Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Great Forum


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21 Tman

Tman

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 496 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX
  • Interests:Firearms, in general

Posted 10 February 2006 - 10:21 AM

blink.gif Oh no, not again!
  • 0

#22 Motorcar

Motorcar

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 628 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:05 PM

QUOTE (Tman @ Feb 10 2006, 10:21 AM)
blink.gif Oh no, not again!



iagree.gif
  • 0

#23 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 February 2006 - 03:39 PM

Phil,

Yes, the overall state of craftsmanship and pride in manufacturing has been on a steady decline, but there is a distinction, one that has a difference, between an evolved military generic term for a type of firearm (carbine, Model 1928, Government .45, etc) and the deliberate intent to obscure the relationship between a "new" version of said firearm and its original predecessor.

While every carbine collector or shooter is hip to the lack of quality in the post WWII Plainfield/Iver Johnson, they do not confuse these manufacturers with those that were government contracted in WWII.

Trast's use of the name Auto Ordnance Corporation with bullet logo and patents on the WH "Thompson's" suggests a relationship that does not exist. For a recent example of how this subterfuge has confused some, here is a post off the Subguns board:



Posted By: JLV
Date: 2/8/06 18:40

Did West Hurley make a stanless thompson in semi auto in 1927 and if so what is it worth? Thanks for any help. It is not a full auto.

  • 0

#24 cavediver

cavediver

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 221 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copperhill, TN
  • Interests:All types of full auto weapons, Cannons and hunting.

Posted 11 February 2006 - 07:48 PM

Phil,
I agree with you and Arthur about quality and history. My point was simply shoot what you have and enjoy it for what it is.
I still want to aquire a 28 Navy and will some day. I do think the WH I have does not look like a Colt and does not have the fit and finish but still shoots good and I enjoy bit for what it is. I once started to get PK to overhaul it and make it look like a Colt but in reality it would still be a WH. Therefore that would be a waste for me. This board is such a great place to learn and exchange info. So i dont want anyone to think I am disagreeing at all. I am still trying to chase down a couple of Colts that were owned by the Tennessee Copper Company that may be avalible so if anyone has any info on those guns it would be appreciated. Supposedly they are floating around near my summer home and I want to locate them and then find out if they are registered etc. I do agree with the collectors because to me the only M16 i wanted was a Colt.
Thanks for great discussions.

  • 0

#25 Grey Crow

Grey Crow

    RKI Member

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

Posted 11 February 2006 - 09:46 PM

PhilOhio,

You hit the nail square on the head there.

I bought 3 new Ruger revolvers last week, 2 of them have alloy grip frames. A far cry from the original Blackhawk's... and yet the prices still climb.

Give Kahr a few more years and we will most likely see alloy frames there as well.
Even the Remington 572BDL purchased in 1986 has an alloy receiver.
I guess maybe I'm a old dude, but give me all steel guns.

Yep, even the HD's out there, Knuckle Heads, Pan Heads, and the ole Hard Tail.

Its depressing to see the loss of quality..

Damn I am getting Old!

  • 0

#26 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:15 AM

Of course, everyone is right when it comes to quality. The West Hurley Thompsons are not anywhere as good as the Thompsons made in Hartford, Connecticut. That said, I submit the WWII Thompsons do not even measure up to the Colts in this area. However, one must look at when these items were produced and for what reason. The Colt’s were produced in a time when this type of quality was the norm and the developers saw an emerging worldwide market. The WWII Thompsons were mass-produced during a time of great need in the worldwide market - and nearly all were purchased by some government. The West Hurley's were built in a time that required a small arms manufacturer to eek out a profit on a $500 retail gun - with Colt's going for a $1000 on the used gun market. It is very likely that Numrich Arms Corporation could have built an exact clone of the Colt Thompson if it had hired all the necessary artisans required to perform this feat. But, had they had chosen this path, they would have manufactured about 50 guns and promptly shut down operations. None would have sold until after 1986 when the machine gun ban was imposed. Why? Because the retail price would have been much much more than a used Colt on the marketplace. So, while everyone is right about the quality of manufacture of all items manufactured in the 1920's versus the 1970's, do not confuse this issue with the line of uninterrupted succession concerning the ownership of the Thompson Submachine Gun. Maguire was glad to get rid of it; Kilgore's marketing plan did not work out; Willis to the rescue with an offer - and shortly thereafter, Numrich Arms bought it all at a time when no wanted it, made the best of it he could, and later sold it to Kahr Arms (I assume for a profit). The line of succession is complete. Again, you can spend hours talking about quality and you will get no argument from me. I feel it important to tell the rest of the story on the Thompson. It is funny how the purists seem to overlook everything after 1949. But now readers of this forum will understand how the Pearl and Richardson and other privately manufactured Thompsons, while of great quality and finished, were not produced in the ‘Auto-Ordnance’ chain of succession. Yes, they are Thompsons, most of them much better that anything George and company built – but they do not have the claim of title back to General Thompson’s dream.
  • 0

#27 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:04 PM

TD,

Ever feel like you are trying to hold back the ocean with a broom?

It comes down to these basic facts:
A). Company born in 1919 ceased operation in 1944.
cool.gif. Changed the name of the arms production branch, but retained the original name.
C). Sold crated assets of the old company but under the new name of the company.
D). Then 31 years from the time the last weapon built under the original company's authority, Trast manufactured replicas. He relied solely on a famous name, but one he did not own, to encourage sales.

The moral of the story is you can fool some people all of the time and all the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. You're "unbroken chain" chant is not only nebulous, it defies all known principles of peerage.

The 31 year gap not only ruined Trast's efforts to claim any connection to the pre 1945 company and its famous product, but he sealed his fate when he sacrificed any measure of quality for quantity and guile.

Maybe Trast should have just made Blish pistols. That was about as complex a technology he could master. Of course those would have been replicas as well.

  • 0

#28 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 12:27 PM


Arthur,
Do you ever feel like your story is developing many holes and sinking fast?

Actually, it comes down to these basic facts:

A). Auto-Ordnance Corporation created in 1916 (not 1919), changed corporate name to Maguire Industries, Inc. in 1944.
B.) Created a place in new corporation for the assets commonly referred to as the Thompson Submachine Gun.
C). Sold all assets and rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun 1949.
D). These assets were later acquired in 1951 by Numrich Arms Company, which manufactured the Thompson Submachine Gun for government and/or civilian sales until selling all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun to Kahr Arms in 1999.
E.) Quality of Thompsons produced after 1951 is not on equal basis as those Thompsons manufactured in 1921 and 1922.

Trast had every right to manufacture the Blish pistol, but he was a much better businessman than that.

You don’t have to use facts to fool any of the people wink.gif


  • 0

#29 ClevelandShooter

ClevelandShooter

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland Ohio
  • Interests:Class 3,Beer, VietNam era small arms, Beer, Harley-Davidson's, Beer, and as Car and driver once said "Torque and Recoil"

Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:18 PM

QUOTE (PhilOhio @ Feb 11 2006, 06:34 PM)
Arthur, I have to not only agree but add to your line of thought, regarding a manufacturer fiddling the facts...particularly about quality and tradition. Kahr has been doing some of that during the past year or so. Their published ads in major arms publications, such as the American Rifleman, rather bluntly contend that they are a part of a long and continuous Thompson manufacturing tradition, and that it is all about quality and the trademark, etc., etc. Same on their website. Any of our members can take a look. It's just untrue.

And they know it. That's wrong.


Well Phil and Arty here is your chance. Go to the courts and get a cease and desist order for false advertising. Your case will be settled once and for all. MONEY WHERE MOUTH IS???????
Also if your case loses then you will have to find some other thing to argue about. Lets put this dog to bed once and for all.
BILL OUT
  • 0

#30 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 01:48 PM

Clevleand Shooter,

You're rejection of the WH as a replica pales in your defiance that the WH version of the TSMG suffers from inferior manufacturing. I picked up a 1928 WH back in 1978. The difference between me and you/TD is that I knew at the time of purchase, before even firing it, that it was indifferently constructed and was a replica of the weapon produced in WWII and the weapon produced 19 years before that.

I may be the most vociferous voice on the replica subject, aside from Cox, Herigstadt, Richardson, Helmer, and Hoag, but you can't refute the posts from countless WH owners who report difficulties with their 1928/M1's. The following exchange is from Subguns board. You erroneously figured anyone admitting to the shortcomings of the WH must be me.


QUOTE
My op : shouldn't increase "value" of WH gun

Posted By: don'tknowitall
Date: 2/10/06 22:01

In Response To: All TRANSFERABLE THOMPSONS are now C&R (Securityboy)

After my last W.H. M1 experience, I found quality to be seriously lacking.

Receiver was definitely softer metal than a "real" M1, finally had to mig weld rear sight to get it to stay on, and gun never fired reliably, even after replacing parts with G.I. bolt, recoil spring, etc.

I have $13.5 in an original Savage M1. It has been 100% reliable and I wouldn't trade it for any number of W.H. guns! C&R status is meaningless when it comes to W.H. Thompsons, as far as I'm concerned.

don't, are you ARTY in disguise???????

Posted By: ClevelandShooter
Date: 2/11/06 12:27

In Response To: My op : shouldn't increase "value" of WH gun (don'tknowitall)

If it is not a colt, savage a bridgeport it aint a Thompson.
BS. Westies run fine. Yes some need tweeking but I'll bet so did a lot of production guns from the others. Cut the BS. A Thompson is a Thompson.PERIOD
MY.02
BILL OUT


I guess it depends on what your expectations are from a manufacturer. For some, the mere name of "Thompson" stamped on the receiver is all they need to know, regardless of fit, construction, materials, reliability and history.

The Colt TSMG, as manufactured to Auto-Ordnance Corporation specifications, were not sold to the public before they had the "bugs" taken out of them. The WWII Savage/AO TSMG's were also tested and checked by arsenal inspectors before leaving the facility.Trast, on the other hand, did not engage any such standards before releasing his 1928's/M1's to the public.

  • 0

#31 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 07:53 PM

Arthur,
I think we all agree on the quality of a Colt Thompson versus a West Hurley Thompson. I noticed most of our bantering seems to always come down to the complaint of quality - something I try not to become involved with.

I think you have a problem with the line of succession from Maguire to Kilgore because of manufacturing rights. If I am not mistaken, you believe that all Kilgore purchased was the leftover parts, along with whatever machinery was in the crates. No rights to manufacture anything were exchanged between Maguire and Kilgore. And if Kilgore did not obtain the manufacturing rights during the purchase from Maguire, then Kilgore obviously could not later sell these manufacturing rights to Willis, who later sold to Numrich. In essence, the Thompson story ends at Maguire because nothing has been established to suggest Kilgore manufactured or even planned to manufacture Thompson Submachine Guns. Is this what you believe is the break in the chain of succession from Maguire to Numrich?


  • 0

#32 ClevelandShooter

ClevelandShooter

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 179 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cleveland Ohio
  • Interests:Class 3,Beer, VietNam era small arms, Beer, Harley-Davidson's, Beer, and as Car and driver once said "Torque and Recoil"

Posted 12 February 2006 - 08:08 PM

ARTY you reference my tongue in cheek posting from subguns YET!!!Ignore the above posting????????????????

HERE IS YOUR CHANCE TO SETTLE IN THE COURTS WHAT YOU CANNOT SETTLE HERE.

As for the quality of a Westie vs. a Colt, never in a million years would i argue that. Westies are of less quality in both material, fit and finish. No question about it.
This is due to the companies financial position and prevailing market conditions at the time of manufacture.( Colt VS Numrich)
But with an investment of around $1,000.00. The function, fit and finish can be equal or even superior to original Colt standards.

AS MY ABOVE POST ASKED WHY NOT SUE KAHR FOR FALSE ADVERTISING???????? C"MON ARTY STICK TO THE SUBJECT

TD, Arty must be a lawyer he always evades the question and brings up any other thing he can find. I pose the question why not sue Kahr for Cease and desist on there ad's and he posts my posting from Subguns.

NEW NAME FOR ARTY ; SMOKESCREEN ARTY!!!!!!

Edited by ClevelandShooter, 12 February 2006 - 08:13 PM.

  • 0

#33 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE
anyways i always knew a wes-hurlee was a replica or look-a like tommy for a good deal...and just a cheap shooter gun

Ronald

Some may think I paid you to contribute that post. But the fact is that someone like you, a dealer in NFA weapons for over 30 years, accepted the obvious regarding the WH. I can not fathom why TD and some other misguided apologists for the Numruch/Trast alliance agonize over the recognized fact that the Thompson, for all intent and purposes, died in 1944.

TD,
You do not want to add the WH lack of quality into the ingredients that make up a replica. Fine. The quality issue and the lineage issue are equally painfully obvious. The glaring 31 year hole in your "unbroken chain theory" is indicative of a "chain" whose tensil strength was never tested by Numrich who abdicated that test to his buddy Trast. Once Trast put his version on the market, nobody, as Ron so eloquently put it, thought this .45 smg, despite the markings, was anything other than a "a cheap replica shooter." Trast didn't even have perception working for him back in 1975.

Now that WH's sell for $15K, there seems to be a concerted movement by a few to assert the Trast tired chestnut of lineage. But even Autoweapons.com, who are famous for the highest prices for NFA items, second to maybe Devine, advertise their WH's as replicas. If they can accept that fact, where such an adjective might impact the price, why do you continue to carry Trast's water?

Your source for any claim on the WH relationship to Maguire's last produced Thompson is the Helmer book. But Helmer himself a few months ago admitted to G.I. Jive that he never saw the document that Willis signed over to Numrich. Nobody has that is still alvie or is talking. That leaves the Maguire sale to kilgore. This is a sale whose facts are limited to a "reported" sales amount of $385,000. You believe this to be of such a significant sum that it had to include all rights, names and patents.

Since the amount is not confirmed, and the sum is also neither suggestive of anything other than the price of crated machinery, tools, dies, complete TSMG's, and parts, all you have left is that the Blish pistol was found inside of the crates that Numrich had still not looked into as late as 1967!

In the final analysis, the list of those who never bought into your "unbroken chain" theory include, noted Thompson experts, Cox, Herigstad, Richardson, Hoag, any NFA dealer who was in business since the 1960's, and the latest preeminent authority to come forward and clear the air, Helmer.

Clevelandshooter,

Why would I sue The Rev. Moon? His company does not even make full auto "Thompson's." It was up to the boys at Philly Ord and Pearl to sue Trast back in the 1970's. Had they just made their own Thompson's before 1975, this issue would have been resolved 30 years ago.

  • 0

#34 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:48 PM

Arthur,
If you want to rant and rave, that’s fine with me. I am just sticking to the facts. If you would like to provide a simple answer to a simple question, do so, and we may get somewhere. If not, keep repeating the non-issue of quality while attempting to cloud the bigger issue and we will continue on.

Again, is it the Kilgore link that causes you to believe the chain of succession was broken and the story of General Thompson's dream ended with Maguire Industries?


  • 0

#35 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 10:59 PM

TD,

Are you cereal? I mentioned "quality" once in my above post and it was in agreement with your own statement . The entire post was dedicated to how you stand alone with your interpretation of Helmer's book, which he has recently clarified, and Numrich's own words in an interview. Hardly a neutral source.

Why would you repeat your question when I answered it thoroughly in the above post? If you have some document burning a hole in your pocket then produce it....

  • 0

#36 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2951 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 February 2006 - 11:22 PM

Arthur,
Cereal. nono.gif Cute. If you will read my simple question carefully you will note that I asked you a question about your position. I already know my position and the facts on this issue.

Again, is it the Kilgore link that causes you to believe the chain of succession was broken and the story of General Thompson's dream ended with Maguire Industries? A simple yes or no would suffice.

  • 0

#37 DC Chris

DC Chris

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:14 AM

Aw Jeez, not this shit again!

smile.gif

Chris.
  • 0

#38 John Jr

John Jr

    Long Time RKI Member

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

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:22 AM

user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image
user posted image

  • 0

#39 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3471 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 13 February 2006 - 12:30 AM

TD,

If you are going to to load a question at least make it lethal. Not the Kilgore link. In 1944, Auto Ordnance Corporation became the "Ordnance Division" of the new parent company Maguire Industries, Incorporated.

When Maguire sold ONLY the crated assets to Kilgore in 1949, there was no "Auto Ordnance Corporation" name to transfer to Kilgore. The only possible name "Ordnance Division," would have been on a document if one ever existed.

Numrich never ever attempted to use the Auto Ordnance Corporation name after the 1951 resale of crates to him from Willis. He used his "N.A.C." stamp to identify the Thompson's built from left over parts. Why? Because AOC was still owned by the Maguire family.

Why would a bona fide owner of "Auto Ordnance Corporation," lock stock and barrel, need to additionally mark a product that they supposedly already owned under that name?

  • 0

#40 colt21a

colt21a

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3634 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:arizona desert.
  • Interests:Whatever we can do in Life

Posted 13 February 2006 - 01:08 AM

art we still have the child above you posting.it's not worth it...we took care of all of those type's in high school...or maybe it was kindergarten.t.c.ron
wink!
  • 0