it. To hear negative comments about the early NAC Thompsons and then to see something like this - simply amazing. We appreciate you sharing this with the board. Quick question: Who is listed as the manufacturer of this fine gun on your Form 3 or 4? Again, thank-you. Anything else you can share on this great NAC or other NAC Thompsons would be appreciated. WOW

Arthur – Good post. Thanks. I like your questions. I can see we have moved the Thompson Submachine Gun away from Russell McGuire and all the way to George Numrich. This is a good thing. You may want to re-read my epilog concerning the corporate entities. I don’t have the time right now but not to worry, I will quell all your concerns later. I just got in from my monthly volunteer duties and don’t have time to chat right now.

This is really great. Phil, SecondAmend and Arthur, as usual, brought up some interesting points. And what about the post on NAC – 45! Kyle – I like all your threads!!!! Anymore NAC suffix or prefix Thompsons out there. I was thinking this thread was about over. Maybe we are just beginning. Thanks everyone.

  • 0

#60 full auto 45

full auto 45

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 4581 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
  • Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.

Posted 30 June 2004 - 06:44 AM

RichFitz, That looks alot like this one someone sent me to put on my site a year or so ago. If you have some more photo's I would like to use them. Send them to me direct if you would like. I would love to put some more of this beautiful gun on the site. Is the bolt on yours shiney like this? It looks dark in the one photo. I don't rememeber who I got the photo from. Thanks in advance. My email is, mrhsharkey@att.net

  • 0