Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Thompson Prices


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Chip

Chip

    Long Time Member

  • Board Donor
  • 63 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2003 - 06:40 PM

I found an old price sheet from 1987. There has been a lot of discussion of prices on the board lately, so I thought Id post it below. The West Hurley in 1987 was $2,195; a Colt 21 was going for $3,795. One thing lead to another and I got to calculating the annual rate of return for both models given what they sold for in 87 against a range of what they might sell for today. Also, added the Dow Jones for about the same period, looks pretty close. Also, I looked at the return if you had bought a 1921 out of the 1936 catalog. That table is also below.

user posted image

user posted image

Have Fun
  • 0

#2 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 06:57 PM

Chip, can there be any better evidence and proof that the 1986 Machinegun Ban ( for civilians only) is bad for America and her citizens?!! ohmy.gif blink.gif mad.gif All it does is increase the price that we law-abiding citizens pay to own a full-auto gun. blink.gif sad.gif mad.gif It does little, if anything, to keep these automatic weapons out of the hands of criminals. They (criminals) don't respect laws, the law-abiding (except those who are armed) rolleyes.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif , or society, in general. Regards, Walter
  • 0

#3 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2003 - 07:10 PM

The price of Colt TSMG's would have risen with, or without, the 1986 law. The price increases may not have been as dramatic, but it would have been inevitable. There are still several versions of SMG's that are not cost prohibitve. As much as we would prefer, cheap automatic weapons are not a Constitutional guarantee.
  • 0

#4 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 07:56 PM

Yes, Arthur, prices on Colts TSMG's probably would have risen, abeit less dramatically, without the 1986 Machinegun Ban. That is because they were only produced during a colorful era, in small numbers, which has passed away. However, I beg to differ with you, sir, on your contention that the right of Americans to cheap automatic weapons is not a constitutional guarantee. The U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment does not make a distinction as to which firearms shall, or shall not, be allowed. It does, however, uncategorically state that the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'. The 1986 Machinegun Ban is much more than a mere infringement on an American's 'right to keep and bear arms'. It is an outright ban, pure and simple, on a whole category of weapons, which were in common use by civilians up to that time, with no noticeable detriment to the peace and welfare of society, as a whole. So, while the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not specifically guarantee cheap automatic weapons, the Federal Government's unconstitutional 1986 Machinegun Ban did, in fact, cause the price of all automatic weapons in the U.S. to rise artificially and dramatically. If this unconstitutional machinegun ban had not been enacted, the price of all Colt TSMG's would be considerably lower today! blink.gif mad.gif sad.gif ohmy.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#5 Hurridale

Hurridale

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2003 - 08:22 PM

Nicely put, Walter. Your quote from Churchill cracks me up, but what do you mean by "AFTER Sir Winston.."?
  • 0

#6 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 08:35 PM

Thanks, Hurridale! biggrin.gif laugh.gif The use of the word 'after', or 'in the manner of', in this case, indicates that this is not a direct quote, but merely an imitation of a great quote. In this case, that exact quote, by Churchill, was, "Asking a nation to surrender part of its sovereignty is like asking a maiden to surrender part of her virginity." I love both versions. I think Churchill's original is particularly apt in describing the U.S. relationship with the United Nations. The U.N. is, and has been for years, trying to pressure the U.S. to ban the possession of all small arms by U.S. citizens. blink.gif mad.gif sad.gif ohmy.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#7 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 22 November 2003 - 09:15 PM

Hi Walter, you mean the United Nazi's don't you? "America is a supplier of a great number of the worlds problem guns" Ah, the wonderfull UN! a one nation socialist utopia the ultimate UN dream!
  • 0

#8 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 09:23 PM

You are right MP40! unsure.gif blink.gif laugh.gif That's part of what I like about this board. There are so many other like-minded individuals, who won't let the government and the liberal media pull the wool over their eyes! biggrin.gif smile.gif cool.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#9 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2003 - 09:27 PM

Walter,
I don't think any Constitutional scholar has ever interpreted the Second Amendment as a citizen's right to "free", as in no charge, firearms. That would be anti-capitalism. The fact that some Class III weapons are expensive does not violate the Second Amendment
.
  • 0

#10 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 09:33 PM

Arthur, I never wrote anything about 'free weapons'. I am merely advocating that the, that is 'our', government, keep its nose out of the free markets of capitalism, and to stop whitling away our Second Amendment rights! ohmy.gif blink.gif cool.gif . Obviously, Arthur, you have not understood what I have written. I never wrote what you are writing about. You, Arthur, as usual, are trying to confuse the issue. I suspect this is the case, since you have offered no valid arguments. Regards, Walter
  • 0

#11 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 November 2003 - 09:48 PM

Walter,
Is this not your prose?


"I beg to differ with you, sir, on your contention that the right of Americans to cheap automatic weapons is not a constitutional guarantee"

I don't think I confused the issue. I only challenged your asertion that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to cheap machine guns. This thread began with the prices of Class III weapons. It then morphed into a 2nd Amendment call to arms.
  • 0

#12 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 22 November 2003 - 11:08 PM

Arthur, my argument stands as written above. I would only ask that you address it in whole, or give way to reason. When you quote and address only one-tenth of my argument, you are attempting to confuse the issue. Again, my argument, in brief, is that the U.S. Federal government should stop interfering with and undermining every American's constitutional right to 'keep and bear arms'. If this happens and their idiotic laws are repealed or declared unconstitutional, then the U.S. Federal Government's artificial inflation of the prices of all automatic weapons would end. biggrin.gif smile.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#13 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:01 AM

Arthur, you do understand where Walter is coming from don't you? the mere fact is, that the Government is setting the prices here, by creating a supply and demand situation, due of course, to now fixed amounts of transferable machineguns in the system....

Of course looking around at the transferable machinegun prices on the web, the Shotgun news ETC, The amounts of the transferable guns available would possibly lead to the overconfident thought or statement, that there are plenty of transferables out there for all.

Not quite true, due to the amounts of "less desireable" machine guns making up the vast bulk of the transferables, ( Arthur, do you truly want crudely welded sten"a tube gun" instead of a Colt manufactured Thompson because it was the only transferable left for you to choose?)and obviously, a post sample doesn't count! because, all of the guns out there will eventually wear out! (it helps to think ahead to the near and far-future as i think that if we don't do something now..we won't have these wonderfully inventive firearms in the future) And unless new firearms become available, the prices will rise exponentially.

Why? of course due to the Government again! The desireable firearms like the Colt manufactured Thompson, will of course always be on the rise in price as they where made in a bygone classical era that conjures up various images of gangsters and prohibition? to people.

But the fact is the Govenment is setting the prices here due to power control issues! Not from the fact that they have any interest in the marketing segment of the NFA! Unless, of course they (the ATFE) have some type of investment scheme going on here! so, I do think that our problem is with the Government setting the prices..not the market!

  • 0

#14 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:09 AM

Walter,
While there may be "artificial" inflation of certain crappy Class III weapons, the ones that ceased production long before the 1986 law are not "artificially" inflated. Emission laws were the death knell for 60's muscle cars. Their value today might be in relationship to government regulations. But that does mean that they have an "artificial" value. There are many consumer goods a lot of us would love to be able to purchase, but cannot afford. Some machine guns have merely become another luxury item. All the giant red ink won't change that.

MP40,
The only way any of these laws could be overturned is if non-machine gun enthusiasts, the majority of the population, were outraged by these restrictions. In fact, most of these people think it is illegal to own full auto. Making them aware of this misnomer may not be exactly advantageous to the plight of full auto owners. The NRA couldn't care less about Class III ownership laws.
.
  • 0

#15 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:35 AM

Actually, in the "Muscle cars" case, it was Govenment regulated Safety modifications, the gas prices, the insurance industry and consumer taste changes that brought them down. Now if the Machineguns are luxury items now due to the supply and demand, wow! i think that we need to change something here then. I remember looking in the Shotgun news back in 82' thinking, that someday, i will own a machinegun (before i discovered that Washington state prohibited me from owning them) now the longer i wait the more expensive they get, due to some JERK in the District of columbia who introduced the nasty bit of legislation into the "gunowners protection" bill of 1986!
  • 0

#16 Walter63a

Walter63a

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 1430 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Guns (Thompsons, Lugers, and Walthers mostly), History, Politics, Education, Nature, etc.

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:45 AM

Exactly right MP40! biggrin.gif I completely agree with your assessment of the situation. biggrin.gif cool.gif Certainly, machineguns have always been luxury items, but never such increasingly expensive luxury items, until our Federal Government got involved in banning a whole class of guns. In the 1920's and 1930's most people would rather pay the mortgage and feed their children before purchasing a Colt TSMG, and that has not changed today. Since most can't run with the big boys, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, it would behoove us to pressure our legislators to change the laws. Even if we could swim with the big fish, the supply of automatic weapons is drying up with each passing month! ohmy.gif mad.gif sad.gif ohmy.gif blink.gif mad.gif Regards, Walter
  • 0

#17 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3453 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:46 AM

MP40,
Sales of muscle cars were at an all time high in 1969. The government regulated safety modifications did not have anything to do with horsepower. They had to do with 5 mph bumpers and seat restraints. It was the government mandated emission devices which crushed the muscle cars. Insurance for muscle car drivers of teenage years has always been exhorbitant. Rising gas prices were also not an issue in the 70's. Gas is the most expensive it has ever been today, and SUV sales are through the roof, and they gulp go go juice.

  • 0

#18 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 23 November 2003 - 12:50 AM

Arthur, you are absoultly right! the NRA doesn't care about the owners of NFA goodies! we are but a very small segment of the gunowners in the US and the world for that matter! Yes, i try to tell everone the facts about the NFA. The sheer amount of people that i tell about machineguns, per gunshow that i attend, believe that machineguns are illegal to own without a Government permit or are just plain illegal!
  • 0

#19 mp40

mp40

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 591 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington state
  • Interests:Collecting guns(what else?) cars (fords) and collecting modelguns (a primarily Japanese hobby, plastic/zinc hi-tech cap guns)

Posted 23 November 2003 - 01:01 AM

Yes Arthur,the sales of the mucle cars was at an all time high in 69' but the muclecar era did not end in 69'! well...to some people it did..But the fact is that the muclecar is still with us! you can buy a car or truck now, that will destroy any of the 60's muclecars in any competition! but...no new machineguns are available to us today.Why? simply due to the pinheads in Washington! (the state too!)
  • 0

#20 Sig

Sig

    Respected Member and Board Benefactor

  • Moderator
  • 1626 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 November 2003 - 09:28 AM

OK here is my contribution to this topic.
I received this price list along with a new copy of the Roger Cox book.
Now if I could only remember when.
I am guessing 1982 to 1984 as I think the book was published around 1982.

user posted image
  • 0