Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#61 DC Chris

DC Chris

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 408 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Columbia, MD

Posted 04 December 2005 - 09:58 PM

Ok - this is getting old.

I have a 1928 and a M1 and a SBR M1. They shoot great and are a blast to collect and have fun with. I don't give a shit if someone thinks it is a replica or not. It is all what is important to you and to me dumping a C drum down range gives me a big smile. I would rather shoot and enjoy a replica than spend 35K on a safe queen I would not risk shooting. Just my opinion, of course.

This thread has deteriorated into arguing opinions and unverifiable facts, which is pointless. Been there and done that.

Chris.
  • 0

#62 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:28 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Dec 4 2005, 02:41 PM)
railroader,

While Auto Ordnance Corporation did contract with Colt/Savage/AO to manufacture their Thompson 1921/1928 and the M1/M1A1 type SMG's, the firearms WH made initially in 1975 were and are still replicas.

The only guns that are not TSMGs are the semi auto guns. A Thompson Submachine Gun is a Thompson Submachine Gun, or Thompson or Tommy Gun for short. I may get reamed for saying a semi ain't a Thompson, but its not a Thompson.

I would think the closest thing I have seen to a replica TSMG would be that nasty Chinese thingy that Prasser was trying to get 80K for. Those cap guns the japs (yes, I said japs) made lots of that shot blanks full auto comes to mind next, but Westy is still a TSMG. soapbox.gif
  • 0

#63 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:34 PM

I think it's time for John Jr's Not this Shit again Pic...What about it John?
  • 0

#64 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:38 PM

Ron,

What is depressing is that even a Savage Thompson is priced higher than what I earn in a year! sad.gif

You can bet that if someone walked into the bank with a Kahr 27A1 to make a withdrawal to purchase an original Thompson that the media would still say the bank was robbed by a machinegun toting villain. They would play it up like a 20's style hit and run. <-->blink.gif

From what I've gleaned was that Numrich never produced any Thompson's of their own manufacture. They assembled them and sold what was left from crates of parts.
That it wasn't until Trast stepped in that the ATF approved the 27A1 for production. I'm not even certain if Trast produced FA's for LE, or foreign sales.

Would there be any government offices that might hold some sort of documentation as to where the name Auto Ordnance, and Thompson as registered names ended, or began again?

I'm sure if someone started producing another Tommy look alike under the same name, that Kahr would have them by the short hairs in no time flat.
If Kahr does not have the right to use the names it amazes me in this world of everyone wanting to make a buck fast that no charges have been filed.

Now everyone here knows or should know that a Kahr Thompson is not an original. Nor will it ever be!

Although it is in some circles looked at as a part of the evolution of the "style" of gun. If nothing else it makes the look of the gun available to more people.

Yep, I'd love to have a Colt, Savage or even a later AO.
Perhaps one day! smile.gif

John Jr.
QUOTE
I may get reamed for saying a semi ain't a Thompson, but its not a Thompson.


Then I guess a Colt 27 that has never been converted isn't a Thompson.. wink.gif < Sorry I just couldn't resist!
  • 0

#65 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE (LIONHART @ Dec 4 2005, 09:34 PM)
I think it's time for John Jr's Not this Shit again Pic...What about it John?

user posted image

wink.gif
  • 0

#66 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:56 PM

QUOTE
What is depressing is that even a Savage Thompson is priced higher than what I earn in a year!


QUOTE
walked into the bank with a Kahr 27A1 to make a withdrawal to purchase an original Thompson


Crow, you planning something here? Well, if you do, I hope you the best of luck Brother. Just be sure to grab enough Dough for me too.. We'll go Thompson Shopping together!

Better yet, let's ALL Move to one Place, and create our own Township. We'll all get Deputized, and have as many MG's that we each could possibly afford!
  • 0

#67 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 10:59 PM

QUOTE
From what I've gleaned was that Numrich never produced any Thompson's of their own manufacture. They assembled them and sold what was left from crates of parts.
That it wasn't until Trast stepped in that the ATF approved the 27A1 for production. I'm not even certain if Trast produced FA's for LE, or foreign sales.
Grey Cow

If the board will indulge me for a few moments longer on a subject that has taken up much band width now as it has before on this board. I believe what Grey Cow notes about the fact Numrich never made any TSMG's from the ground up is significant.

I'm not so sure it was the ATF regs that prohibited Numrich from utilizing the equipment he paid for and the supposed rights to all things Thompson. I think it had more to do with waiting for the patents, trademarks and logos to expire as well as waiting for Maguire to expire.

Trast was stalled by ATF with his semi-auto version until 1975, but neither he nor Numrich had any ATF hindrance to produce smg's. So again what was so magical about the year 1975 before either Numrich or Trask made even one ground up Thompson for their own amusement, LEO's, or foreign governments?

  • 0

#68 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:00 PM

QUOTE (Grey Crow @ Dec 4 2005, 09:38 PM)
John Jr.
QUOTE
I may get reamed for saying a semi ain't a Thompson, but its not a Thompson.


Then I guess a Colt 27 that has never been converted isn't a Thompson.. wink.gif < Sorry I just couldn't resist!

I knew you would make me revise that!

A CLOSED BOLT, SEMI-AUTO ONLY produced in the last 30 some odd years ain't a Thompson Submachine Gun.

biggrin.gif
  • 0

#69 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:01 PM

Actually No. All my posts on this thread lay out why you can trace the Thompson Submachine Gun from Cleveland to West Hurley, New York. In a word, cumulative. OK. Your entire argument as to how WH is in any way related or relevant to the Maguire owned Auto-Ordnance Corporation pre 1944 is represented in your two statements above.

No – I understand how corporate entities conduct business. The amount of money is somewhat inconsequential. The first premise is based on the amount of money that Kilgore, "reportedly" paid to Maguire, but you do not have any idea what Willis paid Kilgore or what Numrich paid Willis.

The amount is $385,000. Again, Kilgore bought everything. The equipment and drawings to manufacture the Thompson were what Kilgore planned to sell to the Egyptians. The manufacturing rights go hand in hand with that planned sale. I did not know Maguire had any contacts in Egypt that knew of Egypt’s interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun. Where did you find out about this? How much less than $365,000 would suggest that Kilgore purchased only the materials contained in the crates? Maguire made over $15 million from the Thompson with government contracts. $365,000 seems a fire sale for such a proven money maker. Why wouldn't Maguire have sold directly to the Egyptians and by passed the middle man? Do you think Kilgore had access to info on potential buyers that Maguire didn't have? Or is it more likely that what was sold were just what was not even itemized, i.e. crated materials.

Again, Kilgore bought everything. The equipment and drawings to manufacture the Thompson were what Kilgore planned to sell to the Egyptians. The manufacturing rights go hand in hand with that planned sale. Your second premise is that Maguire did not sell a company name and Kilgore did not buy a company name, but merely the physical assets of that company. Now you are getting warmer. Except that you continue to superimpose some "I know because I know" broad interpretation of this sale because your personal understanding of big business deals dictates that the greater the amount of money involved guarantees an all encompassing purchase of any and all rights perceived or understood.

Helmer connected all the entities in his scholarly thesis. It is all laid out step by step. Instead of trying to grow WH roots all the way back to Cleveland, which by the way Helmer never even hinted at in his thesis book, why not rely on what is available to the public on this subject. The only thing we know and Helmer knows regarding Numrich and Willis' transaction is that crated Thompson assets were involved.

Not true – never met or spoke to the man. However, I do have an appreciation that he donated all the prototypes Thompsons to West Point and registered the rest of the discovered Thompsons and receivers. It seems that you have a soft spot for George Numrich that influences your analysis of the available information regarding this subject.

Helmer reported all the transactions from Cleveland to West Hurley, New York and George Numrich stated and advertised that his company owned all the rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun. I suspect if Helmer had suspected anything different he would have researched further and at the very least reported his suspicions. The subsequent sale to Kahr Arms years later indicates something of value was purchased by George Numrich in 1951. If William J. Helmer himself were to tell you that he never saw any of the three different contracts that any of the four participants signed from 1949 to 1951 and, therefore, has no way to endorse or vouch for what Numrich was entitled to, would you then reevaluate your misinterpretation of his info and that WH is no different from the other folks who made replica TSMG's?


  • 0

#70 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:03 PM

John, Jr..... hail.gif
  • 0

#71 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:04 PM

There is something else in the mix of the whole TD vs. AF deal. There was no money in making the Thompson because there were shitloads of them in the surplus market.

Ron K..

What were prices like back in the early 50s...? How about early 1970's? I bet not enough to make it pay to produce new ones. 1968 probably made it more attractive because of the importing issues, but still, prices weren't crazy like now.

Just a thought...

  • 0

#72 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1077 posts
  • Location:North Central Pennsylvania
  • Interests:Thompson Submachine guns, computers, reptiles.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:04 PM

QUOTE (LIONHART @ Dec 4 2005, 11:56 PM)
QUOTE
walked into the bank with a Kahr 27A1 to make a withdrawal to purchase an original Thompson


Crow, you planning something here? Well, if you do, I hope you the best of luck Brother. Just be sure to grab enough Dough for me too.. We'll go Thompson Shopping together!

Better yet, let's ALL Move to one Place, and create our own Township. We'll all get Deputized, and have as many MG's that we each could possibly afford!

LOL, I knew that there was another reason I should not have gone the SBR route. Dang now I'm in the top drawer. "Oh Bother"

I even though about selling insurance to local businesses. You know, just to make sure nothing happens.

Well if your going to have a throw away it might as well be a Kahr.

Perhaps an island! That way taxes can be charged to finance the purchase of MORE Thompson's.... Real Ones!
  • 0

#73 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:08 PM

TD,

If Helmer himself declares that what you have read into his thesis book is not stipulated to anywhere and that it is your interpretation, would you then be satisfied?

Cox, Richardson and Herigstadt have read this book as intently as you have and yet do not share your conclusions. Perhaps you have a copy that was never released to the public?

  • 0

#74 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (John Jr @ Dec 4 2005, 11:04 PM)
There is something else in the mix of the whole TD vs. AF deal.  There was no money in making the Thompson because there were shitloads of them in the surplus market. 

Just a thought...

Even if accurate, that doesn't explain why Numrich/Trast never produced one single unit in the 24 years since taking possession of the crates. The surplus TSMG's were still in the hands of the governments of the U.S. Great Britain, Soviet Union, not civilians back in 1951. What changed in 1975? These same entities still had their TSMG's. What government purchased WH TSMG's from Trast at any time during their production?
  • 0

#75 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2911 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:24 PM

John, Jr., you have hit the nail on the head so to speak. The Thompson was obsolete when Maguire decided to change the direction of corporation. Pack up the past and pick a new name was the new order of business. There is nothing to indicate Maguire wanted to retain any rights related to the Thompson. The Thompson was old news; Maguire was off to bigger and better things. And to think Kilgore Manufacturing paid $385,000 for only a bunch of dusty crates when it planned on selling the manufacturing rights to the Egyptians is not a reasonable position. That coupled with Helmer’s reporting, Numrich’s statements of ownership and future actions with the Thompson Submachine Gun indicate Numrich bought it all in 1951. The line of succession is complete.
  • 0

#76 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3480 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:28 PM

QUOTE (John Jr @ Dec 4 2005, 11:04 PM)
There is something else in the mix of the whole TD vs. AF deal.  There was no money in making the Thompson because there were shitloads of them in the surplus market. 

Ron K..

What were prices like back in the early 50s...?  How about early 1970's?  I bet not enough to make it pay to produce new ones.  1968 probably made it more attractive because of the importing issues, but still, prices weren't crazy like now.

Just a thought...

john j. some may find hard to fathom.later fiftie's nobody cared and a colt was $500.00 less then around 100 dealer's then,i knew a few who went back to 1961 1962 and one i met at s.a.r. sat. from 1965,then you could buy a minty new thompson.probably a one owner gun for less then $1,000.00,and a military get this for: $250.00.i remember selling some in later year's around 78-79 to curtis earl for 750.00 each..which he marked up to $1,500.00 each.my first original 27 semi.sold in 1975 for $2,750.00 made a whole $300.00 or so on it..surely not the freakin greed of $10,000 or more today..yeah they pay more for them,and they is askin way more also...

all the hub-bub about colt's really did not start until roger's book 1982,helmer's book in 1969 got me started.

by then when i met roger in 1975 i had a few year's already under my belt with the thompson. i started young. a few in the game are much older then me.however they started later maybe in there thirtie's.

my ffl arrived when 21 year's of age. just fresh out of the marine's..and there was no such thing as sample's..everybody was remarking about dewat's.

i know around someplace i have a 1965 catalog,from a good company in wisc. mine sold out in 1980...it seem's like yesterday sometime's.but 25 year's past.

and there had been many thompson's around,the pd's wanted the new fancy 1964 armalite rifle.

and later the s&w 76 subgun/

and along came later in the u.s. the uzi !.my buddy imported them along with the fal's for L.E. then.good time's.. take care,ron
  • 0

#77 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:32 PM

QUOTE (colt21a @ Dec 4 2005, 10:28 PM)
QUOTE (John Jr @ Dec 4 2005, 11:04 PM)
There is something else in the mix of the whole TD vs. AF deal.  There was no money in making the Thompson because there were shitloads of them in the surplus market. 

Ron K..

What were prices like back in the early 50s...?  How about early 1970's?  I bet not enough to make it pay to produce new ones.  1968 probably made it more attractive because of the importing issues, but still, prices weren't crazy like now.

Just a thought...

john j. some may find hard to fathom.later fiftie's nobody cared and a colt was $500.00 less then around 100 dealer's then,i knew a few who went back to 1961 1962 and one i met at s.a.r. in 1965,then you could buy a minty new thompson.probably a one owner gun for less then $1,000.00,and a military get this for: $250.00.i remember selling some in later year's around 78-79 to curtis earl for 750.00 each..which he marked up to $1,500.00 each.

all the hub-bub about colt's really did not start until roger's book 1982,helmer's book in 1969 got me started.

by then when i met roger in 1975 i had a few year's already under my belt with the thompson. i started young. a few in the game are much older then me.however they started later maybe in there thirtie's.

my ffl arrived when 21 year's of age. just fresh out of the marine's..and there was no such thing as sample's..everybody was remarking about dewat's.

i know around someplace i have a 1965 catalog,from a good company in wisc. mine sold out in 1980...it seem's like yesterday sometime's.but 25 year's past.

and there had been many thompson's around,the pd's wanted the new fancy 1964 armalite rifle.

and later the s&w 76 subgun/

and along came later in the u.s. the uzi !.my buddy imported them along with the fal's for L.E. then.good time's.. take care,ron

Thanks Ron.

That might have something to do with production....(or the lack of)

Cheap prices......


  • 0

#78 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 2785 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.

Posted 04 December 2005 - 11:59 PM

Say, does anyone here have that Link to check a Particular Serial Number for a Manufacturing Year on a WH? Thanks...
  • 0

#79 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1956 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Mena, Arkansas, USA
  • Interests:Plenty

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:03 AM

QUOTE (Z3BigDaddy @ Dec 4 2005, 10:38 PM)
Crap I want to get into this melee but don't have anything to contribute..... Oh wait this one is for the Master of Disaster Jr. .... So is my SFAB a TSMG or not? Or is it just a replica of a replica twice removed?<center>
user posted image
</center>

BTW I think Arty owes Nick a little extra money to cover the bandwith usage.... jmho

Can't remember what kind of guns the Z4 daddy owns, but if they didn't start life as a TSMG, then guess what?

THEY AIN'T TSMGS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I hate to insult people....oh... I don't mind insulting you! biggrin.gif
  • 0

#80 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3456 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 December 2005 - 12:29 AM

QUOTE (TD. @ Dec 4 2005, 11:24 PM)
That coupled with Helmer’s reporting, Numrich’s statements of ownership and future actions with the Thompson Submachine Gun indicate Numrich bought it all in 1951. The line of succession is complete.

That's your proof? Numrich's own statements as recorded by Helmer? Numrich's actions concerning the TSMG from 1951 consisted of inaction until 1975.

Of the 251 total pages in Helmer's thesis book, six paragraphs are devoted to Numrich's connection to what happened to Maguire's "Ordnance Division." There is no mention by Helmer of any continuing chain regarding the existence of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation beyond 1944.

You seem to find Numrich way more convincing than Helmer in regards to preserving this non existent chain that came to a dead stop in 1944.

Since Numrich is dead, maybe we can get Helmer to chime in on what transpired. Too bad when my brother interviewed Helmer for his Northwestern journalism class he never broached this subject.

  • 0