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.
You have it.
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!
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?
Maguire's son has already contributed to this discussion indirectly during the course of TD's research, as did another CCA executive. The article was reviewed by them before it was published. CCA does not retain any rights to the Thompson. It was a product they (formerly Maguire Industries) sold off to Kilgore in 1949.
The article was published to provide exciting new information that was discovered in the Thompson field. I understand that new Thompson information is not something to which you normally gravitate. Helmer's work, which you quote often, was the greatest volume of historical work ever done on the Thompson, and there is more. Even he realizes there was more to it. He was ready to be finished with the Thompson story, to earn his degree, and to move on to greater pursuits in life. He was close to finding more Thompson information, but he had already uncovered so much, and the project was complete for its purpose, and for Helmer's interest. Would we be having this debate if Helmer had documented what TD found, and arrived at the same conclusions? No, we probably would not. Helmer also read the article before it was published, and was glad to see that his 40+ year old research led to even more findings. When I showed him a picture of Willis' "Tommy" book, he was amazed, and I think a bit proud that the research he started continues on. The only thing that kept him from finding the "Tommy" book at the time, and discovering more about Willis and Kilgore, was an apartment number for an address that had been provided to him. This was a lead that he left unresearched at the time. He explored almost all that he could, but his interest remained anchored firmly in the gangster era, and the amount of history he had already documented on the Thompson was and still is vast.
Based on your many statements, I sense you still don't understand (or acknowledge) the core argument. We don't argue that "the AOC Thompson made today is manufactured by the same business that ceased operation in 1944." We argue that there is a succession of the Thompson from 1916 to Kahr today. The Thompson is a product, one that has been passed along to different entities during all these years, in a chain of succession.
Let's do more to encourage research on the Thompson. TD's findings were substantial, and his efforts are worthy of praise.