Jump to content

Phila Ordnance and Richardson receivers side by side


Recommended Posts

Bob, as someone who has finished your receivers for a long time, they are great, don't know where we'd be without you, but I know we'd have a lot less display guns and post samples out there.....

Thanks

Dan

 

Ditto and add semi-autos. I've built 3 using PO receivers.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by mkw

My 1928A1 ESF "Ultimax" receivers are being the subject of comparison which is fine. But to do it right, the entire receiver needs to be viewed - not just selected areas. The outside of my receivers has not changed much since I made my first receiver in 1957.

 

"Ultimax" did not change that. What "Ultimax" did change was the interior of the receiver. The whole "Ultimax" concept was based on making every single cut that is made on an original working receiver but interrupting some of those cuts to stay legal. So a cutter path that would originally go from one end of a working receiver to the other would be there but be interrupted in the middle of the bolt channel. Heretofore, if the cut could not be completed, it would not be done at all. Therefore, to not examine the receiver interior is to not see an "Ultimax".

 

In order to provide everyone with a true and complete view of an "Ultimax", I am providing the two photos shown below. The first is a bottom view of a 1928A1 "Ultimax" receiver. This receiver has been fitted with one of my 1928 Ultimax Display Pilot kits.

 

The second photo is a cut-away view of the left inside of the bolt channel. This view was made possible by cutting a receiver down the middle except for a jog over to cut through the rear sight rivet holes. Note that the bolt channel roof slot with its 1/4" wide x 3/4" end radii, which clears the underside of the actuator slot, is completely finished. The lock ramps with their ramp entry bevels are completely finished. The horizontal lock track is finished on each end but "interrupted" in the middle as dictated by the "Ultimax"

concept. However, because the track is started, the transition between the ramp and track was able to be finished. Note also that the rear sight holes are completely finished including the countersinks for the rivet heads.

 

The rear end of the bolt channel is completely finished including the slot for the oiler. The front end of the bolt channel is completely finished. The breech entry chamfer at the front end of the bolt channel is finished. There is not a single cut called for on the original manufacturing drawing that has not been made as shown on the drawing. No omissions. No shortcuts. Only a section of the slots on the sides of the bolt channel have been interrupted in accordance with the "Ultimax" concept.

 

"Ultimax" does not make it easier to make an ATF defined machine gun (more than a single shot with a single pull of the trigger - that only takes a rectangular pocket fitted with an M1A1 bolt.) "Ultimax" makes it easier to make an original style 1928 if you have the license. (By the way, "Ultimax" is a trade mark of Douglas W. Richardson.) For more information, visit my website www.ThompsonSMG.com or call me at 310-457-6400

 

 

post-80-0-11160800-1368897325_thumb.jpg (Click on the Photo for a large view.)

The first is a bottom view of a 1928A1 "Ultimax" receiver

 

post-80-0-23082100-1368897408_thumb.jpg (Click on the Photo for a large view.)

The second photo is a cut-away view of the left inside of the bolt channel.

Edited by Doug Richardson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bob, as someone who has finished your receivers for a long time, they are great, don't know where we'd be without you, but I know we'd have a lot less display guns and post samples out there.....

Thanks

Dan

 

Ditto and add semi-autos. I've built 3 using PO receivers.

 

Joe

Curious, how have you made a Semi Auto out of a PO receiver, and keep it legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

posted by mkw

My 1928A1 ESF "Ultimax" receivers are being the subject of comparison which is fine. But to do it right, the entire receiver needs to be viewed - not just selected areas. The outside of my receivers has not changed much since I made my first receiver in 1957.
"Ultimax" did not change that. What "Ultimax" did change was the interior of the receiver. The whole "Ultimax" concept was based on making every single cut that is made on an original working receiver but interrupting some of those cuts to stay legal. So a cutter path that would originally go from one end of a working receiver to the other would be there but be interrupted in the middle of the bolt channel. Heretofore, if the cut could not be completed, it would not be done at all. Therefore, to not examine the receiver interior is to not see an "Ultimax".
In order to provide everyone with a true and complete view of an "Ultimax", I am providing the two photos shown below. The first is a bottom view of a 1928A1 "Ultimax" receiver. This receiver has been fitted with one of my 1928 Ultimax Display Pilot kits.
The second photo is a cut-away view of the left inside of the bolt channel. This view was made possible by cutting a receiver down the middle except for a jog over to cut through the rear sight rivet holes. Note that the bolt channel roof slot with its 1/4" wide x 3/4" end radii, which clears the underside of the actuator slot, is completely finished. The lock ramps with their ramp entry bevels are completely finished. The horizontal lock track is finished on each end but "interrupted" in the middle as dictated by the "Ultimax" concept. However, because the track is started, the transition between the ramp and track was able to be finished. Note also that the rear sight holes are completely finished including the countersinks for the rivet heads.
The rear end of the bolt channel is completely finished including the slot for the oiler. The front end of the bolt channel is completely finished. The breech entry chamfer at the front end of the bolt channel is finished. There is not a single cut called for on the original manufacturing drawing that has not been made as shown on the drawing. No omissions. No shortcuts. Only a section of the slots on the sides of the bolt channel have been interrupted in accordance with the "Ultimax" concept.
"Ultimax" does not make it easier to make an ATF defined machine gun (more than a single shot with a single pull of the trigger - that only takes a rectangular pocket fitted with an M1A1 bolt.) "Ultimax" makes it easier to make an original style 1928 if you have the license. (Click on photos to enlarge.) (By the way, "Ultimax" is a trade mark of Douglas W. Richardson.) For more information, visit my website www.ThompsonSMG.com or call me at 310-457-6400

Doug, Why the 22 1/2 bevel at the base of the Blish Lock slot on yours, was it on the original or is it an "improvement" to your design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by mkw

 

No one has apparently noticed the difference between the Bower receiver and the Richardson receiver in the magazine well area. Bob's comparison side by side photo of the top surface of the magazine well shows Bower's receiver has pockets cut adjacent to the back wall of the magazine well whereas the Richardson receiver has bevels along each side of the loading slot. The drawing clearly calls out bevels as appear on the Richardson receiver. There is nothing wrong with using pockets, it just isn't in conformance with the drawing. As a matter of fact, I use a similar pocket on my special receivers because it is easier and faster to make the pockets. There are a lot of things I would change on the Thompson receiver but every time I try to deviate from the drawing, my customers beat me up. That's why I make my special receivers, it's my design so I can do what I want to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the bevels in the mag well area -- when I received my Phil Ord display receiver, I immediately noticed that stick magazines would not seat properly. They would come up just shy of locking. Comparing the Phil Ord receiver to an actual demil receiver, it was evident that the Phil Ord receiver lacked the bevels, and that was what was causing the problem. A few minutes' work with a small hand file corrected this. Those bevels are necessary for proper clearance of the magazine feed lips.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not make an "Ultimax" receiver. I make 80% machined receivers for dummy gun builders

and gun builders. and 100% machined receivers which we build into WORKING and SHOOTING

guns for Class 3 dealers with a Police letter, Police Departments, and Class 2 manufacturers. My

intent with the post was to show side by side the quality of the machine work offered by myself and

Doug, not to compare a specific receiver. My "Ultimax" is a 100% machined receiver.

Here are photos of the underside of my 100% machined receiver. My 100% receiver is more

correct and more complete (obviously) than an "Ultimax". It has to be - I am making guns that WORK.

There are cuts missing on the Ultimax receiver that need to be done, but can't be done until the bolt

cavity in the receiver is fully machined so you can get in there to do them. If you don't

actually finish and test fire guns on your receivers you have no way of knowing this. There is no

substitute for experience. Also - Please note that the angled cuts at the rear of the mag cutout are there

on the 100% receiver.

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3400_zps83e5d822.jpg

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3401_zpsdd5394e5.jpg

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3404_zps3951237a.jpg

 

The term "80% machined" which Doug goes out of his way to criticize does, in fact, have

meaning. The term was originated by me many years ago as applied to my receivers. At the

time I was manufacturing (just like today) 100% machined receivers. An 80% receiver was

a receiver that had had 80% of the machine work done - in terms of machining time - compared

to a 100% machined receiver. So it has a specific, genuine meaning. The term "80% machined"

was immediately copied and used by many and has since become part of the language in the

gun world.

 

I think that the cross section photo of the "Ultimax" says it all. Almost nothing is left to machine.

The receiver could be finished in a drill press with a rotary file, or with a dremel tool. The ATF

generally does not allow receivers that can be finished this way with a drill press or hand tools.

Doug - you are not the one who makes the call on what is "legal". Only the ATF can make that call.

 

Someone asked about price. A Richardson "Ultimax" M1921/28 receiver is $885 with no engraving.

You need to buy special cutters to finish it, plus you have to take the time to machine it, and then

blue it since you will be machining away the bluing when you finish it.

A Phila Ordnance 100% machined receiver is completely finished, blued, test-fired and ready to

assemble-and-shoot. The price is $950. So for only $65 more you get a completely finished receiver

that you know is good because its been test-fired. I think that is a good value.

 

The 22 1/2 degree bevel at the rear of the H-lock cuts has nothing to do with the fitting of the

H-lock. The lock drops right in without it.

 

The Phila Ordnance blanchard ground finish is superior to the Richardson endmilled finish - see photo:

 

Phila Ordnance blanchard ground finish on the left.

Richardson endmilled/polished finish on the right.

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_3403_zps6926a0f3.jpg

 

 

In closing my intent with the original post was to highlight the quality of both Richardson and

Phila Ordnance, not to start a sniping contest. Both Doug and myself do quality work.

 

Bob

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Thank you for starting this thread. I have learned a lot. A display or 80% receiver has never been of interest to me but I applaud you and Doug for taking care of this niche market. Should the law ever change that will allow civilians to own one of your Thompson Submachine Gun receivers, I will be first in line with cash in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a Philly Ordnance receiver a year and a half ago and I had Bob install my parts kit on it too. I got his "lightening" option which cut away a little more metal to make my display gun close to the actual weight of a real working M1 Thompson. I have no experience with a Richardson rifle, but with so much more of the inside cut out, wouldn't that make a display rifle weight a lot less than a real working rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that even with the lightening cut option, the Phil Ord display gun weighs considerably more than an actual working Thompson. I know that my completed Phil Ord display piece is heavy.

 

Another issue is the actuator handle position and the provision for a dummy bolt. Richardson sells a dummy actuator handle, and Phil Ord sells a dummy bolt. Using either receiver, coordinating these two items is tricky. On the Richardson receiver, there's a hole for the actuator handle in the rear position. That means that if you use that hole as it is intended, and place a dummy bolt ahead of it (so as to not have a gaping opening below the actuator slot), the rear end of the dummy bolt is unsupported. You'd have to fabricate some sort of bracket to secure the dummy bolt. On the Phil Ord receiver, there's no dedicated place for the dummy actuator handle. You have to fabricate some way to hold the handle in place.

 

What I did on my (Phil Ord) display gun was to install the dummy bolt in the forward position (the bottom of it is milled so as to allow the sliding-in of a drum magazine), and then secure it by clamping the dummy actuator handle behind it using a spacer and washers. This left an unsightly open actuator slot, which I covered with a thin piece of plastic painted black. It actually looks quite authentic. The same method could be used with a Richardson receiver, if you don't use the provided hole for the actuator handle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

posted by mkw

The question has been raised as to the position I chose to locate the bolt handle on my Display receivers. My decision was based on three considerations. First, the gun was designed to fire from an open bolt. It was intended that the gun be carried with the bolt open (cocked) so that it would be ready for instant use. The designers did not consider carrying the gun with the bolt closed as evidenced by the fact that the safety will not work in the closed-bolt position (1921-1928).
Second, the movie people use my Display guns in non-shooting scenes. It would not look right to see soldiers in battle carrying their Thompsons with the bolt closed since that would delay getting the gun into action.
Third, when I display complete guns, I load the magazines with dummy cartridges. I think it looks really good to be able to look into the breach and see the cartridges at the top of the magazine, the feed ramp and the ejector. Why would anyone want to cover up all that?
To make my receivers look complete without further work, every one of my receivers is drilled and tapped to accept my Display Pilot Kit and Display Bolt Handle Kit. They have also had the rear sight holes so that a rear sight could be easily installed. From the get-go my receivers have been finished. I don't understand all this talk about what shop work is required to assemble a display receiver. There should not be any.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having the actuator handle in the rear position would be reasonable, as long as the gaping void visible through the actuator slot was addressed in some way. On a real gun, if the actuator handle was in the rear position, you would see the top front portion of the bolt through the actuator slot. We can place a dummy bolt there, but it would take some extra work (fabricating a bracket?) to secure it in place.

 

It's far easier, in making up a display gun, to put the dummy bolt in the forward (closed) position, so that the bolt and extractor is visible through the ejection port. Then the dummy actuator handle would be clamped in place (using a spacer and washers) near the front end of the actuator slot. The rest of the actuator slot would be filled with a thin material (I used thin plastic sheet, painted black), trimmed to a keyhole shape and press-fit and glued into place, simulating the top of the actuator. The goal is to make the display gun indistinguishable from a real gun, when viewed at a one-foot distance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the Philadelphia Ordnance dummy bolt head were to be used in the rear ("cocked") position in a Richardson Ultimax receiver, the easiest way to do it, it seems to me, would be to drill and tap a hole in the center of the rear face of the dummy bolt. Then, you would drill and tap a corresponding hole in the front of the solid portion ("denial island") of the receiver, and join the two with a threaded stud. (It would take a long drill bit to reach through the front of the receiver. Doug should consider this modification of his product. It could be called "provision for a dummy bolt.")

 

With the dummy bolt in the rear position, its front would be visible through the ejection port. The front of the Phil Ord dummy bolt is not machined. You'd have to do a bit of lathe work on this, to create a bolt face setback and a fake firing pin hole.

 

I've already commented elsewhere that if the dummy bolt is placed in the forward position, it needs to have a 1/4" clearance hole drilled for the ejector (unless you want to shorten and destroy your ejector).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that we are fortunate to have two quality receiver builders to choose from. I do have some questions for Bob:

-What police dept. is using Thompsons or buying/replacing worn out TSMG receivers? And wasn't the number of (non-military) mgs fixed in 1968, with no more "ever" being added? So more are made every day? Hollywood must already have plenty of full-auto blank guns, from past war/gangster movies. Do they still order them built?

-What is the function of the magwell bevels? Do 1921-28 and M1s both have them? It's certainly not to clear the magazine feed lips; they are longer than the bevels. My display P-O receivers don't have them...were they optional, or only available on 100% receivers? I thought I ordered "everything".

Observation: As far as having to "re-blue" a D-R Ultimax after Dremeling it out into your own personal mg, unless you clamp it in a vice, nobody would probably look inside to notice. That bare section of bolt cavity would be the least of your worries....Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We make and sell finished full-auto Thompsons for sale to Class 2 manufacturers and Class 3 dealers

that have a police letter - i.e. - a letter from a Police Department requesting that the the gun be demonstrated.

With this letter a Class 3 dealer can have the gun in inventory or for sale/transfer to a Police Department. By far

most of the buyers of finished guns are Class 2's who have rental ranges. Their customers can shoot a

Thompson and they do not have to worry about putting a lot of wear on an original/collectable gun. So, you

can make new guns but they can only be sold to the entities mentioned. I have not promoted the guns to

police, but the Thompson might do ok in sales to them.

The mag well bevels - my opinion - they are there to eliminate a sharp corner. The magazine lips do not

extend up to the extent that they hit there. The first shooting M1928A1's I made did not have the bevels

and they shot just fine, but I added the bevels for authenticity. We only do the bevels on 100% receivers.

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can attest to Bob's authentic looking 80% deluxe receivers, I have a 1928 display receiver fitted out with WHurley cut

and epoxied parts. Last month I took all my Thompsons to a local gun show, I layed them all on a table and

did a last minute safety check by cycling the actuators forgetting that the display gun was on the table as well.

 

Well,,,,In short, I broke the epoxied actuator knob off of the display gun and had to scrabble to fix it before I went to the show :)

 

I got Bob's receiver, serial numbered to match the lower and a riveted on Lyman site.

Bob always gives the extra effort to satisfy his customers. If I ever buy another one, it will be a Philly Ord. for sure.

 

-Darryl

Edited by darrylta
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bolt handle and bolt head are just parts. Its up to the customer to decide if they

want their model to have the bolt "open" or "closed". I have probably done over 100 M1928A1

and M1/M1A1 display guns over the years and out of that number I would say only 2 or 3

people wanted the bolt to be "open".

What I offer now is a bolt head and a dummy/display actuator knob. The actuator knob

has a 5/16" shank and the dummy bolt head can be drilled with a 5/16" hole so the knob

can interlock with the bolt head. When it is all finished it looks like there is a bolt assembly

in the "gun" in the closed position.

Now, if the customer also wants the H-lock and breech entry machined this opens up the

actuator slot as described in a previous post and you have the open slot that you would not

have if it was a real gun with the bolt closed.

Here is a photo of a display/dummy "gun" with the fake bolt head and actuator knob. This

particular "gun" did not have the H-locks so the actuator slot is not open:

 

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_0148_zps56365925.jpg

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...