Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Replica


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

#161 Chromebolt

Chromebolt

    Long Time Member

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 03:34 PM

A very logical review TD. Thanks for the condensed version.

CB
  • 0

#162 Deputy

Deputy

    Regular Member

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

Posted 23 August 2006 - 03:50 PM

QUOTE (DougStump @ Aug 23 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

Doug: Later style adjustable with bayo lug and round bolt. I tried ordering an early style, but NOBODY had one and they had no idea when they could get any.

Dep
  • 0

#163 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 23 August 2006 - 09:24 PM

This thread keeps popping back up. I expect to see it back at the top every couple of months or so, given its history to date. I anticipate that it will continue doing so.

The line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to current day, in my opinion. You can say whatever you want about Kahr Thompsons, but I do grant them a legitimate link in the Thompson chain, all quality issues aside. Other intriguing chapters exist to the TSMG story.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#164 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2006 - 01:17 PM

QUOTE (dalbert @ Aug 23 2006, 09:24 PM)
The line of succession of the Thompson Submachine Gun extends from 1916 to current day, in my opinion. You can say whatever you want about Kahr Thompsons, but I do grant them a legitimate link in the Thompson chain, all quality issues aside.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

By any universal measure and understanding of what constitutes an end to a thing, concept, or event, the original AOC company that manufactured the Colt, Savage and AO TSMG came to a definite and unequivocal demise in 1944. By the time that Trast resurrected the newly applied for Bullet logo, Thompson and AOC name and patents for his 1927A1 it was 31 years later after the last TSMG as produced by the original AOC(that only made Thompson smg’s, not semi auto’s), rolled off the assembly line.

I can't understand how the 1916 to current day AOC "unbroken chain" gang continually dismiss quality from their insistence the company that made TSMG's in the 1920's and 1940's is the same one that made them in the 1970's, 80's, and 90's and makes them currently. Why would the "same" company lose the formula for making a good as, or better product, than was produced by the "same" company" 31 years earlier? Why would the "same" company completely abandon quality and verisimilitude from their production techniques?

An entrepenneur recently purchased a thriving neighborhood pizza restaurant. He hung a sign outside that said “under new management.” The sign should have said “under new ownership.” But the entrepreneur wanted to absorb the reputation of the original pizza place by keeping the same name. Is the pizza as prepared by the new owner the same as the original owner? Not even close. Same name, much different pizza. But in this case, the entrepreneur actually bought the name of the existing pizza place at the time it was still making pizzas. Contrast this with Maguire’s AOC that ended 1944 with Numrich’s purchase of crates in 1951 (but who never made a TSMG from scratch), to Trast’s 1975 1927A1 and 1928 & M1 smg, to Kahr’s 1999 1927A1.

Dave,
Since Kahr Arms does not even produce a TSMG. How can the “unbroken chain” of TSMG’s from 1916 even stretch to 2006?

  • 0

#165 Deputy

Deputy

    Regular Member

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

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:14 AM

Sure glad I'm bald. Never saw so much hairsplitting in all my life!!! If quality decides whether a product is what it says it is, then things like American automobiles are in BIG trouble!!! guess will have to think up new names for Ford, Chrysler, and GM. laugh.gif laugh.gif


Why would a company not be able to duplicate the quality of the product made DECADES ago? I can think of three reasons right away...

1)Not cost effective. 2)Skilled labor no longer available. 3)The public won't pay the price that such a product would cost.

Dep
  • 0

#166 full auto 45

full auto 45

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 4555 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
  • Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:31 AM

user posted image
  • 0

#167 LIONHART

LIONHART

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 25 August 2006 - 10:39 AM

LOL, I was thinking about this very thread yesterday, in responce to fake Oil Can's...
  • 0

#168 DougStump

DougStump

    RKI Member

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

Posted 25 August 2006 - 10:55 AM

Dep,

The reason I asked which carbine you had is I'm looking for a "real" report on the new "early" M1. If they work OK, then I might get one to blank adapt for p-raids in the Jeep. I just can't bring myself to blank a nice original M1. Right now I borrow a friend's M1917 or 1919 Browning and use the Win '97 trench gun for backup. The next batch of 12 gauge blanks I make up I'm going to fill the shell with mylar confetti.

Doug


  • 0

#169 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:10 AM

QUOTE (Deputy @ Aug 25 2006, 09:14 AM)
Sure glad I'm bald. Never saw so much hairsplitting in all my life!!! If quality decides whether a product is what it says it is, then  things like American automobiles are in BIG trouble!!! guess will have to think up new names for Ford, Chrysler, and GM.  laugh.gif  laugh.gif


Why would a company not be able to duplicate the quality of the product made DECADES ago? I can think of three reasons right away...

1)Not cost effective. 2)Skilled labor no longer available. 3)The public won't pay the price that such a product would cost.

Dep

Your attempted analogy doesn't track. Did Ford, GM, or Chrysler stop production of all cars for 31 years and then attempt to make the same car that they stopped making 31 years ago? Does the Ford Mustang of today resemble the 1960's Mustang? I guess externally to some degree. Does it sell? Extremely well. Is it made by the same company that made the 1960's Ford Mustang (excluding the Shelby made ones) ? Yes. Was the Ford company making cars for the last 60 years? Of course.

Please explain again the correlation between auto manufacturers and the AOC that ceased to exist in 1944 and the one that appeared in 1975?


If Trast didn't have the necessary "skilled" workers, and the whole idea of making a replica TSMG was "not cost effective," why bother in the first place? As far as "the public wouldn't pay the price that such a product would cost," do you have actual figures that substantiate the difference between what Trast allocated for the quality of his West Hurley and what extra costs would be necessary to bring that product up to WWII standards?

Devlin,
Were you also thinking the same thing about fake parts boxes, fake cleaning rods, reproduction cases, fake Cutts, etc?

  • 0

#170 CHICAGO TYPEWRITER

CHICAGO TYPEWRITER

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Fairland, Indiana

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:03 PM

Food for thought?

So if Mr. Thompson took his company public and it was still intact today and the company could no longer manufacture machine guns in any way to sell or export and the only option was to make the 1927 a1 and such would it not be considered as a Thompson then? wink.gif And then had the audacity to make different calibers and limit all magazines to 8 rounds. And during all the push button roar of the 50’s they replace the trigger with a chrome push button. Would it not be considered a Thomson then? ohmy.gif Would the company not evolve to save its self? Lets say great great grandson’s greed was running the company and they let the quality slip a bit over the years would quality alone exclude it from being a Thompson? And maybe, just maybe, the longer barrel and because it is harder to build a semi-auto gun that could be marketed as product improvement, ( like a chrome and wheel package on a car). You know, improve accuracy and have more control over the weapon…. dry.gif
  • 0

#171 CHICAGO TYPEWRITER

CHICAGO TYPEWRITER

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 45 posts
  • Location:Fairland, Indiana

Posted 25 August 2006 - 01:50 PM

Ponder this......Louis Chevrolet was a race car driver, never made a car even teamed with Durant when they started Chevrolet. And then Chevrolet bought out GM who had previsiouly kick out Durant! So if there never really was an original Chevrolet, what does that make all copy/replicas? Wouldn't that make them all originals? blink.gif huh.gif blink.gif



  • 0

#172 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 25 August 2006 - 03:41 PM

I think AF is correct.

If the AOC stopped making guns in 1944, and then someone else just starts making them again (even with original tooling), that makes the newer guns replicas. The company was never purchased.

If I obtain a lot of money, and start making the DeLorean DMC-12 again, does that mean that I am making DeLoreans? No. It means that I am making replicas of the DeLorean, even if I obtain a new copyright for the name. Quality is a moot point. Even if my cars are better and the parts interchange with the old original DeLoreans, it is still a replica. The DeLorean name died with the companies demise (even though a place in TX bought all of their spare parts.)

That being said, there is nothing wrong with replicas. The WH Thompson is a great gun once it is tuned up by a pro, and there is no shame in that.

My gun is "bottom-of-the-barrel" for full autos; it is a converted 27A1, but it is legal!


  • 0

#173 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2883 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:09 PM

Norm,
It is all a matter of how you define replica. Given your definition, the WW II Thompson’s were replicas of the Colt's (I am not even going to try to figure out the Warner & Swasey Thompson’s). I am not sure how to define the early NAC guns are since many of them used Colt and WWII (replica) receivers/frames. I guess the early and late NAC manufactured receivers would be replicas. Of course, your reasoning fails to take into consideration the Thompson (the Ordnance Division and one other Division of Maguire Industries) was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. No interest in the Thompson gun or name Auto-Ordnance was retained. It went as a package deal. That is the lineage; simple as that. The original company still exists. It proudly claims it heritage back to 1916 and specifically references the Tommy Gun. However, that was long ago. The Thompson part of the company found its way to Numrich Arms in 1951. Replica. I prefer Thompson. Some with a direct lineage to company General Thompson founded and others, like Pearl, with no link to anything but a good machinist. However, as long as any Thompson is in the Registry and runs, life is good!


  • 0

#174 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 August 2006 - 09:41 PM

QUOTE (TD. @ Aug 25 2006, 09:09 PM)
Of course, your reasoning fails to take into consideration the Thompson (the Ordnance Division and one other Division of Maguire Industries) was sold by Maguire Industries, Inc. No interest in the Thompson gun or name Auto-Ordnance was retained. It went as a package deal. That is the lineage; simple as that.

TD,
All common sense and reasoning are at fault in your opinion whenever interested individuals consider the final analysis that :

1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949.

2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974.

3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975.

4) Leaving out the quality issues, what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention.

5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2 were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with. Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver. Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson.

  • 0

#175 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 25 August 2006 - 11:16 PM

QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Aug 25 2006, 09:41 PM)


All common sense and reasoning are at fault in your opinion whenever interested individuals consider the final analysis that :

1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949. 

2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974.

3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975.

4) Leaving out the quality issues,  what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention.

5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2  were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with.  Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver.  Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson.
[/b][/color]


Arthur,

Here is what I will say about each of your points:

"1) Maguire's AOC was no longer making Thompson's for 6 years when he sold the crates to Kilgore in 1949. "

- O.K. There's a bit more to this, but I will agree with the statement in general, with specific minor reservations I will detail in the future.

"2) Numrich never made a Thompson from 1951 to 1974."

- Numrich Arms of Mamaroneck, N.Y., and West Hurley, N.Y. manufactured many Thompsons during this time, and also made significant numbers of barrels and other small parts. They also engaged in at least 8 years of R&D for the 1927A1 Semi-Automatic Thompson, producing a protoype that was rejected by ATF as being too easily converted to full auto in 1967.

"3) Trast had to apply for the Bullet Logo, AOC name and patents that were supposedly sold to anyone in 1949 or 1951. Then, 31 years after the original AOC ceased to exist as a TSMG manufacturing entity, Trast produced the 1927A1 in 1975."

- Not quite. We have discussed patents before in this same thread, but I will review. The last Thompson patent (for the Model 1928 modification, patented in 1931) expired on August 4, 1948. Anyone could have manufactured the Thompson after that date, and could have begun to produce the Model 1921 Thompson around 1936-1938. Patents were good for 17 years at the time. (I have original 1930's legal documents that detail potential patent infringement issues between the Hyde 35 SMG and the Thompson that talk to this very issue, including foreign Thompson patents) The M1 Thompson was never patented.
- No one would have wanted to assume the financial risk of manufacturing the Thompson without first obtaining what represented the TSMG at that time, which was the goodwill, jigs, fixtures, equipment, parts, and paperwork including blueprints that were bought from Maguire Industries, from whom they were purchased with the intent to manufacture using the Thompson name. The bullet trademark was good for 20 years after it was registered until it had to be renewed. I have never seen any research to indicate whether the trademark was renewed around 1941. Considering the date, it probably was renewed by Maguire, and was never an issue. Trast did not have to apply for any existing Thompson patents for the 1927A1, as they were all long expired, and were not renewable. Trast produced the first 1927A1 that was certified by ATF in 1974.

"4) Leaving out the quality issues, what West Hurley and Kahr made/make are the definition of an attempt to resurrect a .45 smg that ceased production in 1944. To suggest otherwise is a hollow declaration since there are no documents to support the contention."

- Documents do exist to support the contention that NAC at Mamaroneck and West Hurley produced Thompsons in the 1950's. I will post them soon for all to see, and many folks saw them at the TATA Show.

"5) Ohio Ordnance's semi BAR is a much better representation of what the original 1918 and 1918A2 were. than what trast and Kahr could come up with. Quality was not an after thought in their manufacturing. They do not stamp Browning anywhere on the Rolfe that uses a completely new manufactured receiver. Yet their product is light years more in common with the Browning rifle than either Trast or Kahr has with the AOC Thompson. "

- I'm not arguing quality, or BAR's.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

  • 0

#176 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2006 - 01:05 AM

QUOTE (dalbert @ Aug 25 2006, 11:16 PM)
1) Numrich Arms of Mamaroneck, N.Y., and West Hurley, N.Y. manufactured many Thompsons during this time, and also made significant numbers of barrels and other small parts.  They also engaged in at least 8 years of R&D for the 1927A1 Semi-Automatic Thompson, producing a protoype that was rejected by ATF as being too easily converted to full auto in 1967.

2) The last Thompson patent (for the Model 1928 modification, patented in 1931) expired on August 4, 1948.  Anyone could have manufactured the Thompson after that date, and could have begun to produce the Model 1921 Thompson around 1936-1938. 

3)Trast did not have to apply for any existing Thompson patents for the 1927A1, as they were all long expired, and were not renewable.  Trast produced the first 1927A1 that was certified by ATF in 1974.

4) Documents do exist to support the contention that NAC at Mamaroneck and West Hurley produced Thompsons in the 1950's.  I will post them soon for all to see, and many folks saw them at the TATA Show.


David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

1) Numrich did not make a receiver from scratch bar stock. All the receivers he used to assemble the other parts were already made and stamped by Colt or Savage/AO

2) Now you say anyone could have manufactured the 1928 TSMG's after 1948 and the 1921 TSMG after 1936? I'm not sure how that helps your AOC unbroken chain cause then.

3) 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. The 1927A1 has no connection to the original AOC as they never made any semi auto Thompson receivers.

4) You have documents stating that Numrich made TSMG's in the 1950's? Do those documents say what happened to any surviving TSMG that Numrich allegedly made at this time? A prototype 1927A1 is not an smg. Numrich couldn't make a prototype semi to pass ATF inspection in 1967, but Trast could in 1974? What technical advancements were made in the intervening 7 years that did the trick?

But failure to pass ATF inspection was not the reason Numrich gave to George Nonte for shelving the planned 1927A1 back in 1967. In fact, the prototype was displayed at trade shows around the country at the time. Would Numrich promote an M-1 type 1927A1 to the public if he hadn't at least got ATF approval for the design? Whatever the reasons were for the no go on tooling up for this semi, ATF red tape wasn't among them.

  • 0

#177 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2006 - 12:03 PM

Phil,
Nobody denies the existence of NAC prefix and suffix TSMG's. But if you look at ATF forms of these registered TSMG's (the ATF fees for the ones found in the crates, not imported by Numrich, were actually paid by Kilgore) the box "Name & Address of Manufacturer & Or Importer of Firearm" is indifferently filled in with "Colt," Savage," "AO" even if NAC was the importer. ATF seems not to care about any box but the serial number.

The essence of this debate regarding Numrich and the Maguire sale of anything but crates is that Numrich never rolled mark any receiver with the bullet logo, AOC name, patent dates or numbers. Why? Because the receivers already existed and as Helmer says
, "bear the original Auto-Ordnance markings." To me that says two things: Numrich never made a full auto receiver from scratch, and he never attempted to exercise any "authorized right" to use the names and logo that he said he purchased in 1951.

But let us examine the contention that it was the company called "NAC" that "manufactured these suffix and prefix TSMG's. Why would Numrich, the "legitimate" owner of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, need to register these Thompson's' under his "Numrich Arms Corporation" instead of the name stamped on the receiver, "Auto-Ordnance Corporation," which is the company/business he said he purchased in 1951? Even if he imported a complete TSMG, why use the "NAC" suffix when it was supposedly the "original AOC" company that imported these Thompsons'?

The broken chain gang can not have it both ways. Either Numrich owned everything, not just the crates, which means that he need not continue using his relatively unknown "NAC" company name and use the Auto-Ordnance Corporation name, or he had to use his own "NAC" stamp because there was a problem using the name of the business he presumed he owned lock stock and barrel.

Again, the question is not whether Numrich imported TSMG's and put together existing parts, aside from the peculiar barrels he did indeed make from scratch. The question is did "AOC" make any Thompson Submachine Guns from 1951 to 1974? Since Numrich didn't use the "AOC" name, we absolutely know that "AOC" never made a Thompson Submachine Gun from 1944 until 1975.

  • 0

#178 dalbert

dalbert

    Website Owner

  • Admin
  • 4269 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 26 August 2006 - 01:05 PM

QUOTE (dalbert @ Dec 6 2005, 01:09 PM)
I will clarify the facts around point #1 to start.  Thompson patents were valid for only 17 years.  Most of them expired between 1935 and 1938.  Some exceptions to this could have been the Model of 1928 actuator change, and the M1 Thompson.  I do not know if specific patent applications were made for these two products, but if they were patented, the patents would probably have expired around 1943 and 1959, respectively.  Only a potential M1 patent would have had any expiration conflict within the Numrich period. 

Arthur,

If you will scroll back to my original post to this thread on December 6, 2005, which is quoted above, you will see that I detailed the patent expiration issue to you at that time, and you responded to it. This is not new news. When a patent expires, the patented item is no longer protected, and others may use the technology.

Potential patent infringement was an issue between the Thompson and the Hyde 35 SMG, but was limited to pushback from the patent examiner until the Thompson patent(s) in question expired in 1936, and the Hyde patent was granted.

I have since determined the details of the 1928 actuator change patent, and also that the M1 was never patented. Those are the only changes regarding patents that I have added since my original statement on the subject.

I disagree that the essence of this argument is roll stamping. The essence of this argument, to me at least, is that the history and succession of the Thompson extends 90 years.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com


  • 0

#179 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 26 August 2006 - 01:17 PM

now i get it.they still make thompson's.just different maker's.thats all good. oh dave got the helmer pouch.tell bill stay safe and healthy.

remember guy's it's all fun and history,not headache's.

and we won't even get into the japanese replica model's yet.or the resin cast dummie's, or the r-gun and sarco fake's with real part's.hecka guy at a local show say's i've got a real thompson.then pull's a dummy out of a black case. and it wasn't gerry mahoney.wink! have fun.live long and prosper.take care,ron
  • 0

#180 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 August 2006 - 01:39 PM

Dave,

The essence of this particular isolated segment of the argument is:

Did AOC, i.e. Numrich, make a Thompson Submachine Gun using a newly made receiver from 1951 to 1974 with these newly made markings stamped on the receiver:

"Auto-Ordnance Corporation
Mamaroneck, N.Y. U.S.A." on the right side

&

"Thompson Submachine Gun" on the left side

OR

"Auto-Ordnance Corporation
West Hurely, New York U.S.A." on the left side

&

"Thompson Submachine Gun" on the right side

between 1951 and 1974.

It's time to take a Howard Hughes Spruce Goose stand. You show me a new production registered serial numbered Thompson Submachine Gun with these markings made between 1951 and 1974 and I will forefeet any claim that Numrich never made TSMG's using the AOC name during that period. That would mean that he, and only he, could rightfully be the AOC successor.

  • 0