Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#521 Canuck

Canuck

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 213 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Brunswick, Canada

Posted 11 September 2014 - 12:20 PM

Lancer, I like the concept of referring to the guns as 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation also. Otherwise it seems like much ado about nothing to me.


  • 0

#522 buzz

buzz

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2014 - 12:49 PM

David,

 

You're wrong about that, I'd love to have a WH to use as a shooter.

 

I'm not going to get one though, because the price on them is so high now that by the time I done replacing parts and getting the receiver fixed up, I'm within a stone's throw of a pre-45 Thompson shooter price tag.

 

I bought a NIB Vector UZI two years ago.  It's a great gun and it runs like a top, but it's not an "original" UZI.

 

According to this thread, if Vector had bought the rights to the name UZI and the UZI logo, then it would suddenly be original.

 

That idea just doesn't compute to me. 

 

Nor would it compute to the collector community at large.

 

It's no big deal, people are just not going to agree on the point. 

 

I'm not a snobby guy, I certainly don't look down my nose at people who own a $17,000 firearm.


Edited by buzz, 11 September 2014 - 04:18 PM.

  • 0

#523 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2014 - 01:23 PM

The Lancer Colt SAA generation application would be appropriate if  the TSMG company that  manufactured  (or  contracted the manufacturing of)  the TSMG 31 years after 1944 was the exact same company like Colt which never went out of business during the periods the SAA were in production.  The Ira Trast  and Kahr examples of the Thompson are of a heritage that dates back to 1975 when the homage to the TSMG went into production  in West Hurley, New York.  This would be referred to as the Me Generation Thompson with the Kahr version being the Me 2 Generation Thompson.


  • 0

#524 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2014 - 04:05 PM

Interesting. First it was the manufacturing or the lack thereof, now it is "the exact same company..."  Of course The Thompson Automatic Arms Company and later Maguire Industries, Inc. seem to upset this theory. Follow the product from Cleveland, Ohio to West Hurley, New York (and then on to Kahr Arms) and you will clearly see the documented succession of owners (corporations, partnerships sole-proprietors) of this now iconic firearm. Or not. It is old news. I believe Darryl and Lancer have figured it out. 


  • 1

#525 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 September 2014 - 06:35 PM

TD,

 

Multiple reasons why Kahr AOC has no connection to the 1916 AOC makes your unbroken chain claim more compelling?   That is indeed a novel perspective.  Let's enumerate some of the arguments against the chainers  that have been proffered since the genesis of this thread.

 

1) No manufacturing of a TSMG since 1944 by the various purchasers of the 20 crates of Thompson components until 1975

2)  Kahr is claiming their AOC is indeed the exact same AOC of 1916. Previously on this board you have stated that you do not endorse Kahr's position. What influenced your decision to now include Kahr? What TSMG did Maguire manufacture under any other name when AOC went out of business in 1944?

3)  The quality and craftsmanship of the current manifestation of a firearm is indeed relevant in the chain discussion  ( despite cries of foul from the chainers) when the company producing  the firearm is adamant they are the exact same company that commissioned  Cleveland Warner & Ambrose Swasey to build the prototype Thompson Autorifle.  Colt/Savage/AOC  perfected the weapon decades before Trast and Kahr manufacture their version of the Thompson. How did they manage to blow it if they were the original AOC relying on decades of experience with the Thompson?

4) Neither Kilgore or Willis used the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation during their tenures with the Thompson crates.


  • 0

#526 Chief762

Chief762

    RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 258 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:Old Mustangs, single-cam Harleys, good Scotch whisky and US gold coins. Oh, and Thompsons.

Posted 11 September 2014 - 07:45 PM

Here's a concept. I actually like my WH28. It runs, looks and chops up real estate just like a real Thompson... :)


  • 0

#527 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 12 September 2014 - 08:09 PM

Buzz,

 

This argument is not about Auto-Ordnance as a company name.  Succession is about the Thompson product. 

 

We’ve never argued quality. Quality is what it is, and really has no bearing on succession.

 

West Hurley collectors exist.  I’m one, and there are many more.

 

 

 

Arthur,

 

 

Sorry for the delayed response.  I typed a response in Word 2 nights ago, and then I encountered a cut and paste issue in the forum text fields, and I just got around that issue.  My quick response yesterday was made on my iPhone.

 

I have not seen the 2 TSMG’s manufactured by Kahr.  My understanding is that they have now been destroyed due to an issue with multiple locations and different licenses/business entities.  I was hoping that they would have appeared at Tracie’s for us to shoot, but that never happened.

 

Regarding Cary Maguire’s reservations about how his father was portrayed in TGTMTTR, there was a specific statement in the book that he perceived as portraying his father in a negative light, and that statement was his objection.  It had to do with how the 1939 deal went down, and the words used to describe his father’s business style. I don’t recall the exact passage. You may be able to find it.

 

Regarding the revised version of TGTMTTR, and the almost 6 years that have passed since I mentioned being asked to participate in the project with Bill, I can say that it was submitted to the publisher in December 2013.  I don’t have an ETA for the new book.  There are supposed to be some scheduling discussions this week in regards to current book projects in the publisher queue.  I hope to see it published in the next year, but I will not hold my breath.

 

All,

 

I’ve fully covered the subject in previous posts, particularly in my 3800+ word post on 18 September 2008. 

 

David Albert

dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


  • 0

#528 timkel

timkel

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 998 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA
  • Interests:NRA Patron member
    Atlas Shrugged

Posted 14 September 2014 - 08:39 AM

Timkel,

 

A marine landing on the beach of Iwo Jima in 1944 with a Savage 1928a1 was holding a replica?

 

A 1944 M1A1 is a replica of what gun?

 

Nice try

 

I've never heard anyone ever refer to any WWII production of any gun as a "replica".  Have you?

 

What military contract production of any gun of any nation of any time period is referred to as "replicas"?

 

Like I said, no matter how this thread turns out, these words "original and "replica" have a common, widespread usage among collectors and nobody is going to go along with some random re-assignment of the words.

 

Sorry to offend but Colt made the original Thompson's . The rest are still Thompson's but different. Use whatever word you prefer, replica, copy, generation, version, type, variant, ect.


  • 0

#529 buzz

buzz

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2014 - 10:58 AM

Sure. 

 

AO asked Colt to resume production of Thompsons, but Colt was already making BARs and didn't want the work.

 

So Colt gave all the tooling and drawings to Savage, who started production back up again and supplied the US military with their primary subgun, made literally millions of subguns during the biggest war in human history.

 

And per the twilight zone logic of this thread, those guns are "replicas".

 

This is a fun thread and everything but you guys are never going to get anyone to go along with this reassignment of the English language.

 

You'll never hear any guy at a gun show saying, "Look at my 1943 Savage M1A1 Thompson replica."

 

Nor are WWII Remington 1911s called "replicas".


Edited by buzz, 14 September 2014 - 11:17 AM.

  • 0

#530 buzz

buzz

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2014 - 11:01 AM

If you guys want to call the various production periods "generations", that would probably work OK.

 

The Colt SAA guys refer to the different production of those guns as generations.


  • 0

#531 buzz

buzz

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1848 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 September 2014 - 11:13 AM

I'm going to add a brain twister to this thread:

 

The M1 was a product improvement of the Thompson design.

 

Simplifying a gun so that more soldiers can have that gun on the battlefield is form of improvement.  Quantity is a form of quality.

 

Also, it would be argued that the changes made to the M1 are in fact actual improvements.

 

Removing an unneeded feature to simplify something is an improvement.

 

Apparently the simplification of the gun did not reduce its effectiveness at all.

 

The blish lock is complicated and works no better than just adding mass to the bolt.

 

According to what I've read, the soldiers liked the stick mags better than the drum mags.

 

The 1928 model is a much "cooler", prettier and fancier gun, but that's not the purpose of a weapon.

 

Since the M1 is literally a re-engineered next-generation version of the Thompson, how can it be a "replica" of anything?


Edited by buzz, 14 September 2014 - 11:18 AM.

  • 0

#532 Chromebolt

Chromebolt

    Long Time Member

  • Board Donor
  • 324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:02 PM

It's a variant.


  • 0

#533 Gio

Gio

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 586 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Woodbury TN.
  • Interests:Guns
    Harley Motorcycles

Posted 14 September 2014 - 01:31 PM

I disagree why the M1 was designed. The Reising  was selling for about $62. Depending on the contract the low price of M1928A1 was $200.

 

The M1 was designed to speed up production and to sell cheaper. The M1 was sold on contract about $43.

 

The bottom line was market competition. Yes it still was a effective gun.

 

Frank


  • 0

#534 jim c 351

jim c 351

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2587 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 14 September 2014 - 04:00 PM

Many times when one sets out to make something cheaper it turns out to be an inferior product. With the M1/M1A1 they really hit a home run. They not only made it cheaper, they also made it more dependable.
A big plus for everyone whose life depended on it never failing.
Jim C
  • 0

#535 mnshooter

mnshooter

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1885 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:07 AM

Fun discussion.

I'll start thinking of my M1 as a "Russianized" Thompson.


Edited by mnshooter, 15 September 2014 - 09:08 AM.

  • 0

#536 Mike Hammer

Mike Hammer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 772 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Louisiana
  • Interests:Travel, sun worshiper, margaritas, hot chicks, painting, scuba diving, movies, collecting movie memorabilia and autographs, guns, hot chicks, micro-beers, hot chicks, and did I say hot chicks?

Posted 15 September 2014 - 09:25 AM

Sure. 

 

AO asked Colt to resume production of Thompsons, but Colt was already making BARs and didn't want the work.

 

So Colt gave all the tooling and drawings to Savage, who started production back up again and supplied the US military with their primary subgun, made literally millions of subguns during the biggest war in human history.

 

And per the twilight zone logic of this thread, those guns are "replicas".

 

This is a fun thread and everything but you guys are never going to get anyone to go along with this reassignment of the English language.

 

You'll never hear any guy at a gun show saying, "Look at my 1943 Savage M1A1 Thompson replica."

 

Nor are WWII Remington 1911s called "replicas".

 

Buzz, this was the only point that I was trying to make 9 years ago when this thread was started, (see first two posts of thread).  Now, did we have to go through all this???????

 

Mike Hammer

Attached Files


  • 0

#537 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 15 September 2014 - 10:08 AM

For me, after digesting the hundreds of post here....the overwhelming conclusion I come to is.....what difference does it make? Companies claim shaky historical heritage all the time. Look at Polaris with Indian motorcycles that were out of production for decades. I'm just glad Indians exist again. Same with WH's. I wish Kahr could do the same, even if they had problems.....they would exist. I wish someone would resurrect Packard autos.....that would be cool, replica or not. 


  • 0

#538 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 September 2014 - 11:42 AM

Lancer,

 

I am with you all the way. I really don't care what people call any of the Thompson guns. I am happy all of them exist and allowed to remain in private hands. My research started because I knew that what ultimately happened to the corporation that invented the Thompson gun had very little to do with what appeared to be a succession of owners of this great American firearm (spelled corporate product). My interest was seeing if a succession of owners existed and could be documented.

 

The history of the Thompson gun could have easily ended after the last of the AC variation Thompson guns were sold off by George Goll and the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries. If Maguire Industries would have made the decision to scrap out all the remaining tooling, gages, drawings, parts, etc. and sell off or destroy the prototypes, it would have ended. But that did not happen. The Thompson gun was treated like a viable corporate asset. Everything associated with it was packed away and stored. Not surprising; Russell Maguire was a shrewd businessman. The proceeds from the sale of the Thompson gun in 1949 to Kilgore Manufacturing in Ohio helped save Maguire Industries from financial failure. All can read the documented transfers of ownership of this corporate product in The Ultimate Thompson Book or a condensed version in Small Arms Review magazine.

 

The line of succession or connection from the Colt guns to the West Hurley guns is a fact. The invention of the successful Thompson semi-automatic rifles is but another chapter and continues today with Kahr Arms. Was there some advertising puffing regarding the products history with Numrich Arms and now Kahr Arms. Yes...but corporate puffing has been a facet throughout the history of the Thompson gun (and most products on the market today).

 

Aside from the Thompson guns that have a historical connection to the Colt era guns, there exists a number of guns that were manufactured outside the documented chain of succession. These include guns from Philadelphia Ordnance, Pearl, completed Richardson receivers and several more makers I cannot recall at this time. Are these guns Replicas? Not in my mind. They are simply Thompson guns with a different history. I bet you cannot tell the difference when pulling the trigger!


  • 1

#539 RoscoeTurner

RoscoeTurner

    Respected Member

  • Moderator
  • 2831 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:WWII Military Thompsons
    WWII Browning Automatic Rifles
    Russian M1910 Maxims
    Vickers
    01/SOT

Posted 15 September 2014 - 03:22 PM

David,

I do not believe I have ever said I disliked WHs, just that I did not consider them to be original Thompsons in the collector sense of the word. To me as far as collecting goes they fall into the same category as side plate guns, Erb tube guns, Pearl, Richardson and all the rest. Nice to have and be proud of but not originals. I have a number of sideplate belt feds myself and do no look down on anyone else that owns one but I will never call one original. I do not look down on owners of WHs in any way either. I have no interest in WHs same as I do not the vast majority of firearms manufactured post 1945.

I freely admit that I have in past on here expressed a dislike of Kahr products as a whole due to their less than stellar customer service and warranty work. That is based on their products that I have had to deal with in the past that customers have purchased. I had so many complaints I stopped selling them a number of years ago and have no plans to start back.

That fact that I refer to original Thompsons as that and WHs as not may irritate some people just as it irritates me when others refer to WHs as original Thompsons but in the overall scope of things a minor irritation.

Lancer is correct.

The fact that Buzz and Roscoe Turner dislike West Hurleys has nothing to do with the chain of succession of the Thompson product. Period.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


  • 3

#540 The1930sRust

The1930sRust

    Respected Member and Board Donor

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

Posted 15 September 2014 - 07:08 PM

Since this board is the go-to for Thompson history, information, and thought, someone should create a poll. Come up with a half dozen typologies for the West Hurley Thompsons, and vote. And everyone who votes must abide by the result. End of story. Rust

 

PS: I have no horse in this race...;-)


  • 1