Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#121 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

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

Posted 07 December 2005 - 06:50 AM

Fascinating!
I love the history of the AO firm from start to finish.
It is truly unfortunate that there are what seem to be unrecoverable holes that cannot be filled.
If documentation exists, it will take a lot more digging than what is available from the few books that are available today. I would think that a paper trail might exist in DC, showing the transfer of names/owners, if in fact that legal transfers were made at all.

There may even be documentation somewhere in Numrich's office, or in a box in their warehouse. As of the past few years machining gauges were just uncovered. It's obvious that Numrich today still dosen't know the full inventory that was purchased.

The full story may never be known.
  • 0

#122 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 07 December 2005 - 10:11 AM

QUOTE (Z3BigDaddy @ Dec 7 2005, 01:58 AM)
"everybody thought the alien's wanted to help... it was a frickkin cook book!!"

why must there be a defining subcategory? it's definately a guy thing that is for sure.... i'm sure some of us would feel less of a man if they didn't have a defined superior gun and some would have gun envy for those who do..... i guess i'm luckier than the rest of youse cuZe i know my gun is fake..... so i'll just shoot the crap outa my sfab while y-all argue till you're blue in the face......

big daddy i know you are smart e-nuff to catch the hint with that tale.

don't alway's take what is pushed in front of you for what you really want to believe is the truth.humanity can be fooled.

could 11 million plus german's been wrong? at the time.wink! let alone a few thompson guy's..
take care,ron
  • 0

#123 ghostsoldier

ghostsoldier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 490 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NE Florida
  • Interests:WW2 history, gangsters, Public Enemies and G-Men history

Posted 07 December 2005 - 10:41 AM

Maybe this thread should be titled "Who's the biggest post whore"... rolleyes.gif

Well, damn...I'm depressed...here, I was on the board for while a year or so ago under another name, but I left, 'cause I didn't really have much to offer...after all, I didn't even own a gun...so, I went out and bought a Kahr M1 so I could at least relate to all the data being expounded upon as a gen-yoo-wine Tommygun owner...now, you guys tell me my firearm's not a real one...only a bastard copy of a idea of a conceptual dream in a hallucenogenic daze...it's like my '06 Mustang in not really a Mustang 'cause it wasn't built in '64 1/2 using the original tooling and dies...even though my Thompson has had the Healing Hands of the Omnipotent And Blessed Moonie Potentate placed upon it, infusing it with a mystical power, if you will...alas, all is forlorn and lost...guess I'll just go shoot myself now...

CLICK! (The sound of the safety being released...)
CLICK -KA-SCHINK! (The sound of the M1 bolt being opened, and a .45 caliber FMJ bullet being chambered...)
CLICK....silence....CLICK....silence ...CURSING...(Well, what did you expect to hear? After all, it's a Piece Of Shit Kahr...)
Oh well!
Rob biggrin.gif

(Here's Kahr Arms and me... nutkick.gif )

  • 0

#124 Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner

Roland, Headless Thompson Gunner

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 683 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland
  • Interests:Thompsons, Garands, All things WW2, Corsairs, Classic Guitars, Sex, Guns and Rock & Roll

Posted 07 December 2005 - 12:10 PM

This adds nothing I'm sure but I love what you can find on the internet:


NYS Department of State
Division of Corporations
Entity Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Entity Name: AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 25, 1916
County: QUEENS
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: INACTIVE

  • 0

#125 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2005 - 12:54 PM

QUOTE (Roland @ Headless Thompson Gunner,Dec 7 2005, 12:10 PM)
This adds nothing I'm sure but I love what you can find on the internet:


NYS Department of State
Division of Corporations
Entity Information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Selected Entity Name: AUTO ORDNANCE CORPORATION

Selected Entity Status Information Current Entity Name: COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA
Initial DOS Filing Date: AUGUST 25, 1916
County: QUEENS
Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
Entity Type: DOMESTIC BUSINESS CORPORATION
Current Entity Status: INACTIVE


That very blurb was posted on this board the last time this subject came up a year or two ago. Better that someone other than me posts it since it squares with what Cox reported in his 1982 book. AOC stayed with the Maguire family's COMPONENTS CORPORATION OF AMERICA.

Why is their no updated reference to Numrich under the Auto-Ordnance Corporation entity name? Because it ceased to exist in 1944.

Ron K,
you condensed this whole discussion down to this poignant and simple explanation:

"has anybody taken into consideration in all this somebody lied about part's of it. the price the machinery. how many crate's,how many gun's how many receiver's? and all these supposed right's.. and ownership...i think i read some fiction once. and somebody said it started with science."

  • 0

#126 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 December 2005 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE
The AOC and TSMG names were not left dormant or abandoned. The person who bought all the production hardware used that name and the equipment and he sold firearms under that name.

The path of succession from the last owner of record (Maguire), to Kilgore and eventually Numrich, was one of open public transactions. It was not hidden.
PhilOhio

The question as to whether Numrich bought anything other than physical assets and the possible Ordnance Division name was never tested by Numrich/Trast until 1975. Since the bullet logo, the name Thompson, the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, and the patent dates or numbers are only stamped on the receiver, we really have no way to know what might have ensued if Numrich made a brand new receiver from bar stock and then actually "USED" all these controlled trademarks, patents, logos, and names on his new receiver.

Of course the reporting of the transactions of Thompson 's physical assets from Maguire to Kilgore to Willis and to Numrich were never contested and are public record. After all, these crates didn't contain farm implements.

But what is obviously not open or public is what Maguire stipulated as to names and rights in this sale. The proof of this is that, currently, no researcher has been able to produce this document.

Just because people at that time were indifferent to what really transpired shouldn't be a substitute for documentation. Collectors today should demand something more substantial than the explanation it was so long ago and so far away that the passage of time negates any need for further clarification.

  • 0

#127 draver

draver

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 26 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 02:41 PM

Being a relatively new member, I've just read all 7 pages of this thread.

It seems to me from what's posted that ALL Thompson style SMG's are replicas with the exception of the originals created by Mr. Thompson.

Thus:

Colt=Replica
Savage=Replica
AO=Replica
WH=Replica

I realize some have an agenda for preserving the "Sanctity" of the "Colt Only as Thompson", but it seems to only be a distinction of quality, not lineage.

I'd be very surprised if everyone shared my opinion. Remember though, even if it's
written in reference material, it too may be only an opinion.

Edited by draver, 12 March 2006 - 02:43 PM.

  • 0

#128 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3632 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 12 March 2006 - 06:04 PM

and i was told any new member's just read shotgun new's,and dr.seuss green egg's and spam!! wink!!

glad you enjoyed the enlightenment..........we is here to pleeze the masse's..with humor,fact,fiction,and sometime'sa dose of reality....sometime's not in that order.

take care,ron

sometime's the respected one...
  • 0

#129 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2006 - 06:47 PM

QUOTE (draver @ Mar 12 2006, 02:41 PM)
Being a relatively new member, I've just read all 7 pages of this thread.

It seems to me from what's posted that ALL Thompson style SMG's are replicas with the exception of the originals created by Mr. Thompson.

Thus:

Colt=Replica
Savage=Replica
AO=Replica
WH=Replica

I realize some have an agenda for preserving the "Sanctity" of the "Colt Only as Thompson", but it seems to only be a distinction of quality, not lineage.

I'd be very surprised if everyone shared my opinion.  Remember though, even if it's
written in reference material, it too may be only an opinion.


You must have perused the 7 pagers instead of giving it a cursory reading. If you had, you would have understood that the "replica/reproduction" term has nothing to do with preserving "Sanctity of the "Colt Only as Thompson," but rather the documented history, not conclusions based on "opinions," of the Auto-Ord-Corp, a logo, and the Thompson name. You would also have stumbled across passages that refer to those "Thompson's manufactured post 1944 as replicas. Not post 1922.


John Thompson did not create any Thompson. In fact, Thompson said he wanted the Model 1919 named after Thomas Fortune Ryan, the man who been the financial backer of the project. Thompson inspired what were the prototype Persuader and Annihilator. But it was Eickhoff, Payne and Charles Tunks who actually designed and tinkered these prototypes and the model 1919 prototype, that was the first submachine gun to bear the Thompson name.

Colt manufactured Thompson's under the authority of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, as did Savage and AO during WWII.

By 1975, Trast's version of "AOC" had no relationship to the pre 1945 company.

  • 0

#130 draver

draver

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 26 posts

Posted 12 March 2006 - 07:48 PM

Artie,

seems like you're swimming against the tide.

Get over yourself, and just enjoy your Thompson like the rest of us.
  • 0

#131 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2006 - 08:27 PM

draver,

Your confusion knows no boundaries. You seem to think enjoyment and historical accuracy are mutually exclusive. You also have the roles of the players reversed. You, TD, Arnold and a sprinkling of other hope springs eternal philosophers represent the swimmers while noted Thompson researchers and authors, Roger Cox, William Helmer, Doug Richardson, Gordon Herigstadt, R. L. Sutherland, R. L. Wilson, Thomas B. Nelson, all accepted business practices, copy write and trademark laws represent the ocean.

  • 0

#132 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2950 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2006 - 08:28 PM

This is certainly a great thread. It is recommended reading for all Thompson enthusists.

QUOTE
By 1975, Trast's version of "AOC" had no relationship to the pre 1945 company.

That is certainly one opinion wink.gif

In all seriousness, if you are going to have an opinion on the lineage of the Thompson Submachine Gun, I encourge you to read from all the sources cited and from material that has not been cited so you will have an informed opinion. It is the sharing of information that makes this board second to none.

  • 0

#133 draver

draver

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 26 posts

Posted 13 March 2006 - 10:19 AM

Artie,

I respect your OPINION, but I still think you're wrong.

You or I will never know why the use of the Thompson name and stampings were not challenged, but that alone stands as one of the few FACTS, that they had the right to that use. I believe it's because they had the right to use them, and every at the time also knew it. If it walks like a duck, etc.

My OPINION is they're all Thompsons.

I really don't see you in the class of individuals you've championed, so I hope that's not what you're implying. All you are dealing with is hearsay on hearsay.

There is no need to reply to this comment, most seem to agree you're beating a dead horse, and we don't seem to have anything in common, (Except we own Thompsons !).

I defer to the FAQ for the forum. Artie, did you read this or merely peruse it? Sorry, no need to answer.

"Are West Hurley submachine guns real Thompsons?"

"This is one of the most hotly debated questions among Thompson collectors. Purists argue that, no, they are not. Citing patent issues, the somewhat blurry history of the Auto-Ordnance Company, its purported cessation of operation 1944 (and its numerous subsequent changing of hands), some believe no new Thompsons were produced after the end of WWII. West Hurley full automatic weapons are, thus, considered reproductions of the original Tommy Gun. Still others contend that the guns produced by the Auto Ordnance Company of West Hurley, NY, in the 1970's and 1980's are the direct descendants of the original Thompsons. There seems to be evidence to support both ideas. It is likely there will never be a resolution to this debate."
  • 0

#134 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 March 2006 - 12:11 PM

draver,

Your initial post in this thread stated you concluded all Thompson's are replicas. But you never explained how you arrived at that nebulous rationale, other than employing the often misused folksy "duck" platitude analogy. This "when all else fails" retort is particularly invalid when comparing reproductions to originals. Just insert a knock-off Rolex for a West Hurley when comparing it to the original and invoke the "duck" analogy and the argument falls flat

Then you cite Chris’s FAQ thread paragraph on West Hurley’s as your guiding reference. He was being diplomatic by not taking a position on either side of the debate. But I missed where it said all Thompson's are replicas. Not to mention that if "most" people (who are these legions of nay sayers you refer to?) believe this subject to be resolved in their favor, why is there the need for the disclaimer in the FAQ thread?

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, but the well regarded Thompson' authorities I cited refer to the West Hurley as replicas/reproductions. I merely concur with their views that the preponderance of all recorded evidence supports the WH as replica. What ever "class" I may, or may not, possess is irrelevant since my personal opinions on the subject are based primarily, but not exclusively, on their well annotated periodicals and books.

You, on the other hand, have hitched your wagon exclusively to hearsay and apocryphal stories, mostly perpetuated by Numrich.

Since Numrich never applied the Thompson name, the bullet logo, Auto-Ord-Corp, or patents on any Thompson receiver until 1975, when Trast used all these names on his WH version, exactly what quarters would a challenge erupt from when there was nothing to challenge during those intervening 31 years when neither Numrich or Trast manufactured a .45 smg using the Thompson name from the time the last Thompson rolled off the assembly line in 1944.

Numrich didn't even use the "Auto-Ord- Corp" name on his NAC sales literature.

Maybe you should ask the opposite question: Why didn’t Trast, and now Kahr, take Doug Richardson to court for using all these names and logos on his receivers after they were turning out their versions of the Thompson?

Everyone is free to have their own beliefs. But before you accuse others of having an agenda, you should be aware of your own dog in the hunt. By emphatically and reflexively dismissing any contrary voices, no matter how logical and evidential the argument is presented, you acknowledge your Philistine mentality.

  • 0

#135 Norm

Norm

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2514 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis, TN
  • Interests:Thompsons (of course), Electronics, Physics, History, Mechanics, Collecting License Plates.

Posted 13 March 2006 - 12:43 PM

QUOTE
"Are West Hurley submachine guns real Thompsons?"


I think that question will always be argued.

I know that my Thompson is a replica. It is built on one of the Richardson receivers (27A1 specs) that AF is refering to, but with the registered conversion device, I am happy with it.

Maybe we should all look at the bigger picture and ask....

"Are West Hurley submachine guns real submachine guns?"

At least that question is much eaisier to answer! wink.gif

Norm

  • 0

#136 draver

draver

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 26 posts

Posted 13 March 2006 - 01:33 PM

Artie,

As I previously stated, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong. So, there you have it, we disagree.

But with over 1700 posts in this forum, it's obvious you are like some of the posters in a Rolex forum. I refer to those who seem to live for the thrill of expounding on a subject they feel they know better than others.

BTW, Fortune is not his real middle name, do you know what it really is? You know, being such a history buff, and all.

As you seem to always require, have the last word. I'm bored with you, and won't be reading it.

Let me apologize to the rest of the forum for allowing "Artie's" demeanor as "Expert On Everything... Ever" color my approach to this thread.
  • 0

#137 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 March 2006 - 01:49 PM

draver,

Thinking that my position is wrong, without offering any supporting evidence to your contrary opinion, is indeed pointless. But since you won't be reading this post, how will any of us avail themselves of your coveted knowledge of Ryan's true middle name?

  • 0

#138 TOM R

TOM R

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 29 posts
  • Location:nazi jersey
  • Interests:ww2, and other military weapons and vehicles

Posted 13 March 2006 - 05:21 PM

with out readin all 8 pages i think if it looks like a "thompson" weather or not it is fa it is still a "thompson"

though I am sure it is classified by the batf like the sa 1919a4,sa mg42/34 etc. in that it is "a semiauto rifle/firearm built to resemble a thompson" cool.gif
  • 0

#139 DougStump

DougStump

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 289 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shreveport, Louisiana

Posted 13 March 2006 - 05:29 PM

Tom,

I agree with you. While I can't afford to be a "Colt Whore", all I have is a Savage M1A1. Is it a real Thompson?

It looks like a Thompson.
It feels like a Thompson.
It thinks it's a Thompson.
And it damn sure eats like a Thompson.

Must be a Thompson!

Doug


Jesus Christ is Lord,
and John Thompson is his prophet!




  • 0

#140 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2950 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 March 2006 - 08:15 PM

This has turned into the thread that will not end. I was quite surprised to see it come back to the top of the board so I made a quick response to one comment and offered some advice for those who are really interested in this subject. Now I see it has garnered more posts and the debate continues. Actually, I never saw this subject as a debate. The lineage of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation to the Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation to the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing to Fredrick Willis to George Numrich to Kahr Arms has always been very easy to follow – at least for me – and many others. Money or company stock exchanged hands during each transaction so value is certainly not an issue. Those that try to stop the lineage at any given point in time use words like replica and reproduction to attempt to cloud the question of lineage. Or they speak of George Numrich's business decisions to use or not to use this or that. Obviously, the quality of each lot of Thompson’s produced over the years is very different - as each lot of Thompson’s were manufactured during different time periods for much different purposes. I try not to get into the replica/reproduction discussion because it really does not address the true lineage of the Thompson. I readily admit what has become known as the West Hurley Thompson’s are not of the same quality as the Colt production Thompson’s or for the most part, the WWII Thompson’s. Again, different guns manufactured for different purposes.

However, there is one batch of Thompson’s that are not mentioned in the discussion by those that stop the lineage in 1944. What about the NAC prefix Thompson’s (and some NAC suffix Thompson’s)? These are the complete guns and receivers that were found in the crated assets of Auto-Ordnance when purchased by George Numrich in October 1951. Serial number NAC 5 is well known on this board. Some call NAC 5 and others like it a frankenstein Thompson because it is not a Colt production Thompson. But all admit it is a real Colt receiver with other Colt and WWII parts. Is this not a real Thompson manufactured in the 1950’s by Numrich Arms? No West Hurley parts were put on any of these Thompson’s. Each receiver and part was manufactured or manufactured in part by Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport. Where do these reported 86 to 200 Thompson’s fit into the scheme of things if no Thompson’s have been manufactured since 1944? Are the found complete guns true Thompson’s? Are the found Thompson receivers that had to be completed and fitted together not true Thompson’s because this manufacturing process happened after 1944? Of course, no one knows what Thompson’s were complete guns and what Thompson’s needed a lot of work to turn out a completed Thompson. Or do we just ignore this lot of Thompson’s altogether because they were not true production Thompson’s of Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport and therefore do not count – even though Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport manufactured (complete, partially or otherwise) each part in some form or fashion. Of course, this is not a problem when you follow the lineage all the way from 1916 to George Numrich and beyond. This small lot of Thompson’s are true Thompson’s just like all the rest manufactured by the line of true owners of the Thompson Submachine Gun. Again, different guns manufactured at different times for different purposes.

What was the question again?



  • 0