Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
560 replies to this topic

#381 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 August 2008 - 09:35 AM

QUOTE (reconbob @ Aug 2 2008, 08:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I do have a subscription and I'm looking forward to getting the Sept issue. You have
peaked my interest with your comment about the Egyptian Thompson. Years ago Sarco
brought in batch of M1/M1A1 Thompson parts sets and the markings on the trigger frames
were in arabic or some other cyrillic alphabet. It did not look like the original markings
had been ground off or overstamped. The word at the time was that they were Turkish.
Wish I had saved one...

Bob


Bob,

I'm surprised your SAR issue has not arrived yet. Hopefully it arrives soon.

The Thompsons with the cyrillic writing were more than likely Turkish Thompsons. "TSMG28" on this board has been researching the Turkish guns, and I believe has an article on the subject in the SAR pipeline.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#382 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:05 AM

Bob,

I agree with you completely. We don't conduct discussions by sending people off on scavenger hunts for reference material, or posting urls which make some simple point which we don't make in the post.

And anyway, all I would be looking for, even buried in a fine 10,000 word article, would be evidence showing a legal transfer of the design or documention equities from their original wartime owners to George Numrich, before his in-house successors pretended to create these from thin air and sell them to Kahr Arms. Repeating something to the contrary a thousand times doesn't make it so, although that was a standard tool of the Soviets during the cold war era. wink.gif And it often worked, as long as they could control the dialog in the Eastern Bloc and prevent objective examination of their claims.

But I could be wrong. In his article, does TD reveal new evidence showing discovery of an UNBROKEN chain of ownership transfer of the Thompson patents, designs, and trademark equities, as filed in some court(s) of record which can be objectively verified, without the use of smoke and mirrors? "Evidence" which doesn't count includes "we can assume", or "obviously", or "as anybody would reasonably conclude", or "clearly", or...well, you know...all the stuff we've heard before.

...as in a zillion times. Each time the heated insistence on claimed continuity is presented more strongly. But each time the hard evidence thereof changes not one iota. It remains constant, at the zero level.

But I'm sure the research is very interesting and adds a lot to what we know about all the historical and anecdotal details of what happened...excluding the legal transfer of patents and copyrights and designs and...

More power to all you serious researchers. Maybe someday that missing link will turn up. Darwin sure hoped so. wink.gif He never found it either.
  • 0

#383 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 02 August 2008 - 11:43 AM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Aug 2 2008, 12:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Bob,

I agree with you completely. We don't conduct discussions by sending people off on scavenger hunts for reference material, or posting urls which make some simple point which we don't make in the post.

And anyway, all I would be looking for, even buried in a fine 10,000 word article, would be evidence showing a legal transfer of the design or documention equities from their original wartime owners to George Numrich, before his in-house successors pretended to create these from thin air and sell them to Kahr Arms. Repeating something to the contrary a thousand times doesn't make it so, although that was a standard tool of the Soviets during the cold war era. wink.gif And it often worked, as long as they could control the dialog in the Eastern Bloc and prevent objective examination of their claims.

But I could be wrong. In his article, does TD reveal new evidence showing discovery of an UNBROKEN chain of ownership transfer of the Thompson patents, designs, and trademark equities, as filed in some court(s) of record which can be objectively verified, without the use of smoke and mirrors? "Evidence" which doesn't count includes "we can assume", or "obviously", or "as anybody would reasonably conclude", or "clearly", or...well, you know...all the stuff we've heard before.

...as in a zillion times. Each time the heated insistence on claimed continuity is presented more strongly. But each time the hard evidence thereof changes not one iota. It remains constant, at the zero level.

But I'm sure the research is very interesting and adds a lot to what we know about all the historical and anecdotal details of what happened...excluding the legal transfer of patents and copyrights and designs and...

More power to all you serious researchers. Maybe someday that missing link will turn up. Darwin sure hoped so. wink.gif He never found it either.


PhilOhio,

You're proving my point.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#384 hawksnest

hawksnest

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 02 August 2008 - 06:57 PM

QUOTE (colt21a @ Aug 2 2008, 01:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
p.s. now what was the final total of M3A1 Greaseguns produced again?trick question.


Are you including replicas?
  • 0

#385 railroader

railroader

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:Retirement, Firearms, Golf, model railroading

Posted 03 August 2008 - 08:58 AM

Arthur

If I can get a copy of the September SAR tomorrow at Barnes and nobles, after reading it,
I would be more than happy to mail it to you, if you cannot obtain a copy. Even though I
might be a Thompson novice, I have to tell everyone who has posted on this subject that
I have enjoyed the hell out of reading the posts. This forum is is great, and I think I we
are all greatfull that it will continue.

Railroader
  • 0

#386 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 03 August 2008 - 05:50 PM

QUOTE (dalbert @ Aug 2 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
PhilOhio,

You're proving my point.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


Dave, I hope so. I'm getting so tangled up in all these semantics that sometimes I have to ask somebody what my own point was. blink.gif

Any research and writing that pulls together lots of Thompson info in one place where we can make more sense of it is a good thing. I only wish there were some legitimate way we could save major articles and things, apparently like the one Tom has just done, and have them accessible to new people in a FAQs section or historical database.

A lot of really good info has floated under the bridge here during the last few years, and most of it is just gone, except in the memories of some of us...fading memories, that is.

Give it some thought, David. I keep thinking of the hours I have spent studying all sorts of wonderful background info and technical things relating to SIG 510-4 series rifles over on Biggerhammer. Some of this stuff exists no other place on the net. Same with much of our Thompson info.
  • 0

#387 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 03 August 2008 - 06:43 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Aug 3 2008, 06:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE (dalbert @ Aug 2 2008, 12:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
PhilOhio,

You're proving my point.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


Dave, I hope so. I'm getting so tangled up in all these semantics that sometimes I have to ask somebody what my own point was. blink.gif

Any research and writing that pulls together lots of Thompson info in one place where we can make more sense of it is a good thing. I only wish there were some legitimate way we could save major articles and things, apparently like the one Tom has just done, and have them accessible to new people in a FAQs section or historical database.

A lot of really good info has floated under the bridge here during the last few years, and most of it is just gone, except in the memories of some of us...fading memories, that is.

Give it some thought, David. I keep thinking of the hours I have spent studying all sorts of wonderful background info and technical things relating to SIG 510-4 series rifles over on Biggerhammer. Some of this stuff exists no other place on the net. Same with much of our Thompson info.


PhilOhio,

Pulling together Thompson (and other firearm) information in one place is probably my greatest quest in the firearms field. I have not mentioned this before, but I have a spreadsheet I've been working on for over a year which documents different Thompson articles that have appeared in major publications, spanning the years 1920 to 2008. The list stands at 231 Thompson articles currently, of which I have 189 in my reference collection. Most cannot be copied or posted online for copyright reasons, but some can. My intent is to include this list, which continues to grow, in the second edition of our Thompson paper book, when it is published. If anyone is ever looking for information from a certain Thompson article, or wants to peruse them in person, we could potentially arrange a visit to my library. My intent is also to begin to post more static Thompson reference information on this website, beginning ASAP. I will include submissions from others for this purpose, and have already been offered content that will be appreciated by many.

As far as the Biggerhammer site, yes, my brother put a lot of technical info online back in the late 90's and early 2000's for the various firearms covered on that site. It has a very solid following in the .50 crowd, and the SIG Rifle and SR-25 forums fill a niche, even though the website has sort of an antique web feel to it now. Eventually, we will probably upgrade that site to the software used for this site, or something similar.

I'm hoping you're still planning to attend Tracie's Show and Shoot this month. I think you will become pretty wide-eyed at some of the information and items presented at the show. Research has led to breathtaking discoveries in the Thompson world. For those who cannot attend, I'm certain that discussion here afterwards will bring everyone up to speed on the developments.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  • 0

#388 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 04 August 2008 - 09:27 AM

David,

Glad to hear all that. It would be interesting if all these sites were pulled together to be accessible via the same existing portal. I don't think there would be anything else comparable on the Internet. The separate pieces are already that. And of course it becomes the congregating point for the same quality of contributors and researchers, interested in the weapons covered. We need to persuade a few more of them to get interested in punching keyboards, if only now and then. wink.gif That might be something for the "to do" list at Tracie's.
  • 0

#389 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4386 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 17 August 2008 - 03:39 PM

Anyone care to comment on TD's presentation at the show this weekend, and his article in the September issue of Small Arms Review magazine on Kilgore and the Thompson?

The succession of the Thompson extends from 1916 to Kahr Arms today.

It really does. There's a significant amount of new information that has just been exposed.

CCA does not own the Thompson in any way. (This is not just my opinion, it is theirs -- The Thompson is part of their company history, but that history ended when they sold it to Kilgore) They sold it (the Thompson product) to Kilgore in 1949 to generate cash to sustain their business, which was struggling. During WWII, Maguire Industries began efforts to branch out into several new products, because they knew diversification was necessary to sustain themselves. The Thompson was a product that produced much fruit, and Maguire Industries was done with it, having moved on to radios and other products. Frederic Willis, a former AO executive, handled the sale of the Thompson from Maguire Industries to Kilgore. $385,000 was a fairly hefty sum at the time, which Kilgore paid to Maguire for the Thompson. They didn't just buy crates for that price. Kilgore planned to produce and market the Thompson, in order to expand their product line. A very significant Kilgore advertising flyer for the M1A1 Thompson documents this, and accounts from former Kilgore employees support it. Kilgore began actions to produce the Thompson, and to offer spare parts for sale. They sold a small number of Thompsons, and were initially licensed by the Feds to manufacture machine guns. Their plans for the Thompson product line were cut short by an explosion that killed over 30 people, and caused them to sell the Thompson to Frederic Willis and other partners, including at least one other former AO executive. The Willis group then sold the Thompson to Numrich. Numrich touted themselves as sole owner of the Thompson for all those years, because they did own it.

Willis is a significant part of the whole Thompson story. He was very forward thinking, and had a passion for the Thompson. He wrote the first book on the Thompson. Yes, that's right, the first book on the Thompson, written especially for Russell Maguire. It was titled "Tommy," and it is a truly amazing look into the history of the Thompson, circa 1943. The first time that TD became aware of the book, it was because Russell Maguire's son sent him copies of it. After that, he searched for Willis' heirs, and ended up acquiring Willis' own copy of the book, along with most of his remaining personal effects.

I have not detailed everything above, but I'm now able to talk about these significant finds, as is TD. Tom should be congratulated on his research efforts, as they were extensive and very productive, and he also did a great job presenting it all on Friday at Tracie's house.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com
  • 0

#390 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 17 August 2008 - 06:18 PM

Great talk, great research (see my comments in the other thread about the show), but this term "the Thompson" has no legal meaning in the business world or world of law. If somebody sold or purchased intellectual property, such as a trademark or product name, it was conveyed in a very conventional, legal way. If that did not happen, it did not convey, and there was no succession.

This process has nothing to do with changes in business practices in various eras. It has been done the same way for hundreds of years. It didn't change in the 1940s, or '50s, or '60s. Or last week.

That's simply how it is, not how I "think" it is, or what my "opinion" is.

And all this might have happened. We simply may not know where to look for the documentary evidence of it. Tom, David, I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade. But I am trying to keep everybody in an objective, clear thinking, researcher mode. Myself included.

Until new documentary facts are found, legal documents proving a transfer recorded in some court, any court, nobody...and I mean nobody...can persuasively claim that somebody purchased the legal and intellectual rights, trademark rights, or Thompson bullet logo from Kilgore. Did Kilgore buy all those things from the previous owner? Yes, I believe so; because I think I recall seeing records of such a transfer having taken place in a law office at a specific time. At least there was a newspaper report of this transaction, with some specifics which could be checked. Even that is just my opinion, based on a newspaper report, rather than my review of a document on file in court records someplace. But did it take place at a later time, when Kilgore sold these rights? I know I have not seen that. Maybe so, maybe not. Who can show me precisely how they know that such a sale did take place?

I say "know", not "think", or is "reasonably sure", or believes it because "so-and-so would have definitely known, and he said so...".

Rumors of Freddy Willis' comments to a neighbor down the street doesn't do it.

Comments of George Numrich's barber doesn't do it.

A copy of Kahr's ad in the American Rifleman doesn't do it.

A viewgraph slide referring to sale of "the Thompson" doesn't do it.

So far, nothing has done it.

I'm only trying to get everybody thinking objectively, which is the only way to approach this task, or any other job involving establishment of presumed facts which we did not personally witness.

An absence of supporting documentation does not mean it didn't happen. But it most certainly means we do not know it happened, and therefore we positively cannot claim that, as a matter of fact, it did happen. It's that simple. And that will not change unless the composition of this mini-universe of known Thompson facts changes.

So far, it has not.

The writing of more pages of words, mine or anybody else's, will not change that.

The discovery of new documentary facts could. But they don't count unless they were signed and sealed and notarized and were at some point verifiably filed in a court of law someplace, anyplace which would have been appropriate.

"Could" change the sitaution, but not "has".

So far.

And if anybody is likely to hit it, it might well be TD. Go for it. So far, so good. Great job. Full speed ahead. All this new info on the Kilgore days is progress. It might lead to another box of documents nobody thought anybody would ever be interested in. But we are. 'Cause we're kinda looney anyway. blink.gif

But we ain't there yet.

The edit: Now maybe this is coming out wrong. I don't want to be misunderstood. TD, if you and David are saying that what you mean by "succession" is sort of the continuing heritage of the Thompson, and how the spark never quite died out, and how we got from there to here, I'd agree with you. I'd say "right on". This new Kilgore info fills things out, in a big way. It's great, as I said on the other thread. I'm only trying to make a legal point above, a very narrow one involving the trademark and logo. For those, an unbroken succession has positively not been shown, at least to date. And if that suddenly changes, great. It lays the whole question to rest.

Edited by PhilOhio, 17 August 2008 - 06:28 PM.

  • 0

#391 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 August 2008 - 07:35 PM

Thanks David, I appreciate the kind words.

Gee Phil, and here I thought that the then Chief Executive Officer of Maguire Industries stating in writing that everything related to the Thompson was sold to Kilgore along with the then President of Kilgore stating in writing that Kilgore did purchase the Thompson would be enough. And then the President of Kilgore stating in writing that it was all later sold to Frederic A. Willis, who by the way brokered the sale of the Thompson to Kilgore from Maguire Industries in the first place might be enough. I guess the overview of the IRS ATTD investigation by the then Director of ATTD that lists names and dates of the transfers in question is also not enough documentary evidence. I am sure all the other new items that were uncovered do not help you in any way. But do me one favor before you start acting like you know what you’re talking about – obtain the magazine and read the story. That is one little fact you failed to state in your lengthy post. Please give the audience of this Board the courtesy of being well informed on a topic before wasting everyone’s time with a post. The presentation was not designed to state every thing that was uncovered. It was only offered to show some of the high points during the sales of the Thompson. It also gave me a chance to show some interesting items never seen before by Thompson enthusiasts that were not used or needed in the story.

  • 0

#392 PhilOhio

PhilOhio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 5903 posts

Posted 18 August 2008 - 10:16 AM

TD,

I'm not disagreeing with anything you say above, except the part about me not knowing what I am tallking about. wink.gif I'm not saying that what the people you quote said is untrue. And you have done a great job on the research. And I am not setting out to be inflamatory or provocative, or to undercut all the great work you have done so far.

But I do know precisely what I am talking about, regarding the one very narrow factual issue upon which I have focused. Why? Because the issue is so simple. And it relates to only a small, but very important, part of all the work you have done. It doesn't negatively reflect upon you in any way. Please don't take it that way. But nothing could be more black and white, open and shut. There is just a total lack of documentary evidence that any verified ownership change ever, I repeat ever, took place, with regard to the Thompson trademark rights and logo. And that is the essence of what you refer to as "the Thompson". I'm not talking about expired patents, or anything which came into the public domain as a result of military contract work during WW-II.

Sure, all the hardware and spare parts and frames and advertising brochure and miscellaneous bits and pieces changed hands. It makes no difference whether we see receipts or signatures or not. We know it happened, or think so, even if we were not there. You can call that "the Thompson" if you want to. It makes no difference. But legally registered intellectual rights, such as a trade name, copyright, and all things like that are a totally different matter. There is nothing casual about one bit of it.

This isn't my opinion. This is fact. Or really, I should say an absence of fact. I'm only speak as would a juror, having listened to sworn testimony and maybe studied material evidence presented in a courtroom. If I see or hear no evidence that it happened, I cannot conclude that it did happen. Reading 50 articles, the summary of 50 persons' opinions, does not change the existence, or non-existence, of the evidence upon which all those opinions may be based.

Corporate rights are not treated lightly or casually in the business world today. They never were, in several hundreds of years. Look at the course of the firearms patent and copyright battles of the mid and late 1800s. These much later Thompson rights were very significant corporate rights. People went to the trouble and expense of registering and protecting them under the law. If you cannot show me one bit of proof that the owner of these rights not only sold them to a second party, but attested to that under the law which governed such transfers, by recording it as required under that law, then it did not happen; under the law, I mean. And that's all that is being debated here.

As far as I am concerned, there really is no debate. Because there is no positive evidence of a transfer. Not a shred.

Once again, did it actually happen? I'm more inclined to believe that it did happen, than that it did not happen. But neither my opinion nor yours constitutes verification. Only documentation does that. It is entirely possible that all the hard documentary proof anybody would require is sitting in some yellowed file folder in some small county courthouse. We just haven't found it yet.

Here's something else that would go a long way toward convincing me that the intellectual rights were probably sold in a lawful, documented way. If any of the people you interview say, or letters or other documentation say, that on a certain date representatives of the seller and buyer met at a specific law office or court clerk's office to sign and register the ownership transfer, I'd say we are onto something. And maybe just a little more digging will reveal it. But so far? We aren't there. You've gotten us much closer, though. I respect you for that. Nobody else has tried harder in recent years. Please don't put me on the list of people who are trying to tear down your good work, rather than encourage it. I hope you keep it up.

We simply have to admit that only facts cut it. Talk and opinion doesn't. It's no different than selling any other high value item where ownership change is tightly controlled and registered. Try selling your house, car, or a plot of land some other way. Lawyers and court officials and patent or copyright office people will laugh at you. Seat-of-the-pants flying doesn't work here.

TD, please don't get ticked off at me personally. I'm not taking this position because I am an idiot. I do not want to detract in any way from the great and well motivated job you are doing. You are a good guy doing a good thing and the whole ball of wax is a hobby, or passion, which fascinates all of us. And I am not a bad guy for saying slow down, we have a missing piece here. We do need to keep a grip on reality and objectivity. Over the course of many years in the intelligence and analysis business, I learned that you cannot, and must not, yield to the temptation to "create" facts from smoke, when they just are not there. I have seen a lot of people try it, on really major issues involving our national security. In a couple cases, I tried to tactfully warn the shortcut takers, to keep us all out of trouble. Sadly, I always turned out to have been right in cases where I took an unpopular position and was overruled, and the chickens eventually came home to roost. It hurts when a lot of people die unnecessarily because of it. We are at exactly one of those points right now, reaping the sad result of people in high places having taken stupid shortcuts for short term political benefits, and it gives me little satisfaction in being able to say, "I told you so." Here in Thompson Land, the issue is not so important. It's only about fun; nothing important rides on it. Yet the methodology is the same. If facts are not there, don't try to take evidenciary shortcuts. Dig a little deeper, or just set it aside and wait for awhile; maybe something will float to the surface.

Please try to resist the temptation to let frustration or anger get in the way of cool, dispassionate research and analysis. Long ago, as a newbie in Washington, I had a very patient supervisor who had learned this over a lifetime in the intelligence business and OSS. He completely changed my approach to thinking things through and being extremely analytical. I owe him a lot. He literally taught me to think. Never let anything get in the way of facts. And always look at them a few times, from different angles. Hopefully, have a colleague or two do the same. Only then should you begin to think about what it means, and act upon your new understanding of it.

I guess if every person in the U.S. did that, Obama would not get a single vote. laugh.gif But then, neither would McCain.

What I sense might be happening here is that there could be some tilting in the direction of thinking that if the same case for "unbroken succession" is made often enough, in enough high visibility places, such as SAR, using more and more paragraphs and pages, and more unsubstantiated anecdotal accounts, the critical core issue of a lack of hard documentary evidence can be sidestepped permanently; everybody will begin to accept the "unbroken succession" contention as fact, without realizing that the objective record does not support this. I'd be much happier if you turn out to be the guy, TD, who hits the jackpot and finds that one signed and notarized document which lays this turkey to rest forever, proving that yes, there is an unbroken ownership succession of the Thompson name and logo, etc.

And if I'm the guy who gets you so ticked off that you won't stop until you find it, I can live with that. Such court records and filings never ever get thrown away, not for hundreds of years. Nor were these Thompson records, if they exist. Some of these filings in Spain, going back to the early 1700s, are still being used to track down the completely inventoried cargo of treasure ships sunk off the coast of Florida. And successors to the insurance companies and governments involved are still trying to pry into it and loot what they can, of course.
  • 0

#393 bigbore

bigbore

    Regular Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW OH
  • Interests:WWII weapons

Posted 18 August 2008 - 10:54 AM

Interesting thread, and as a new guy I'm happy to throw my 2 cents into the mix.

I've been collecting M1 Garands for almost 20 years. They are the real deal USGI weapons carried by realtives in Europe and the Pacific. The "realness" of owning a piece of history that was made as a tool of the time to stop evil to me is what matters.


I got a killer deal on a AO WH 1928A1 a while back. It worked great, but I sold it a few months later. There was no history, no story, no character. The WH guns were guns made as replicas of real Thompsons. A Thompson made in 1979 was made to sell as a recreational shooter/toy for adults. A WH was not made to arm anyone against evil, no one in 1980 passed up on MP5 for a WH 1928 for any historical purpose - the WH guns were replicas dedicated to days long gone.

I agree they are "Thompsons", but just like a M1 Garand made at Springfield Armory Inc, is not a real M1 Garand made at the Springfield Armory, an WH gun is not a real Thompson.

I'm saving up my pennies so I can one day own a real piece of history, built at the time it was making history, when it was the technology of the day - built for the purpose of arming free people.


If all you want or can afford is a WH, and it makes you happy great. I dont believe for a minute anyone would choose a WH over a Bridgeport if given the choice of two similiar condition guns at the same price.



  • 0

#394 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2008 - 12:41 PM

QUOTE (bigbore @ Aug 18 2008, 11:54 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Interesting thread, and as a new guy I'm happy to throw my 2 cents into the mix.

I've been collecting M1 Garands for almost 20 years. They are the real deal USGI weapons carried by realtives in Europe and the Pacific. The "realness" of owning a piece of history that was made as a tool of the time to stop evil to me is what matters.


I got a killer deal on a AO WH 1928A1 a while back. It worked great, but I sold it a few months later. There was no history, no story, no character. The WH guns were guns made as replicas of real Thompsons. A Thompson made in 1979 was made to sell as a recreational shooter/toy for adults. A WH was not made to arm anyone against evil, no one in 1980 passed up on MP5 for a WH 1928 for any historical purpose - the WH guns were replicas dedicated to days long gone.

I agree they are "Thompsons", but just like a M1 Garand made at Springfield Armory Inc, is not a real M1 Garand made at the Springfield Armory, an WH gun is not a real Thompson.

I'm saving up my pennies so I can one day own a real piece of history, built at the time it was making history, when it was the technology of the day - built for the purpose of arming free people.


If all you want or can afford is a WH, and it makes you happy great. I dont believe for a minute anyone would choose a WH over a Bridgeport if given the choice of two similiar condition guns at the same price.


The "replica" moniker as applied to the WH/Kahr "Thompson" is considered sacrilege to those who, for some as yet to be explained reason, want to create this aura of the "unbroken chain" of AOC/Thompson succession.

If Russell Maguire's son could post on this board that his father sold the Auto-Ordnance Corporation to Kilgore in 1949, that would add meat to the bones of the amorphous "everything related to Thompson" phrase, and if he could produce the document (or facsimile there of that WJH never saw) proving this, we might all have a basis to make some definitive declarations about this "unbroken chain" theory. It would be extraordinary to ask Maguire Jr. questions regarding this transactions directly.

TD,

Can you arrange for Maguire Jr. to join this thread?

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 18 August 2008 - 12:44 PM.

  • 0

#395 fortyfivecal

fortyfivecal

    RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 363 posts

Posted 18 August 2008 - 02:05 PM

crikey, this is a long thread, and, there is some good information here. why not let the thompson models/variants speak for themselves? using the 1911 semi-auto pistol as an example, no one calls them 1911 replica's. [ except those expressly marketed as such, thanks bigbore ] they call them 1911's, or to be specific, model 1911, 1911A1, sistema / model 1927, etc. thompsons, if they follow the general design, are all thompsons, irregardless of manufacture. now, there are 1921's, 1927's, etc. if someone took the trouble to manufacture a thompson model 1921, using the same steel used in that model, using the same drawings, using the same tooling, to the same tolerances, finished it with the same type of blueing, etc, that would be a replica. as in, to replicate. none of the following models attempted to do that, they are all thompsons, and all unique in their own right. were Gen. Thompson alive today, i think he would be aghast about many things, not the least of which the level of quality that kahr works too, compared to the standard he set with the original design, but, i think he and his son would also be proud of the fact that the gun has served its country with distinction, and that so many people have so much respect for all the work he and the auto ordnance design and manufacturing team put into the concept, that the concept is alive today, over 80 years later.

Edited by fortyfivecal, 18 August 2008 - 06:18 PM.

  • 0

#396 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2008 - 03:12 PM

QUOTE (fortyfivecal @ Aug 18 2008, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
crikey, this is a long thread, and, there is some good information here. why not let the thompson models/variants speak for themselves? using the 1911 semi-auto pistol as an example, no one calls them 1911 replica's. they call them 1911's, or to be specific, model 1911, 1911A1, sistema / model 1927, etc. thompsons, if they follow the general design, are all thompsons, irregardless of manufacture. now, there are 1921's, 1927's, etc. if someone took the trouble to manufacture a thompson model 1921, using the same steel used in that model, using the same drawings, using the same tooling, to the same tolerances, finished it with the same type of blueing, etc, that would be a replica. as in, to replicate. none of the following models attempted to do that, they are all thompsons, and all unique in their own right. were Gen. Thompson alive today, i think he would be aghast about many things, not the least of which the level of quality that kahr works too, compared to the standard he set with the original design, but, i think he and his son would also be proud of the fact that the gun has served its country with distinction, and that so many people have so much respect for all the work he and the auto ordnance design and manufacturing team put into the concept, that the concept is alive today, over 80 years later.


But there is an added composition to the "Thompson" SMG that does not exist in the generic 1911 term, and that is the impression that WH/Kahr tries to sell the public that the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name they appropriated is the same AOC that ceased to exist in 1944. All "1911" automatics function, and, for the most part, look, like the original Colt Government Model 1911, except for the identification stampings.

What you describe as a "replica" (copying a thing down to the minutest detail) is of course not what Trast/Kahr ever accomplished regarding the original AOC TSMG. Doug Richardson does attempt to make 'replica receivers to the degree that is possible using the available materials. However, Trast manufactured a semi-auto TSMG in 1975 that he called the "1927" Model (adding the "A1" suffix). Was this a 'replica' of the AOC Model 1927 TSMG? Of course not. Was it a reproduction? A facsimile? A copy? No. That would be the Trast made select fire TSMG's. Was Trast's intent to suggest that his version of the 1927 was of the same heritage as the original 1927? Of course, or why else call it the the 1927 instead of the 1975 Model. This is the heart of the problem with how the THOMPSON has been marketed since 1975.

While the THOMPSON concept may indeed be alive today, it is not being manufactured by the same AOC started by Gen. Thompson, Marcellus Thompson, Thomas Fortune Ryan, or even the last legitimate owner of AOC, Maguire. Even if Kilgore went into production back in 1949, his TSMG's would not be manufactured by the original AOC. Nothing in TD"S SAR article changes this salient point.

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer, 18 August 2008 - 03:18 PM.

  • 0

#397 bigbore

bigbore

    Regular Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 129 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NW OH
  • Interests:WWII weapons

Posted 18 August 2008 - 03:21 PM

QUOTE (fortyfivecal @ Aug 18 2008, 03:05 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
using the 1911 semi-auto pistol as an example, no one calls them 1911 replica's.


Unless it was built and marketed as a replica.

Pictured below is a current production Colt 1911. It is absolutely a Colt, and a real 1911; but it is and was made as a low cost replica of the real deal, markeed as a alternative to "real" 1911s. Just as the WH guns were replicas built as an alternative to real tommy guns. It may be every bit as good as an original WWI 1911, but it has no history, or historic value - IMO, it has no Soul so to speak.

Current production 1911s made by Ed Brown, RRA, Springfield Armory and such are current revisions/evolutions of the original design, and are made for the current market who wants the modern features now available.


Replica



Real



  • 0

#398 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2008 - 06:10 PM

Phil,
I am not mad at you. I enjoyed seeing you at the TATA Show & Shoot last weekend. I only want you to read the story before posting.

Fortyfivecal and bigbore,
Thanks for joining in. I agree with you about the inferior quality of the Numrich and Kahr products. That fact has never been in question.

Arthur,
You have it.


QUOTE
While the THOMPSON concept may indeed be alive today, it is not being manufactured by the same AOC started by Gen. Thompson, Marcellus Thompson, Thomas Fortune Ryan, or even the last legitimate owner of AOC, Maguire. Even if Kilgore went into production back in 1949, his TSMG's would not be manufactured by the original AOC. Nothing in TD"S SAR article changes this salient point.


I can tell you have not read my story or you would know everything you posted above is true. The history of the Thompson Submachine Gun does not involve the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (and in any future form or name) manufacturing the Thompson again after production ended in Bridgeport in 1944. However, the Thompson Submachine Gun as a product of a corporation was sold off in its entirely in 1949 to another corporation (Kilgore); and then to a group of investors (Willis and his associates); and later to George Numrich (Numrich Arms Company). Before my story, we did not have documentation any of that actually happened or more importantly, how it happened – now we do. The history and succession of the Thompson continues today (Kahr Arms). It is just as simple as that. I am glad we finally resolved this question to your satisfaction. It was certainly worth all my time. I may even quote you in a future article! wink.gif
  • 0

#399 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2008 - 08:30 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Aug 18 2008, 07:10 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Phil,
I am not mad at you. I enjoyed seeing you at the TATA Show & Shoot last weekend. I only want you to read the story before posting.

Fortyfivecal and bigbore,
Thanks for joining in. I agree with you about the inferior quality of the Numrich and Kahr products. That fact has never been in question.

Arthur,
You have it.


QUOTE
While the THOMPSON concept may indeed be alive today, it is not being manufactured by the same AOC started by Gen. Thompson, Marcellus Thompson, Thomas Fortune Ryan, or even the last legitimate owner of AOC, Maguire. Even if Kilgore went into production back in 1949, his TSMG's would not be manufactured by the original AOC. Nothing in TD"S SAR article changes this salient point.


I can tell you have not read my story or you would know everything you posted above is true. The history of the Thompson Submachine Gun does not involve the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (and in any future form or name) manufacturing the Thompson again after production ended in Bridgeport in 1944. However, the Thompson Submachine Gun as a product of a corporation was sold off in its entirely in 1949 to another corporation (Kilgore); and then to a group of investors (Willis and his associates); and later to George Numrich (Numrich Arms Company). Before my story, we did not have documentation any of that actually happened or more importantly, how it happened – now we do. The history and succession of the Thompson continues today (Kahr Arms). It is just as simple as that. I am glad we finally resolved this question to your satisfaction. It was certainly worth all my time. I may even quote you in a future article! wink.gif



Well, since you have maintained at the outset of this thread that the Thompson need not have been manufactured after 1944 by the original AOC in order for it to be this 'unbroken chain," I understand why you do not dispute this point. But you are resolved to dispute the obvious conclusion of this point which is that, just like the history of any other manufacturing entity, once the orignal business ceases operation, retains its name, but sells off the assets to another buyer, with zero connection to the original AOC, what you have is the the sound of the chain popping into unrecognizable fragments.


While your story may provide additional flavor to the 1949 sale of assets to Kilgore that WJH alluded to in his "TGTMTTR," the essential recipe remains the same. As Phil has already pointed out, the "Kilgore advertising flyer for the M1A1 Thompson" does not constitute "documentation" in any sense of the word. YOU and DAVE thought Numrich's catalogs showing pictures taken from Maguire's operation in the 1940s' (but not stated as such in the catalog), proved he was manufacturing TSMG's. Of course it only proved the contrary.

I'm sure locating the "flyer" provided the impetus for the SAR article. But if it was really a "document," you would not have waited for the issue of SAR to be circulated, you would have posted this finding here as conclusive proof of what was sold in 1949 that WJH never saw.

Can you answer why it is critical to you and Dave to prove the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944? If this was/is an obvious and widely accepted fact, why bother with the SAR article that is intended to shore up this point?

But what about suggesting to Maguire's son to join this discussion?

  • 0

#400 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 August 2008 - 09:32 PM

Arthur,
I can tell you have not read my story or you would know the answer to your questions. The history of the Thompson Submachine Gun does not involve the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (and in any future form or name) manufacturing the Thompson again after production ended in Bridgeport in 1944. However, the Thompson Submachine Gun as a product of a corporation was sold off in its entirely in 1949 to another corporation (Kilgore); and then to a group of investors (Willis and his associates); and later to George Numrich (Numrich Arms Company). Before my story, we did not have documentation any of that actually happened or more importantly, how it happened – now we do. The history and succession of the Thompson continues today (Kahr Arms). It is just as simple as that.

You should have been there for the presentation at the TATA Show and Shoot. That would have answered your question about Maguire's son. Now you will just have to wait on the book. That is going to be a lot more expensive; I suggest the SAR magazine as an introduction to all this new Thompson history.

  • 0