reconbob Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 Periodically the question is asked here about which receiver is "better" - Phila Ordnanceor Richardson. My view on this has always been that both receivers are high quality and thatthe choice comes down to manufacturing style. I recently had a new Richardson "Ultimax"receiver here in the shop for other work and I took the opportunity to take some side by sidephotos. Here are a Richardson "Ultimax" (top) and a Phila Ord "80%" (bottom) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpsad72cae7.jpg Front view - Richardson (left) Phila Ord (right) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zps3ea628a2.jpg Bottom view mag cutout and H-locks - Phila Ord (top) Richardson (bottom) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpse15379fb.jpg Left side mag cutout and 17 deg ejector flat - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zps04106932.jpg Rear view - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpsff350041.jpg Top view surface finish detail - Richardson (top) Phila Ord (bottom) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zps80c5ab70.jpg Side view surface finish detail - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right) http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpsa1cc1887.jpg Top view surface finish and engraving detail - Richardson (top) Phila Ord (bottom)Note: The Richardson receiver has gold paint in the engraving. I do not know if this isstandard or an option offered by Doug, or if it was done later by the customer. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpsa4de19f7.jpg Bob Bower/Phila Ord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThompsonCrazy Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 One of the many reasons I love America!Standing ovation on this end! I am so happy with have options when it comes to Modern Thompson production. Beautiful work! On the second photo from the bottom you have yours swapped with DR's based on the painted/filled in markings. TC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piep Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 BobOn comparison of the two receivers I don't believe that you could go wrong with ether one.Thank you Bob for the comparison. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin601 Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 They both are a work of art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 15, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 Ok I just looked at this thread on my Iphone and for some reason on thephone the receivers in the second from the last photo are reversed, butcorrect when viewed on my computer. The Richardson receiver is the onewith the filled-in lettering. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3BigDaddy Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 Look correct to me...... Ok I just looked at this thread on my Iphone and for some reason on thephone the receivers in the second from the last photo are reversed, butcorrect when viewed on my computer. The Richardson receiver is the onewith the filled-in lettering. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnshooter Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) Bob,I think you're being unfair to yourself in comparing one of DR's receivers with a 1921 style surface finish, with yours having the correct wartime ground surfaces. Maybe that's what was available for photos, but it would be a more accurate and fair comparison to show the identical products. Outstanding work on the part of both manufacturers. Edited May 15, 2013 by mnshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin601 Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 Bob,I think you're being unfair to yourself in comparing one of DR's receivers with a 1921 style surface finish, with yours having the correct wartime ground surfaces. Maybe that's what was available for photos, but it would be a more accurate and fair comparison to show the identical products. Outstanding work on the part of both manufacturers.Thanks for pointing that out, I am in the market for one and did not realize that that was a '21 compared to a 28. It does make a difference Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexanderA Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Richardson receiver in the photos is not a '21. It's clearly a Model 1928A1, according to the markings. Interesting that at least one Richardson Ultimax M1928A1 has been completed and shipped out. There's hope for some of us on the waiting list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnshooter Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 The Richardson receiver in the photos is not a '21. It's clearly a Model 1928A1, according to the markings. Interesting that at least one Richardson Ultimax M1928A1 has been completed and shipped out. There's hope for some of us on the waiting list. Correct, of course. I called it a 21 style finish, as a reference to surface finish only, not the markings.The term "commercial", or "Savage commercial", or maybe even "Colt style" finish might have been more appropriate. I am among those who are wishing for ATF clarification on the Ultimax receivers. I want one too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin601 Posted May 15, 2013 Report Share Posted May 15, 2013 (edited) What type of "Clarification" is needed on the Richardson, they both have the same features, right? I did notice the different finishes, and the Phil Ordanance does have sharper radius on the edges. The actuator slot is more complete on the Richards, But these are different artist interpetation Edited May 17, 2013 by Paladin601 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexanderA Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) Regarding the "features" of the two receivers, the differences would have been abundantly clear if Bob had posted pictures of their entire bottoms. As for "ATF clarification," sometimes it's better not to ask. It's happened before in the NFA world that some busybody has involved the ATF, and received an answer that no one wanted -- not even the ATF itself. Once you invoke the bureaucracy, the outcome can unfold in unpredictable ways. Keep in mind also that Bob (Philadelphia Ordnance) is a licensed manufacturer, while Doug doesn't have any license at all (and is not required to have one). That means that Bob has to operate under a much higher degree of ATF scrutiny than Doug. You can draw your own conclusions. Edited May 16, 2013 by AlexanderA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Regarding the "features" of the two receivers, the differences would have been abundantly clear if Bob had posted pictures of their bottoms. What does this pic show? http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/image_zpse15379fb.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexanderA Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I edited my post to say that there should be pictures of their "entire" bottoms. The back of Doug's receiver is milled out, leaving a relatively small unfinished area in the middle. The actuator slot being open much farther back is also indicative of this. (I believe there are pictures on Doug's website.) Notice also the width of Doug's lock ramps in comparison to those on Bob's receiver. I have one of Bob's receivers, and the Blish lock "ears" won't quite fit in his lock ramps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I think what Alexander A is refering to is the complete bottom view of the "Ultimax". Doug's "Ultimax"is completely machined on the inside - the front and the rear. These completely finished areas areseparated by a small "island" that is left unfinished. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 To fit the H-lock in a Phila Ord receiver you have to lightly deburr the corners of the cuts then it will drop in. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrylta Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I own one of Bob's 80% receivers that I used for a display with a Russian parts kit. I did notice that Bob's receiver has what looked to be undersize blishlock ramp openings, but did not look into any further since it was only for display.This is very evident when compared to Doug's receiver above. -Darryl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Fliegenheimer Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I think what Alexander A is refering to is the complete bottom view of the "Ultimax". Doug's "Ultimax"is completely machined on the inside - the front and the rear. These completely finished areas areseparated by a small "island" that is left unfinished. Bob And this is down with ATF? If so, you could easily machine yours similarly, yes? Or....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnshooter Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) I own one of Bob's 80% receivers that I used for a display with a Russian parts kit. I did notice that Bob's receiver has what looked to be undersize blishlock ramp openings, but did not look into any further since it was only for display.This is very evident when compared to Doug's receiver above. -DarrylEven if there are only three people on the planet who know the correct dimensions for the Blish slots, they are Doug R., Reconbob, and PK.DR's receiver blish slots have the small reverse bevel at the bottom (the top, when looking at these photos) as found on the originals. This contributes to the appearance of a larger slot. As Bob states above, the blish lock will fit properly in his receiver. Edited May 16, 2013 by mnshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Yes, the Blish lock cuts in the receiver are not undersized. I do not machine the 22 1/2 degree bevelthat makes the slot appear to be wider. This bevel does not affect the function of the lock.I routinely make and test fire working shooting guns on my receivers, so I know everything is correct.Here is a Phila Ord working Thompson showing the Blish lock in place in what appears to be an"undersized" slot. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3378_zps54fa7f10.jpg Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Arthur - To my knowledge the "Ultimax" receiver has not been presented to ATF for approval.Yes, I could make the same pattern of receiver, but there is so little work required to complete itthat I would not consider doing so. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paladin601 Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 Bob, how about a comparitive Photo of the two receivers from the bottom? That would help me better understand what you and others are writing about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anjong-ni Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 As the owner of some of each receiver, I feel entitled to comment. There is a world of difference between the two. Compare closely the finish on each receiver; the Richardson receiver has a smooth, polished, jewel-like feel to it, a 12-inch piece of metallic art, as nearly flawless as a manufactured item could be. There are no burrs, sharp edges to file off, or deep machine marks. The radii are blended into the sides, the feed ramp is a flat, smooth surface. The engraving is highlighted because it is beautiful to look at. Very, very nice. I imagine, if I bought a Colt Thompson, the first thing I would do is polish the receiver with an oily rag. Now imagine that its many owners have been doing that for 90 years. That's the look I wanted. A Richardson receiver looks like that already. I appreciate the WW2 wartime production machine tool marks as being authentic, although my cut-up receiver pieces from parts kits look fairly smooth. The surface finish is an interpretation of the original by artisans that have seen a lot more Thompsons than I ever will. In having to choose between the two, there might be other factors that come into consideration.... As far as the amount of metal left in the interior, these are "display" receivers to most of us, no more. The bolt won't fit, period. Mill time is expensive, but once the dimensions are set up and the item clamped down on the table, what would be time difference between machining out the obstruction, or hogging out the interior? An hour? We all have an understanding of how full-auto firearms are made; in the Army we discovered that forgetting to install the disconnector in an M16 makes every shot a "burst". Let's just say, no one on this board would disrespect our hobby as much to do anything so foolish....Phil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mnshooter Posted May 16, 2013 Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 (edited) w Yes, the Blish lock cuts in the receiver are not undersized. I do not machine the 22 1/2 degree bevelthat makes the slot appear to be wider. This bevel does not affect the function of the lock.I routinely make and test fire working shooting guns on my receivers, so I know everything is correct.Here is a Phila Ord working Thompson showing the Blish lock in place in what appears to be an"undersized" slot. http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3378_zps54fa7f10.jpg BobThanks for all the information Bob.WIth the luxury of making the blish slots to desired dimensions, could you comment on the pinned article on blish slot testing -pushing forward on the actuator, while pulling rearward on the bolt, with the resulting bolt front to receiver clearance suggested as not exceeding the thickness of a dime (about .052"). How does this compare with your findings of maximum acceptable gap dimension? Will a larger gap -say .060-.080", be likely to cause a significant increase in wear or breakage?Thanks Edit to add: The only four Colt's I have measured are .015-.017" using this test. Edited May 17, 2013 by mnshooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted May 16, 2013 Author Report Share Posted May 16, 2013 I have encountered 2 West Hurley guns where the H-lock cuts are 0.050"-0.060" too far to therear and the owners say they shoot them and have no problems. Now, these are correctly formedslots that are out of position, not the defective slots as seen on PK's photos on one of the pinnedtopics. If the gun shoots ok and the H-lock is not deforming and the receiver is not being batteredI would say that a gap is ok. The best way to check the slots is with a gage. I made a couple of gages for use here at theshop to check the position of the slots to make sure they are correct. I actually started making asmall batch of them to sell, but got busy and never finished them. If you are others are interestedI can finish them and would sell them for $75. The gage is a precision ground block with a dowel pin. The gage is placed on the bottom flatof the receiver with the pin placed in the H-lock slots. The gage is pushed to the rear surface of theslot and the gap between the front face of the gage and the front face of the bolt pocket ismeasured to determine the position of the slots. Bob 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