Like the title says. No word on if it'll be an actual production model.

Tactical Thompson

What? No. Why?

The semi "Thompson" I had was a complete piece of shit.  This looks like a piece of shit in tactical Christmas wrapping.  Pass.

No one posted it yet? Really? Do I really have to post it?

It's not the first time, but just as stupid:

There ya go lol

OP - that link gave my PC the Aids - that is one messed up pop up infested link.

Red

tactical boat anchor

Answer looking for a question.

Designer should choke himself.

Put it in the same dumpster as the tactical lever action

Wtf?!? No. Gross
Does Kahr have a presence here? Someone needs to @ them and tell them to put down the crack pipe and don't waste money

No one in their right mind wants a heavy chunk of shit Thompson for anything but nostalgia. Tactical is not nostalgic. No amount of rails or optics will make the Thompson relevant today.

The Tactical Thompson needs to have a side folding stock.  As the recoil mechanism is inside of the receiver, I believe Kahr should be able to add a hinge at the receiver/stock interface. and use a shorter than typical adjustable stock to keep the LOP in a range usable to most shooters; or use a Mini Uzi type fixed length side folding stock.  They also need to use standard Thompson drums and build in a "third hand" bolt hold back instead of making a special drum.

MHO, YMMV, etc.

I want one of the original styles. I think they are bad ass.

Sgt Saunders is rolling in his grave.

IMHO if they didnt call it a Thompson, people would be gushing over it.

There seems to be a pretty good demand for .45 carbines.

wow, that was a lot worse than i thought it was going to be

No superfluous buffer tube for a slide fire?
Doesn't take AR aftermarket parts?
LOL fail.

The original was an original.  Who ever thought that was a good idea needs help.

I will hold off on opinion till I see a better picture of the finished product.

Tough room. I love my SBR'd Kahr Thompson, and I'll task anyone who thinks it's "irrelevant' to stand down range at relative CQB ranges and let me show them how irrelevant it is. Dead is dead. I wouldn't want anyone shooting at me with one.
Having said all that, I think they are making a big mistake. They'd have to halve the weight, halve the price, replace the sights, add a real bolt hold-open, add rails, and add a side-folding, or wire stock (ala the M3 Greasegun)...and it would have to be SBR'd without the dorky 16" barrel.
Do all that and you'd have a handy little .45 devastator. Of course, do all that and it wouldn't be a Thompson. It would still suffer from an antiquated and difficult to change magazine design, and Kahr's dubious reliability (mine works, but I seem to be the only one), bad customer service, and the fact no one on this world could make it at the price it would need to be sold at. Which brings us right around back where we started. And that's without even mentioning the horrible bullet drop of the .45ACP at anything even approaching 100 yards.  
If they want to play tactical, they should come up with something that's not based on a WW1 design.

They should probably have spent their time making the trigger not feel like pulling 450lbs of rocks.