Jump to content

Replica


Recommended Posts

QUOTE
The AOC and TSMG names were not left dormant or abandoned. The person who bought all the production hardware used that name and the equipment and he sold firearms under that name.

The path of succession from the last owner of record (Maguire), to Kilgore and eventually Numrich, was one of open public transactions. It was not hidden.
PhilOhio

 

The question as to whether Numrich bought anything other than physical assets and the possible Ordnance Division name was never tested by Numrich/Trast until 1975. Since the bullet logo, the name Thompson, the name Auto-Ordnance Corporation, and the patent dates or numbers are only stamped on the receiver, we really have no way to know what might have ensued if Numrich made a brand new receiver from bar stock and then actually "USED" all these controlled trademarks, patents, logos, and names on his new receiver.

 

Of course the reporting of the transactions of Thompson 's physical assets from Maguire to Kilgore to Willis and to Numrich were never contested and are public record. After all, these crates didn't contain farm implements.

 

But what is obviously not open or public is what Maguire stipulated as to names and rights in this sale. The proof of this is that, currently, no researcher has been able to produce this document.

 

Just because people at that time were indifferent to what really transpired shouldn't be a substitute for documentation. Collectors today should demand something more substantial than the explanation it was so long ago and so far away that the passage of time negates any need for further clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Being a relatively new member, I've just read all 7 pages of this thread.

 

It seems to me from what's posted that ALL Thompson style SMG's are replicas with the exception of the originals created by Mr. Thompson.

 

Thus:

 

Colt=Replica

Savage=Replica

AO=Replica

WH=Replica

 

I realize some have an agenda for preserving the "Sanctity" of the "Colt Only as Thompson", but it seems to only be a distinction of quality, not lineage.

 

I'd be very surprised if everyone shared my opinion. Remember though, even if it's

written in reference material, it too may be only an opinion.

Edited by draver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and i was told any new member's just read shotgun new's,and dr.seuss green egg's and spam!! wink!!

 

glad you enjoyed the enlightenment..........we is here to pleeze the masse's..with humor,fact,fiction,and sometime'sa dose of reality....sometime's not in that order.

 

take care,ron

 

sometime's the respected one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (draver @ Mar 12 2006, 02:41 PM)
Being a relatively new member, I've just read all 7 pages of this thread.

It seems to me from what's posted that ALL Thompson style SMG's are replicas with the exception of the originals created by Mr. Thompson.

Thus:

Colt=Replica
Savage=Replica
AO=Replica
WH=Replica

I realize some have an agenda for preserving the "Sanctity" of the "Colt Only as Thompson", but it seems to only be a distinction of quality, not lineage.

I'd be very surprised if everyone shared my opinion.  Remember though, even if it's
written in reference material, it too may be only an opinion.

 

You must have perused the 7 pagers instead of giving it a cursory reading. If you had, you would have understood that the "replica/reproduction" term has nothing to do with preserving "Sanctity of the "Colt Only as Thompson," but rather the documented history, not conclusions based on "opinions," of the Auto-Ord-Corp, a logo, and the Thompson name. You would also have stumbled across passages that refer to those "Thompson's manufactured post 1944 as replicas. Not post 1922.

 

 

John Thompson did not create any Thompson. In fact, Thompson said he wanted the Model 1919 named after Thomas Fortune Ryan, the man who been the financial backer of the project. Thompson inspired what were the prototype Persuader and Annihilator. But it was Eickhoff, Payne and Charles Tunks who actually designed and tinkered these prototypes and the model 1919 prototype, that was the first submachine gun to bear the Thompson name.

 

Colt manufactured Thompson's under the authority of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation, as did Savage and AO during WWII.

 

By 1975, Trast's version of "AOC" had no relationship to the pre 1945 company.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

draver,

 

Your confusion knows no boundaries. You seem to think enjoyment and historical accuracy are mutually exclusive. You also have the roles of the players reversed. You, TD, Arnold and a sprinkling of other hope springs eternal philosophers represent the swimmers while noted Thompson researchers and authors, Roger Cox, William Helmer, Doug Richardson, Gordon Herigstadt, R. L. Sutherland, R. L. Wilson, Thomas B. Nelson, all accepted business practices, copy write and trademark laws represent the ocean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly a great thread. It is recommended reading for all Thompson enthusists.

 

QUOTE
By 1975, Trast's version of "AOC" had no relationship to the pre 1945 company.

That is certainly one opinion http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

In all seriousness, if you are going to have an opinion on the lineage of the Thompson Submachine Gun, I encourge you to read from all the sources cited and from material that has not been cited so you will have an informed opinion. It is the sharing of information that makes this board second to none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artie,

 

I respect your OPINION, but I still think you're wrong.

 

You or I will never know why the use of the Thompson name and stampings were not challenged, but that alone stands as one of the few FACTS, that they had the right to that use. I believe it's because they had the right to use them, and every at the time also knew it. If it walks like a duck, etc.

 

My OPINION is they're all Thompsons.

 

I really don't see you in the class of individuals you've championed, so I hope that's not what you're implying. All you are dealing with is hearsay on hearsay.

 

There is no need to reply to this comment, most seem to agree you're beating a dead horse, and we don't seem to have anything in common, (Except we own Thompsons !).

 

I defer to the FAQ for the forum. Artie, did you read this or merely peruse it? Sorry, no need to answer.

 

"Are West Hurley submachine guns real Thompsons?"

 

"This is one of the most hotly debated questions among Thompson collectors. Purists argue that, no, they are not. Citing patent issues, the somewhat blurry history of the Auto-Ordnance Company, its purported cessation of operation 1944 (and its numerous subsequent changing of hands), some believe no new Thompsons were produced after the end of WWII. West Hurley full automatic weapons are, thus, considered reproductions of the original Tommy Gun. Still others contend that the guns produced by the Auto Ordnance Company of West Hurley, NY, in the 1970's and 1980's are the direct descendants of the original Thompsons. There seems to be evidence to support both ideas. It is likely there will never be a resolution to this debate."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

draver,

 

Your initial post in this thread stated you concluded all Thompson's are replicas. But you never explained how you arrived at that nebulous rationale, other than employing the often misused folksy "duck" platitude analogy. This "when all else fails" retort is particularly invalid when comparing reproductions to originals. Just insert a knock-off Rolex for a West Hurley when comparing it to the original and invoke the "duck" analogy and the argument falls flat

 

Then you cite Chris’s FAQ thread paragraph on West Hurley’s as your guiding reference. He was being diplomatic by not taking a position on either side of the debate. But I missed where it said all Thompson's are replicas. Not to mention that if "most" people (who are these legions of nay sayers you refer to?) believe this subject to be resolved in their favor, why is there the need for the disclaimer in the FAQ thread?

 

I am not sure if you are being deliberately obtuse, but the well regarded Thompson' authorities I cited refer to the West Hurley as replicas/reproductions. I merely concur with their views that the preponderance of all recorded evidence supports the WH as replica. What ever "class" I may, or may not, possess is irrelevant since my personal opinions on the subject are based primarily, but not exclusively, on their well annotated periodicals and books.

 

You, on the other hand, have hitched your wagon exclusively to hearsay and apocryphal stories, mostly perpetuated by Numrich.

 

Since Numrich never applied the Thompson name, the bullet logo, Auto-Ord-Corp, or patents on any Thompson receiver until 1975, when Trast used all these names on his WH version, exactly what quarters would a challenge erupt from when there was nothing to challenge during those intervening 31 years when neither Numrich or Trast manufactured a .45 smg using the Thompson name from the time the last Thompson rolled off the assembly line in 1944.

 

Numrich didn't even use the "Auto-Ord- Corp" name on his NAC sales literature.

 

Maybe you should ask the opposite question: Why didn’t Trast, and now Kahr, take Doug Richardson to court for using all these names and logos on his receivers after they were turning out their versions of the Thompson?

 

Everyone is free to have their own beliefs. But before you accuse others of having an agenda, you should be aware of your own dog in the hunt. By emphatically and reflexively dismissing any contrary voices, no matter how logical and evidential the argument is presented, you acknowledge your Philistine mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE
"Are West Hurley submachine guns real Thompsons?"

 

I think that question will always be argued.

 

I know that my Thompson is a replica. It is built on one of the Richardson receivers (27A1 specs) that AF is refering to, but with the registered conversion device, I am happy with it.

 

Maybe we should all look at the bigger picture and ask....

 

"Are West Hurley submachine guns real submachine guns?"

 

At least that question is much eaisier to answer! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

Norm

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Artie,

 

As I previously stated, you're entitled to your opinion, but I think you're wrong. So, there you have it, we disagree.

 

But with over 1700 posts in this forum, it's obvious you are like some of the posters in a Rolex forum. I refer to those who seem to live for the thrill of expounding on a subject they feel they know better than others.

 

BTW, Fortune is not his real middle name, do you know what it really is? You know, being such a history buff, and all.

 

As you seem to always require, have the last word. I'm bored with you, and won't be reading it.

 

Let me apologize to the rest of the forum for allowing "Artie's" demeanor as "Expert On Everything... Ever" color my approach to this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with out readin all 8 pages i think if it looks like a "thompson" weather or not it is fa it is still a "thompson"

 

though I am sure it is classified by the batf like the sa 1919a4,sa mg42/34 etc. in that it is "a semiauto rifle/firearm built to resemble a thompson" http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

 

I agree with you. While I can't afford to be a "Colt Whore", all I have is a Savage M1A1. Is it a real Thompson?

 

It looks like a Thompson.

It feels like a Thompson.

It thinks it's a Thompson.

And it damn sure eats like a Thompson.

 

Must be a Thompson!

 

Doug

 

 

Jesus Christ is Lord,

and John Thompson is his prophet!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has turned into the thread that will not end. I was quite surprised to see it come back to the top of the board so I made a quick response to one comment and offered some advice for those who are really interested in this subject. Now I see it has garnered more posts and the debate continues. Actually, I never saw this subject as a debate. The lineage of the Auto-Ordnance Corporation to the Thompson Automatic Arms Corporation to the Auto-Ordnance Division of Maguire Industries to Kilgore Manufacturing to Fredrick Willis to George Numrich to Kahr Arms has always been very easy to follow – at least for me – and many others. Money or company stock exchanged hands during each transaction so value is certainly not an issue. Those that try to stop the lineage at any given point in time use words like replica and reproduction to attempt to cloud the question of lineage. Or they speak of George Numrich's business decisions to use or not to use this or that. Obviously, the quality of each lot of Thompson’s produced over the years is very different - as each lot of Thompson’s were manufactured during different time periods for much different purposes. I try not to get into the replica/reproduction discussion because it really does not address the true lineage of the Thompson. I readily admit what has become known as the West Hurley Thompson’s are not of the same quality as the Colt production Thompson’s or for the most part, the WWII Thompson’s. Again, different guns manufactured for different purposes.

 

However, there is one batch of Thompson’s that are not mentioned in the discussion by those that stop the lineage in 1944. What about the NAC prefix Thompson’s (and some NAC suffix Thompson’s)? These are the complete guns and receivers that were found in the crated assets of Auto-Ordnance when purchased by George Numrich in October 1951. Serial number NAC 5 is well known on this board. Some call NAC 5 and others like it a frankenstein Thompson because it is not a Colt production Thompson. But all admit it is a real Colt receiver with other Colt and WWII parts. Is this not a real Thompson manufactured in the 1950’s by Numrich Arms? No West Hurley parts were put on any of these Thompson’s. Each receiver and part was manufactured or manufactured in part by Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport. Where do these reported 86 to 200 Thompson’s fit into the scheme of things if no Thompson’s have been manufactured since 1944? Are the found complete guns true Thompson’s? Are the found Thompson receivers that had to be completed and fitted together not true Thompson’s because this manufacturing process happened after 1944? Of course, no one knows what Thompson’s were complete guns and what Thompson’s needed a lot of work to turn out a completed Thompson. Or do we just ignore this lot of Thompson’s altogether because they were not true production Thompson’s of Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport and therefore do not count – even though Colt, Savage or Auto-Ordnance at Bridgeport manufactured (complete, partially or otherwise) each part in some form or fashion. Of course, this is not a problem when you follow the lineage all the way from 1916 to George Numrich and beyond. This small lot of Thompson’s are true Thompson’s just like all the rest manufactured by the line of true owners of the Thompson Submachine Gun. Again, different guns manufactured at different times for different purposes.

 

What was the question again?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good God, TD...your post has GOT to set the record for the word "Thompson" being used the most (count 'em...27 times...).... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/smile.gif

Rob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, this has become a monster thread http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/banghead.gif

 

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

 

Now is this still a Thompson?

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

What do you think?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

There are three types of respondents to this thread:

 

1).

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

 

2).

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

 

3).

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arthur,

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

 

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

 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TD,

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

I wonder who is actually the snob here?

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, I hate to see a thread die before it's been thoroughly discussed so let’s pour some gas on the fire! http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/soapbox.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Arthur,

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

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

 

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

 

Your scholarly approach to dealing with obvious questions regarding:

1).

Why Numrich never used the Auto-Ord-Co name for 23 years until he registered in New York the "new" name "Auto-Ord-Corp" on June 14, 1974, that had no connection to the one that existed pre 1945.

 

2).

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

 

3).

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

 

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

 

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

 

As DR said so eloquently,

 

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

 

Paul Winters,

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...