AZDoug Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 It isn't an issue for me. the part I find interesting is how hard some people try to disavow any realtionship of AOC/thompson on anything after WWII. I mean, what is the purpose, really? This isn't a claim of some founding child claiming JP Gettys estate, is it? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 TD, OK, the problem is that Maguire sold Kilgore the "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," which never made any Thompson's. He did not sell him "The Auto-Ordnance Corporation." That company ceased to exist in 1944. Yes, Maguire did sell the existing "boxed" assets that were produced under the company "Auto-Ordnance Corporation," to kilgore, but that doesn't then revert back to "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" simply because they sort of sound the same. But if Kilgore wanted to sell the equipment and drawings of the "Thompson" to his Egyptian contact, the Egyptians would have been marking the guns "Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," or whatever new name they might want to use since they would have owned that name. But they would never be able to use the "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" name since the Maguire family still owns that name to this day. How could this not constitute a break down of dot-connecting from a company that no longer existed in 1944 to a new company that was born the same year, but never made any "Thompson's," and then 31 years later, the legitimate company (Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries) that finally went into production on this "new Thompson." George Numrich proclaimed in a Gun Digest interview in 1967 that he owned the patents, trademarks and name associated with "Auto Ordnance Corporation?" Well, we can see that either the author of the article was confused, or George was indifferent about speaking in precise terms. If he truly believed he had sole proprietorship over anything to do with the "Thompson," then he was also indifferent about the Houston, Texas firm that built dummy aluminum 1928A1's made from a mold of a "real" Thompson. Hell, there was a company doing light years more with the "Thompson" name than Numrich cared to do. Surely this type of flagrant disregard of his "ownership" of all things "Thompson" would have raised his eyebrow, if not his ire. Helmer confuses the "Auto Ordnance Corporation" with "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries," when he wrote, QUOTE "After years in limbo, the Auto-Ordnance corporation was sold to long-time Numrich employee Ira Trast, whose principle goal in the acquisition was to place M1927 A-1 in production. As President of the new Auto-Ordnance Corporation, Trast......" But Helmer does refer to Trast as President of the "new" Auto-Ordnance Corporation. How could the "old" corporation be renewed if Trast didn't own it, Numrich didn't buy it from Willis who didn't buy it from Kilgore who was never sold it by Maguire? This is really an ineluctable point of disembarkation from any semblance of an unbroken chain of transfer of a company. After a long absence from the board, Doug Richardson's first post recounts his long-suffering battle with immutable collectors/owners who feel slighted when he dares to broach this subject. I can only guess as to why people in the gun community react with imprecations upon those who see this obvious, if not intentional, subterfuge about the WH/Kahr Thompson. They think it has to do with snobbery, elitism, or just malcontents out to make waves for the sport of it. Of course, non of these are the motivations, but it is perhaps easier to regard them as such instead of accepting the inescapable conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondAmend Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Phil, et al., The patents listed by issue date on the 21's and by number on the 28's have all long since expired (14 years from issue). Trademarks are a whole other thing. A trademark (in the U.S.) is, at the Federal level (not gonna go into the state level) something "managed" by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and a trademark can be held effectively in perpetuity as long as the dictates of the Lanham Act are followed. One of the requirements "use it or lose it." Ford Motor had the "Futura" trademark for car stuff from the 60's into the 80's, lost it to Pep Boys, and has tried unsuccessfully at least twice to get it back. There's a fight going on now over the trademark of "White Cloud" for bathroom tissue. The original owner let it drop and now is upset that somebody else has started using it. As a sort of general rule, at least part of the good will of a company is the trademarks that are validly held by the company. That concept dates back to the days of guilds. Were trademarks transferred as any part of the McGuire, Kilgore, Trast, Numrich, Kahr, etc. transfers? Were the trademarks included in an "and all other good will, rights, and interests" clause? Who knows? Today, Kahr appears to be the assignee of the "Thompson" and "Tommy Gun" trademarks for gun stuff. How they got there I don't really know. It does appear that "Tommy Gun" was used on a significant number of WWII vintage guns, presumably to satisfy "use in commerce" requirements for maintaining a U.S. trademark. Did anyone else keep up the requirements afterwards or were "Thompson" and "Tommy Gun" trademarks up for grabs at various times eventually to be grabbed by Kahr? I guess I've just got more questions than answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 Phil, Exactemundo! Isn't it strange that the same year Numrich is quoted as exclaiming sole ownership of the "Thompson," Helmer writes: QUOTE For reasons not entirely clear, in late 1967 George Numrich decided to delay tooling and production for the new gun. Perhaps he decided it was just too much of a hassle, considering that Auto-Ordnance had been operated more as a hobby than a business, while the parent company, Numrich Arms, was a booming operation demanding a great deal of attention. The NAC business was a growing concern, but the famed Tommy Gun company was merely a "hobby" that never warranted Numrich's full attention. Helmer does a lot of mental gymnastics to explain, justify, reason, excuse, and qualify why Numrich never made any Thompson's from scratch, even at the moment he was set to do exactly that. Could it be that the patents and trademarks, as owned by the Maguire family, had not yet expired, thereby rendering the prospect of newly manufactured "Thompson's" a legally risky proposition? By the time 30 years had elapsed, it was left to Trask to make the "new Thompson's." Coincidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 28, 2004 Report Share Posted June 28, 2004 AZDOUG – I agree 100%. I guess when you take a position that goes against the mainstream of the gun world you have to vent when you get a chance. As I stated earlier, this question of lineage is such a non-issue. I encourage everyone to read the new NRA publication concerning the present display of Thompson guns and artifacts at the NRA National Firearms Museum William B. Ruger Gallery. All you have to do is turn the pages - it shows the transition from Warner & Swasey to Kahr Arms. However, Arthur really has got it – he just doesn’t realize it…yet. Arthur – Congratulations. You have got it. You may not understand it completely, but you have got it. Your own words show you got it: “…Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industriesâ€â€¦.†That statement is all that matters in this simple non-issue. It is not a problem the transaction occurred – it is a fact. It is also a fact Kilgore never made any Thompsons. Keep saying, “Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries†– because this is the fact you need to trace these proprietary and physical assets – for the continuing lineage of what General Thompson started in Cleveland, OH. Kilgore now owns everything associated with the Thompson Submachine Gun that was formerly owned by McGuire Industries, Inc. EVERYTHING. McGuire is completely out of the Tommy Gun business - lock, stock and barrel. For $385,000, Kilgore got it all. As the new owner, Kilgore can name this newly purchased corporate asset anything they want. They can even turn it back into a new corporate entity if they so desire. They can begin the manufacture of Thompsons. Or they can do nothing. It is their property. The Tommy Gun business in now in Westerville, OH. Absolute ownership. Period. Nothing is reverting back to anyone. Did Kilgore ever re-name the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries when it became a Kilgore corporate asset? Not that I know of. It apparently sat dormant after the deal to sell it to the Egyptians fell through. However, the proprietary and physical assets remained intact as a corporate asset of Kilgore. Nothing has been recorded to indicate otherwise. Fredrick Willis later purchased from Kilgore this Kilgore corporate asset. Willis later sold this former Kilgore corporate asset to George Numrich of Numrich Arms Corporation. So George now has all the proprietary and physical assets of the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries (and former Kilgore corporate asset and former Willis investment asset). Did George rename the former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries? Not at first. The former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries became a corporate asset of Numrich Arms Company (just like it had been a corporate asset for McGuire Industries and Kilgore Manufacturing and an investment asset for Willis) The dots now place all the proprietary and physical assets right in the middle of Numrich Arms Corporation, West Hurley, New York. From what I understand, Numrich Arms sold parts and built & sold Thompsons from the assets acquired. George was well known for buying firearm companies. He stated very plainly what he owned in the 1967 Gun Digest article. To speculate he did not know what he was talking about is simply foolish. To that end, I don’t know what George’s thoughts were on another company building dummy receivers. Perhaps this company had permission. Perhaps, George thought dummy receivers were not real guns so it did not matter. Or perhaps, he thought this was a good thing because the purchasers of these dummy receivers more often than not came to Numrich Arms Corporation to purchase the parts to complete the project. Later, George decided to incorporate the proprietary and physical assets of former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries and chose the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. Incorporation is a simple process. All the proprietary assets that Numrich Arms Corporation owned concerning the Thompson Submachine Gun along with machinery and parts were transferred to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York from the Numrich Arms Corporation. The dots now take you from a corporate asset to a new corporate entity. Epilog: I believe the hang-up on this manufactured problem is with the corporate entities. My suggestion is not to follow the names – corporate names can be changed daily with a filing fee. Follow the proprietary and physical assets of what you are researching. McGuire Industries, Inc. went one way (I know this name has since changed), the Thompson Submachine Gun another. McGuire Industries, Inc. can trace its past back to the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. And so can Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. However, Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York can continue to trace its lineage back all the way to Cleveland, OH. Again, think about the proprietary and physical assets of what you are researching. Arthur, as I stated earlier, you have really got it. Just keep saying over and over: “Maguire sold Kilgore the “Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries.†Then simply follow the Blish pistol to George. This is has been a good exercise. It has caused me to review the history of the Thompson Submachine Gun – and that is always a good thing. Thanks, No more postings on NAC Thompsons. I am afraid all these lineage questions have affected the input. But we can give it a few more days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichFitz Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 You guys know way more about thompsons than I do, but I do have "NAC-45" which looks like it started life as a Bridgeport M1 prototype reciever, then built up by NAC as a M1A1 with engraving and polished wood and used as a sales tool. http://www.magpul.com/thomppics/m1a1_8.jpg http://www.magpul.com/armory/m1a1_2.jpg http://www.magpul.com/armory/m1a1_1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 QUOTE Later, George decided to incorporate the proprietary and physical assets of former Auto Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries and chose the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. TD TD, To paraphrase your own ratiocination, to speculate that George renamed "Auto Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries" the "Auto Ordnance Corporation," ( the exact same name that adorned the Thompson from 1919 to 1944) simply because he "Incorporated" is foolish. First, it wasn't Numrich who chose the name "Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York," it was Ira Trast. Numrich split the scene by the time Trast built the factory in West Hurley. But to even entertain any other possible explanation why the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" was "chosen" other than to deliberately make a connection to John T. Thompson's original company is really naive. The original "Auto Ordnance Corporation," as I stated earlier, is still owned by Cary Maguire, Russell's son. This entity is, or was, still in business in Dallas, Texas even ten years after Trask decided to stamp the name on his WH receivers. The name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" has remained a New York chartered corporation since 1916. Regardless of the agreement reached between Russell Maguire and Kilgore, it never included the right to use the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation." The terms of the sale to Kilgore, and even the amount paid, is not "uncontroverted" as you say. It is merely described by Helmer as "reportedly." As far as me "not understanding completely," I must be in good company since Helmer and Cox (don't want to leave DR out) all refer to the guns made by "a division of NAC" under the name "Auto Ordnance Corporation" as "REPLICAS." I guess they can't trace "these proprietary and physical assets" and arrive at the same destination ("the continuing lineage of what General Thompson started in Cleveland, OH.") that you arrive at. Does your reverence for all things Numrich extend to Trask? After all, it was Trask who produced these 1927 A1 receivers with the "new" AO Corp name, even though it was still an old and already owned name. Unfortunately, Trask believed the "Auto Ordnance Corporation" name alone would be sufficient to guarantee the traditional quality associated with that entity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondAmend Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 RichFitz, N.A.C. 45 is a very interesting gun. Lyman sight on an M1! Gorgeous wood! The engraving kind of grows on you. Very nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 PhilOhio – “The original Auto Ordnance Corporation never legally ceased to exist, and is today still owned by the Maguire family. Maybe.†I too think that is what Arthur means. First time I have ever heard that one. As you can tell, I am not tracking the corporation – I am tracking the Tommy Gun business. I like your remarks about George Numrich. It matches with everything I have been told about him. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure to meet and speak with him. From what I know, he was a pretty smart businessman. If he said he owned it, I have no doubt he owned it. We are all lucky for the Thompsons he put in circulation. He could have simply surrendered all the prototype guns and receivers for government destruction after opening the crates and ended General Thompson’s dream in Mamaroneck, New York. SecondAmend – Interesting post on the Patents and Trademarks. I don’t have all the answers on this. I do believe that George Numrich of the Numrich Arms Corporation purchased everything there was to purchase as related to the Thompson Submachine Gun in 1951. McGuire Industries sold it all, including the prototypes. McGuire was out of the gun business. Period. Nothing has ever been recorded to indicate otherwise. I really don’t know how Numrich Arms Corporation managed the Patents and Trademarks. However, I don’t believe any of the later manufacturers of the 1928 and M1 type Thompson Submachine Guns (such as Pearl) ever used the Thompson bullet logo, Tommy Gun name or even the Auto-Ordnance name. I may be wrong on this, but I can't recall any newly manufactured Thompsons marked this way. I also don’t recall anyone ever making a semi-automatic Thompson gun or carbine. I have seen some that kind of look like a Thompson from afar, but I don’t recall anything like what was manufactured at West Hurley or now, Kahr Arms. However, please correct me if I am wrong on this. RichFitz – Thank-you for your post. NAC – 45 is one great looking M1A1 Thompson. I bet most everyone on this board would love to own it. To hear negative comments about the early NAC Thompsons and then to see something like this - simply amazing. We appreciate you sharing this with the board. Quick question: Who is listed as the manufacturer of this fine gun on your Form 3 or 4? Again, thank-you. Anything else you can share on this great NAC or other NAC Thompsons would be appreciated. WOW Arthur – Good post. Thanks. I like your questions. I can see we have moved the Thompson Submachine Gun away from Russell McGuire and all the way to George Numrich. This is a good thing. You may want to re-read my epilog concerning the corporate entities. I don’t have the time right now but not to worry, I will quell all your concerns later. I just got in from my monthly volunteer duties and don’t have time to chat right now. This is really great. Phil, SecondAmend and Arthur, as usual, brought up some interesting points. And what about the post on NAC – 45! Kyle – I like all your threads!!!! Anymore NAC suffix or prefix Thompsons out there. I was thinking this thread was about over. Maybe we are just beginning. Thanks everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
full auto 45 Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 RichFitz, That looks alot like this one someone sent me to put on my site a year or so ago. If you have some more photo's I would like to use them. Send them to me direct if you would like. I would love to put some more of this beautiful gun on the site. Is the bolt on yours shiney like this? It looks dark in the one photo. I don't rememeber who I got the photo from. Thanks in advance. My email is, mrhsharkey@att.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichFitz Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 QUOTE RichFitz, That looks alot like this one someone sent me to put on my site a year or so ago Same gun, same person. I posted some pics a few years ago as a good friend wanted to buy the gun from me and I wanted to know the value. In addition to informing me of the unquieness of the piece (like the side keyhole charging slot) the board members correctly steered me into keeping the gun in my collection. It is on Form 3 and NAC is listed as the manufacture, so we are guessing that it was an uncompleted/unregistered receiver inherited by NAC. The original owner bought it directly from NAC (I have the original Form 4) as it is seen in the photos. At the time of sale NAC gave no info on the piece but other board members said 6 or so guns were done like this as Demo pieces for NAC salesmen. The pictures are quite old and taken with a bad digital camera. If members of this board are interested I will take some better pictuters this week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
21 smoker Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 RichFitz,..of course we are interested in more pics...that is a very unique piece...thanks for sharing...have you ever shot it?....how does it run?...some test firing shots would also be cool,my .02, http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 RF, What is significant on this "NAC -45" is that Numrich either milled out the receiver, or it was never stamped to begin with, and marked "Caliber .45 Automatic Cartridge." Why he used the Colt spelling of "Calibre" instead of the Bridgeport/AO/Savage spelling of "Caliber" seems to signal a departure from his usual method of merely adding "NAC" to the receiver. Since this was obviously one of several "custom" editions of a Numrich TSMG, it arouses curiosity on how he would have marked the receivers of brand new semi and full auto versions of the "Thompson" if he had produced the West Hurley guns instead of Trask. It seemed Trask was content with the Bridgeport/AO/Savage spelling of "Caliber" as that is how he marked the WH guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 RichFitz – Thanks for the update on NAC – 45. So Numrich Arms Corporation is listed as the manufacturer. This may have been one of the receivers Numrich Arms Corporation found when it unpacked the crates or possibly a complete prototype M1 that Savage built when developing the M1 Thompson that never was serial numbered. The prototype theory could explain the Bridgeport and Calibre markings that Arthur picked up on. I wonder if it is the 45th NAC Thompson completed and sold by Numrich Arms Corporation. Hopefully, information about a few more NAC guns will be posted. Full auto 45 – Thanks for the “big†picture. I now recall the earlier posts on this gun. Arthur – The creating of a corporate entity to market the Thompson Submachine Gun and Semi-Automatic Carbines was both a business decision and a marketing decision. Since production was going to begin on new and old products, I assume a business decision was made to create a separate business to go fourth in this endeavor. The obvious reasons are tax purposes, liability concerns, insurance and what appears to be new owners (Trast and company). The point to follow in all of this is the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York was formed with all the proprietary and physical assets that Numrich Arms Corporation had purchased in 1951 from Fredrick Willis. This transfer of assets allowed the lineage to continue when Ira Trast came into the picture as the president of Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York. I don’t know the details between Ira Trast and George Numrich on the sale and creation of the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Corporation. I have always thought of them as joined at the hip so to speak since Trast was a long time employee of George Numrich. I also believe the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Corporation was located on the same property as Numrich Arms Corporation in West Hurley, New York (seems like I read that somewhere but please correct me if I am wrong). I don’t think Trast, the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Corporation or the subsequent sale to Kahr Arms have done anything to end the continuing lineage of what General Thompson started in Cleveland, OH. I don’t think too much detail has been written or recorded on these recent business decisions. I would guess in time all the information will come out. However, let’s address a few more of your concerns. I can tell you are on the right path by your questions. As you can see, Trast and the West Hurley Auto-Ordnance Corporation did not have to make a deliberate path to the New York Auto-Ordnance Corporation. That path has always been clear. As the new president of a corporation that owned everything Numrich Arms Corporation once owned regarding the Thompson, Trast could have named this corporate entity anything he or the board wanted to. Staying with the old name was a brilliant marketing decision. What better advertisement than showcasing your proud heritage to the world. Of course, the location of the company had changed so the West Hurley address was put on the guns, literature and catalogs for all to see. Russell Maguire’s son owns the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. I thought Russell Maguire changed the name of Auto-Ordnance Corporation to McGuire Industries, Inc when he relegated the tommy gun business to the Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. That is interesting. Just out of curiosity, what does this corporation do? What is the corporate structure and purpose….and business plan? I assume this New York, New York corporation is not involved in the gun business since it sold off all the rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun years ago to Kilgore. As I stated earlier, I am not following the corporate entities. These are easy to create and change. I am following the Thompson Submachine Gun and all the rights that go with it that were sold off by McGuire to Kilgore in 1949 for a reported $385,000. I have no problem using the word “reported†for the selling price. What is uncontroverted is the sale. Helmer’s book does show the continuing lineage from Cleveland to West Hurley. His reporting does not manufacture a problem that does not exist based on corporate names. As you know, it is from his book much of what I have written has been taken. I don’t see the word “replicas†in the Cox and Helmer books when referring to the Numrich Arms Corporation. I can see you follow the lineage. I don’t think the corporate names really confuse anyone but only offer an excuse for those that do not want to accept the obvious. The real roadblock with the West Hurley Thompsons is clearly stated in the last sentence of one of your last posts. It has to do with the quality of the West Hurley Thompsons compared to the Colts and WW II Thompsons. I agree with you on this point. The West Hurley Thompsons are a disappointment in this area. However, considering what they originally retailed for, I am not too overbearing on this issue. I am grateful the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, West Hurley, New York gave us another approximate 4000 West Hurley Thompsons to play with. I would also like to know how many more NAC prefix and suffix Thompsons George and company built and sold, hence the real intent of this thread. Any more NAC prefix or suffix Thompsons out there. We have compiled a lot of good information. Let’s add some more. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 TD, Would it make any difference in your mind that Roger Cox does refer to the WH “Thompson†as a “REPLICA?†Why would Cox, who makes a special note of thanks to Ira Trask in the preface of his book, then refer to the “Thompson’s†manufactured “under the name Auto Ordnance Corporation†as a “replica†five pages later? Wouldn’t Trask have taken umbrage to such a qualifying remark about the guns he was seven years into producing? Now we know that Numrich sold the Kuwaitis 100 Thompson’s between 1951 and 1955. But then how could the Egyptians produce a .45-caliber “Thompson†with a cylindrical receiver marked “Auto-Ordnance Corp., Bridgeport, Connecticut," as described by Thomas Nelson in "The World's Submachine Guns," after Numrich had "control" of the company? Again, another instance where Numrich preferred to remain mute on matters concerning illegal appropriation of the company name he supposedly owned. Also, all the information that Helmer obtained for his book about the hazy legitimate control over “Auto-Ordnance†since 1945 appear to consist of “seven letters from George Numrich Jr. written to Helmer, the Bob Zwirz ‘Don‘t Junk It; Shoot it!’ Gun World article of June, 1965. And an April, 1967 interview with Numrich, who apparently recounted the same info from the 1965 article. A 1958 Roger Marsh “American Rifleman†article about â€The Tommy Gun,†considers “the M1A1 as the last of the Thompson Submachine Guns.†Now, this was 17 years before the “new†WH guns made their appearance, but perhaps he would have the same sentiments as Cox about these “Thompson’s.†Phil, Your description of the West Hurley facility has considerably more than a simulacrum of reality. I visited that shack back in 1983. When I saw the conditions, I realized how the famed Thompson of John T, Marcellus, George Goll, Oscar Payne, Ted Eickhoff, and Tom F. Ryan, had been relegated to a hen house operation run by teenagers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SecondAmend Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Arthur, Rather than call any Thompson subgun a "replica", I prefer to think of the various Thompsons as having been from a "version", an "edition", or an "incarnation". No need to refer to "replicas" or "clones." Thus, one can say, for example, in the M1 incarnation, the Thompson deleted the Blish lock. In another example, one can say, during production of the West Hurley version of the 1928 Thompson, the breech oiler was cost-reduced out of the assembly. In yet another example, in the 1919 edition of the Thompson subgun, no provision was made for a butt stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Second, The term "replica" is not a derogatory expression. In fact, it can mean a copy or reproduction by the "original" artist. So if an artist can make a replica of their original painting, a gun produced 30 years from the time the name of the "Auto-Ordnance Corporation" was stamped on a receiver legally, it can't then be too much of a stretch to refer to the WH guns as such. It is certainly less inflammatory than the term "forgery." Consider that Cox didn't have any hesitation using the word to describe a gun produced by a man (Trask) he considered extremely helpful in the completion of his book. The 1919 TSMG was a prototype. It didn't go into production. The M1/M1A1 was a Thompson variant, but one that was manifested out of expeditious cost-cutting. If some wish to anoint (erroneously) the Colt manufactured Thompson's as "replicas" to the 1919 model, then who can argue with the term being applied to the WH guns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted July 2, 2004 Report Share Posted July 2, 2004 PhilOhio - Thank you for sharing your visits with George Numrich and Ira Trast. This is one of your top ten posts (and you have had many good ones). This is very interesting reading and something I will save and refer to in the future. It is not to far off from what I envisioned, perhaps a little more rustic. I agree that no one really cared about the Thompson when George first acquired Auto-Ordnance from Willis - or for many years thereafter. Anyone that has been in business for themselves can appreciate the ups and downs of being a small businessman. First rule: your help gets paid first! Working for yourself and/or working for the public - you just don't understand what it is all about until you have done it. As I stated earlier, the quality issue with NAC and West Hurley Thompsons is something some people cannot accept and thus cause many of these manufactured problems to arise. I think everyone who likes the "tommy gun" - any version, model or variation - owes a great deal to George Numrich and Ira Trast. Thanks again Phil. Perhaps a thread for those who met George Numrich would be in order. I bet there are some good stories out there. Colt1921A - Ron, you know everyone http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Nice post. I also recognize Gordon for his book on Colt Thompsons. What a quest he is on. I can't believe everyone on this board does not have a copy. I can't wait for the next update. Arthur - No, it really doesn't make any difference what Roger Cox calls West Hurley Thompsons. Again, we are not talking quality; we are talking ownership of the Thompson Submachine Gun and the continuing lineage of General Thompson's dream. I don't think Numrich Arms Corporation ever owned or claimed ownership of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York. What they did purchase, several owners down the chain, was the Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, Inc. and all rights to the Thompson Submachine Gun. The Auto-Ordnance Corporation, New York, New York discarded the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation and became McGuire Industries, Incorporated. Please don't fall back into that trap of following the corporation names. Follow the business (or the Blish Pistol). You are now at the end of your journey. Some things may still be hazy to you, but these will clear up in time. Just knowing all these transfers were legitimate will keep you on the right path. It is great your concerns are now not over ownership and the continuing lineage, but on quality and names used to describe the NAC and West Hurley Thompsons. And that is all right. We probably agree on many of those issues. I have always wondered about those 100 Kuwait Thompsons. This story goes hand in hand with how one account says Numrich Arms Corporation ended up with 86 complete guns/receivers when unpacking the assets of the former Auto-Ordnance Division of McGuire Industries, while another account says 200 complete guns/receivers were found. I would guess the prototypes would be included in those numbers. Perhaps the discrepancy is whether or not to count the Kuwait Thompsons. I just don’t know, but I would like to know more about those Kuwait Thompsons. As to Roger Marsh comments, he is right. The MIAI Thompson is the last production model of the Thompson Submachine Gun. I doubt anyone knows the real story behind the cylindrical receiver in Egypt with the Bridgeport markings. However, how does a "crudely manufactured†receiver in a "small workshop in Egypt" concern George Numrich? I get the feeling George did not take many trips to Egypt. Maybe Numrich Arms Corporation sold the enterprising designer of this gun the Thompson barrel and magazine. Maybe the designer of this gun worked part-time for the Kilgore Manufacturing Company. I have heard of this Egyptian interest in the Thompson Submachine Gun somewhere before. Maybe this cylindrical receiver is why the deal fell through between Kilgore and the Egyptians. And by the time the Egyptians figured out what they made did not work, George was the proud owner of all the rights concerning the Thompson Submachine Gun – and would only deal with the Kuwaitis http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif Of course, it could have been just another in a long line of foreign copies of American guns where the markings are also copied. Yea, that would be my guess http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/rolleyes.gif Your comments about the hen house operations of Numrich Arms Corporation are simply wonderful. This statement, more so than any others, shows the world that you fully understand, but begrudgingly accept, the fact Numrich Arms Corporation was part of the continuing succession of General Thompson’s (and Marcellus, Goll, Payne, Eickhoff and Ryan) dream. This has made all this worthwhile. Thanks – I have enjoyed the posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDoug Posted July 7, 2004 Report Share Posted July 7, 2004 QUOTE (Arthur Fliegenheimer @ Jul 1 2004, 02:55 PM) Phil, Your description of the West Hurley facility has considerably more than a simulacrum of reality. I visited that shack back in 1983. When I saw the conditions, I realized how the famed Thompson of John T, Marcellus, George Goll, Oscar Payne, Ted Eickhoff, and Tom F. Ryan, had been relegated to a hen house operation run by teenagers. Actually, that shack, and the help, sounds a lot like JTT's AOC probaly was in the 1920's, when nobody wanted the gun, they most likely kept laying off help, and scrounged for orders. I don't think much has changed except the address. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Doug, That is an interesting observation and right on point. How about posting a few close up pictures of the the markings on NAC 15. It is definately an uniquely marked Thompson. I will do a tally of everything that was reported in few days. However, as I bring this old thread back to the top of the board, does anyone have a NAC Thompson they would like to share information about. Each new gun tells us something. The early NACs probably number under 100. Let's see if we can add more to this continuing story of John Thompson's dream. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZDoug Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 I have posted NAC15 pics here. I would look under the other NAC thread from a few months back. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACARLG Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Delaware State Police, Wilmington riots, April 1968 http://www.delawaretrooper.com/museum/images/1960riots.jpg from www.delawaretrooper.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACARLG Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Delaware State Police, April 1968, Wilmington riots http://www.delawaretrooper.com/museum/images/1960riots.jpg www.delawaretrooper.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdvancedArms Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 (edited) I may as well add to the record. I have a NAC suffix gun. Savage - Late 41 / Early 42. RLB, GEG, and Ordnance marked. Matching lower. NAC suffix on upper and lower. Original finish. It became a PD gun in 1964 and was sold to an individual in 1989. Had a crossbolt stock, "M" grip, "M" forend, a few AOC parts in the lower, and blued bolt. I have been able to aquire and install all the correct Savage/Stevens parts, including non-crossbolt Savage stock. She is back to original factory config and glory and she runs like a top. I just suprised her is a excellent condition Bridgeport address drum. Edited September 11, 2009 by AdvancedArms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD. Posted September 12, 2009 Report Share Posted September 12, 2009 ACARLG, Very nice pictures - thanks for posting. Advanced Arms, It sounds like you have an imported Thompson that was at some point in time sold by Numrich Arms Corporation, probably to the Police Department (only a guess on my part). Does it have the Bridgeport address or New York address? Is the serial number under 100,000? This is an old thread that I had forgotten about. I used to enjoy bantering with Arthur about the succession of the Thompson gun and the NAC Thompson's. It was this Board and threads like this (See the REPLICA thread) that led me to research the Thompson from the 1949 to 1951 time frame. Very little was known or had been written about the sale of the Thompson by Maguire Industries, the Frederic Willis connection and the purchase by George Numrich that spurred an IRS ATTD investigation. The results of my efforts can be read in The Ultimate Thompson Book, by Tracie Hill and many other contributing authors. Question: Does anyone know RichFitz? Or how to get in touch with him? I have a few items about NAC 45 I would like to discuss. If anyone can help, I would be most grateful. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now