Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#141 ghostsoldier

ghostsoldier

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:40 PM

Good God, TD...your post has GOT to set the record for the word "Thompson" being used the most (count 'em...27 times...).... smile.gif
Rob
  • 0

#142 Bob

Bob

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wa. and AZ.

Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:46 PM

Wow, this has become a monster thread banghead.gif

How about if one finds a unregistered 1921 in a PD. They form 10 it and fool around with it for a while then trade it as a parts kit. The PD saw cut the receiver in several places, a C2 welds it back together, all Colt parts except the weld material.

Now is this still a Thompson?

How about the C2 sells the "all Colt parts" from the kit and uses one of Dan's 28 kits to put it back together.

Now is this a Thompson since the Savage parts were made in 1940?

I think if a guy was really good with a plasma cutter he could "Z" cut the original Colt guns ( not damaging the original engraving) that are still sitting in PD vaults and make a pretty good gun out of the parts.

What do you think?


  • 0

#143 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 March 2006 - 09:53 PM

QUOTE
Is this not a real Thompson manufactured in the 1950’s by Numrich Arms?
TD,

Numrich did not manufacture any TSMG at any time. Using already manufactured receivers, frames, barrels, wood, etc made prior to 1945, how would assembling these already manufactured parts then constitute being manufactured a second time? Numrich did assemble these TSMG's in the 1950's, and yes, some of these marked receivers/complete firearms have been referred to as "Frankensteins," mostly as a debunking method to Curtis Earl's contention that these "NAC" TSMG receivers were some mysterious and coveted "rare' version of a Thompson.

At no time have these "NAC's" been over looked, "ignored" or not discussed at length on this board and elsewhere. They are what they are. As late as 1967, Numrich admitted to Helmer that he had not looked inside the crates he purchased back in 1951. I guess a crate fell off a warehouse shelf, fell on his head, and broke open, revealing these un numbered, but otherwise, completely marked in some fashion by Colt/Savage/AO receivers.

There are three types of respondents to this thread:

1).
Those who believe that Numrich never purchased any rights to the Thompson in 1951, and never made any version of the TSMG's until Trast did in 1975. Also that it wasn't until 1985 Trast applied for the rights to the name, logos and patents.

2).
Those whose curiosity extends to reading whatever it says on the side of their receiver and are in need of no further explanations.

3).
And those that have this unbroken chain theory that the Auto-Ord-Co has been in tact for 90 years.

For those like yourself who embrace the last position, what in your estimation constitutes a broken chain? 31 years out of production doesn't break the chain? Applications to the regulating authorities to do business with logos and names 34 years after all the rights to said entity were supposedly purchased? The fact that Doug Richardson has never been ordered by Trast to cease and desist making his receivers using all the names that Kahr currently is supposed to own?

This is why the West Hurley TSMG has no more claim to the Thompson name and rights than the Philly Ord, Pearl or DR receivers.

Putting aside the "replica/reproduction" moniker for a moment, if there is any distinction that seems obvious in this discussion is that there are the orignal "Auto-Ord-Co" manufactured TSMG's that ended in 1944, and then there are the post "Auto-Ord-Co" made TSMG's including WH, Pearl, Phily Ord, DR etc.....

  • 0

#144 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 March 2006 - 11:01 PM

Arthur,
I really wasn’t directing my post to you. You cite your position every opportunity that arises. I am much more selective. I am only interested in those who have an open mind and are interested in a discussion of what actually took place with the Thompson Submachine Gun over the years. I am pretty comfortable with what is stated in the FAQ section, above. The statement is well thought out, fair to all and more importantly, leaves room for future research.

Manufacturing versus assembling has been already discussed and put to bed. Numrich Arms manufactured Thompson Submachine Guns in the 1950’s. Comment like the crates falling off a warehouse shelf add nothing to this discussion and serve only to confuse those who are not well read in this area. It is immaterial whether George Numrich knew he was buying complete submachine guns when he made the deal with Willis. What we do know is George Numrich purchased the Thompson Submachine Gun and all the rights to it that Maguire sold off a few years earlier. Out of production – well, when you own something, you get to make the decisions on what to do with it – or at least that is how I think it works in business. My hats off to George and Ira Trast for starting a new production line when they felt the market was right. Again, another business decision. It seems to me this was a successful business venture. So successful that it actually led to the sale of the Thompson Submachine Gun to Kahr Arms. Just follow the money; the lineage continues on. But for the 1986 machine gun ban, Thompson Submachine Guns of a new era would be on the dealer’s shelf. Unfortunately, Richardson, Pearl, Philadelphia Ordnance and all others like these do not fall under General Thompson's line of succession. And that is why these models are generally priced under the going price for a Thompson with a direct lineage to General Thompson's dream. However, these and others are great Thompson’s in there own right - and there is enough room for all in this Tommy Gun world.

Rob – your right – I out did myself with that post. This should be it!


  • 0

#145 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2006 - 12:07 AM

TD,

Exactly where did you pluck the idea from that assembling and manufacturing are the same thing? It is these obvious spinning of simple words that denote subterfuge on your part regarding any aspect of the Numrich association with these crates.

You have yet to offer up what constitutes a broken chain of succession in your world. Apparently, a 50 year lapse or 100, 200 year lapse in production is merely to be considered an insignificant quirk in the personality of the guy in charge


QUOTE
My hats off to George and Ira Trast for starting a new production line when they felt the market was right


Again, Numrich did not have a production line. He never had a factory to set up the WWII machines he bought in those crates. Trast did start a "new" production. A totally "new" and separate production that had no relationship to the one that became defunct in 1944. Otherwise, why apply for rights in 1985 that he supposedly got from Numrich, who supposedly got from Willis.


Everything has a beginning and an end. What is so tragic in the fact that Auto-Ord-Corp ended in 1944?


QUOTE
Unfortunately, Richardson, Pearl, Philadelphia Ordnance and all others like these do not fall under General Thompson's line of succession.


If you were to ask Thompson which Thompson receiver he would want his name and company name attached to do you actually think he would pick WH or Kahr over the others you mentioned? Why do you use the word "unfortunately?" The only make believe hindrance that exists to disqualify these gunsmiths as bona fide Thompson manufacturers is your "unbroken chain" myth.

It seems your allegiance to the chain theory does have caveats. As long as Numrich and Trast are the sole claimers to the legacy it is fine and dandy. But if other gunsmiths turned out better examples, with the same right as anyone else to make Thompson's, at least up until 1985, you cry foul.

I wonder who is actually the snob here?

You certainly did out do your usual dogmatic presentation. You are like a berserk EMT trainee who is desperately attempting to resuscitate a corpse

  • 0

#146 1921A

1921A

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 531 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2006 - 01:02 AM

Geez, I hate to see a thread die before it's been thoroughly discussed so let’s pour some gas on the fire! wink.gif

ATF has always defined "any one who assembles the components of firearms, into complete, functional firearms for the purpose of resale, a manufacturer" thereby requiring a 07 FFL . They don't care who made the components or when.

That is exactly what Numerich, Trast and a helluva lot of other 07 FFL's /Class 2's have been doing for years.

I've been lucky enough to own a substantial number of original guns and more than a few 28/M1 FA Westies. Naturally, I prefer the originals but the Westy is just as much fun to shoot - probably more so because I don’t (make that didn’t) worry about breaking them. I'm damned grateful to Numerich, Philadelphia Ordnance and others who invested time and money to make "replicas" so the rest of us could enjoy them.

My interest in Thompsons and accessories is more history related than anything - never really cared about the monetary value. Unfortunately for most of us, money is now the overriding factor in the NFA market.

Oops, I’m running out of gasoline (which is also expensive) so that's my 02.

soapbox.gif
  • 0

#147 Paul Winters

Paul Winters

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 69 posts

Posted 14 March 2006 - 07:40 AM

O.K. I finally have read the pages and pages of discussion and I see two sides of the argument. I also need to brew some more coffee. The common denominator is Arthur and a few others, but mainly Arthur arguing about this or that being a replica. Arthur, can you please explain what you define the word replica to mean and it's relevance in the world of Thompsons? No footnotes or referenced quotes please. In my understanding most firearms in the world are replics. 1911's, AR-15's, AK's, wheel guns, ... etc. I feel I may be missing something.
  • 0

#148 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2006 - 08:25 AM

Arthur,
To understand how assembling parts is manufacturing may I suggest going back a few pages and reading the complete post by David Albert on this subject. He says it much better than I so here is a quick except:


QUOTE
Now for point #2 regarding your opinion that no guns were “manufactured,” and they were only “assembled” at Numrich. Assembling is manufacturing. This may be a subtle nuance that you want to argue in the strictest sense, but I can assure you that our U.S. manufacturing metrics include an enormous amount of manufacturing which involves assembling of pre-fabricated parts of various origin. This leads to manufacturing efficiencies. Very few manufacturers actually make all the parts they use to assemble (manufacture) their products. In the case of Numrich, they would have wanted to use any receivers that existed, and may have also done some fabrication as part of their manufacturing process to fulfill orders.

Incidentally, since you like to quote the Cox book, you might want to take a look at the paragraph prior to the one you quoted about Components Corporation of America. In speaking about the guns and parts included in the crates that Numrich purchased in 1951, Cox states, "NAC also manufactured the Thompson from these spare parts and other parts they purchased around the world." It seems Cox understood in 1982 the meaning of "manufactured," and included the reference in his book on page 3.


As to how long an owner of a product waits before doing something with said product has also been thoroughly discussed. I believe it is well known that George Numrich was very active in the Thompson business shortly after buying all the assets related to the Thompson Submachine Gun from Willis in October 1951 – and remained active for many years thereafter. Even if the number of years were an issue (which it’s not), 1944 to 1951 is not a large gap of time.

You can keep citing quality issues and what General Thompson would have really preferred but these statements have no relevance in this discussion. I think some of these Thompson’s manufactured outside the line of succession are pretty good – but that is something for another thread. Comments concerning snobs and EMT’s are also of no value.

I believe your argument against an obvious line of succession would be much better if you held the line ended with George Numrich and Ira Trast. This would be an interesting topic to explore and one that new research could possibly answer. The line from Maguire to Kilgore to Willis to Numrich is well established. Maguire retained nothing related to the Thompson; everything was sold as Maguire Industries moved on to bigger and better venues. That is how business works in this country.

  • 0

#149 TOM R

TOM R

    Member

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

Posted 14 March 2006 - 09:15 AM

MAN I am sorry I replied think I reopened a can of worms buttkick.gif
  • 0

#150 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2006 - 09:50 AM

QUOTE
It seems Cox understood in 1982 the meaning of "manufactured," and included the reference in his book on page 3.


Does that mean that Dalbert has also accepted Cox's "replica" appellation for the WH? I mean if Cox understood the meaning of "manufacturing," surely he understood the meaning of "replica."

OK. If we apply the "assembling is manufacturing" precept then all firearm owners who have stripped their parts down, put them in separate bins, then put them back together, are independent "manufacturers" of firearms.

Your scholarly approach to dealing with obvious questions regarding:
1).
Why Numrich never used the Auto-Ord-Co name for 23 years until he registered in New York the "new" name "Auto-Ord-Corp" on June 14, 1974, that had no connection to the one that existed pre 1945.

2).
Why He never uncrated the WWII Maguire machines to make Thompson parts from scratch.

3).
Why Trast had on 7/25/84, applied for the "Thompson" trademark and that Auto-Ordnance Corporation at West Hurley, was then granted that trademark registration on 9/17/85.

is to dismiss these nagging relevant questions with they were "merely George Numrich's business decisions to use or not to use this or that." Come on. If a document existed that Numrich was granted exclusive use of all things related to the Thompson back in 1951, there is no way that Numrich and Trast would have to scramble to legally obtain these rights 30 and 40 years later.

Another interesting morsel regarding the amount of money paid for the crates is that Willis paid Kilgore substantially less than the $385K that Kilgore paid Maguire and, we can safely extrapolate form that sale, that Numrich paid Willis substantially less than Willis paid Kilgore. Numrich might have paid $50K for the crates. Could the ever dwindling prices for the crates be because Willis found out that Kilgore didn't posses anything other than the crates?

As DR said so eloquently,


QUOTE
Kahr Arms purchased the new Auto-Ordnance Corp. from Numrich Arms in 1998, apparently believing that they were actually buying the original Auto-Ordnance Corp., not the one created by Numrich Arms


Paul Winters,

Replica, as in after market, not made by, or in accordance with, the original entity with the proper licensing rights.

  • 0

#151 Paul Winters

Paul Winters

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 69 posts

Posted 14 March 2006 - 03:56 PM

Thanks Arthur for the first half....

And it's relevance in the Thompson world?


Paul : -)#

  • 0

#152 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 March 2006 - 11:25 PM

Arthur,
It is inconceivable that Saeilo Enterprises, Inc. purchased Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York, thinking it was the original Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. Basic due diligence would have uncovered any attempt to misrepresent the history of these two corporate entities. I suggest what Saelio purchased, among other corporate assets and rights, was right to be in the line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun. It is quite obvious Saeilo Enterprises did not fall into the trap of following the corporations, but instead followed the Thompson business all the way from General Thompson to George Numrich/Ira Trast.

  • 0

#153 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 05:21 PM

Pleased to see that I haven't missed much since I've been away! cool.gif
  • 0

#154 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 15 March 2006 - 09:55 PM

Lionhart,

Where have you been? Good to see you posting again.

Norm

  • 0

#155 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 15 March 2006 - 10:45 PM

user posted image smile.gif
  • 0

#156 railroader

railroader

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 19 March 2006 - 10:19 AM

Being a newcomer to Thompsons and the full auto world, I must admit I was quite surprised to see what I initiated back on Dec. 3 with this "replica" business. However, it has been extremely interesting and educational, and would like to thank all who have participated. It is obvious that many of you are very well read on this subject and posess quite a bit of information regarding the Thompson. After having read all the posts, I can't imagine there could be any more to say on the subject that would sway one's opinion one way or the other. That being said, it is Sunday morning, and I'm going to load up the truck, go shooting, and have some fun. The one that I enjoy the most is my "replica" WH. Good day to you all.
  • 0

#157 Merry Ploughboy

Merry Ploughboy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 888 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2006 - 11:01 PM

The April, 2006 "American Rifleman" states on page 78, "So with the M1 Carbine, Auto Ordnance is in the nostalgic gun business. The Tommy gun - in semi-automatic of course - the M1911A1 pistol and now the M1 Carbine, are all offered by the company founded by Gen. John T. Thompson back in 1919."
  • 0

#158 Hawkeye_Joe

Hawkeye_Joe

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2486 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2006 - 11:06 PM

I want a good "replica" 1919 A4.. F%$K you all ....
  • 0

#159 Deputy

Deputy

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Silver City, NM

Posted 23 August 2006 - 11:05 AM

I've got a Kahr M1 Carbine. Fired 50 rounds through it, and other than a re-parked GI mag that had the dentents worn out, it performed flawlessly. I'm just praying that when I take my semi-auto Kahr-Thompsons to the range they perform equally well.

Dep
  • 0

#160 DougStump

DougStump

    RKI Member

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 02:46 PM

Dep,

Does yours have the early style "L" rear sight and no bayonet lug, or the later style adjustable sight & lug?

Doug

  • 0