Jump to content

Another Richard W. Urich 3 Digit M1 TSMG


Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

Why wouldn't Urich also use welded together demilled parts?

Thompsons are made from a strange kind of steel and I had bad luck trying to glue one back together. After going the Phila Ord route, I am MUCH happier. The guys building new ones back in the day undoubtedly discovered this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Crazy timing. I have not been on this board in months (maybe closer to a year) and I logged on this evening while watching Tora Tora Tora.

 

I sent 817 to Recon Bob at Philadelphia Ordnance and he completely reworked it. All new parts, bolt, barrel, small internals, and complete repark. It is like brand new. Great shooter.

 

Sold it to a good friend of mine locally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course the 1980's is a long time ago, but I would remember any quantity

purchase of receivers by Urich and there was none. I may have sold him maybe

5 or 6 receivers over time but never received, or was able to fill, and order for, say,

10 or more receivers.

I got my first CNC machine in 1985 - a manual tool change computerized

version of the standard J head Bridgeport so at this time everything was still

mostly done on manual machines.

For what it's worth back then the receivers were made using 4130 steel. For

many years now we have been using 4140.

Also back then I had no ability to engrave the receivers.

I am very skeptical that original roll engraving dies exist. I would think that

to make new ones would be prohibitively expensive even in the 1980's, plus

you need a special machine to use them. To spend thousands of dollars on

dies and a machine to engrave a small quantity of guns I just don't see.

To put it in context back in the mid 1980's we sold new manufacture guns,

all original mint condition parts except for receiver and trigger frame for $650

and that was on the high side.

 

Bob/Phila Ord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably half a dozen Urich M1s have passed through my license for various reasons over many years. Only two were transferred to me, #820 and #812. It was evident to me that these numbers were his chosen numbers for registration. I recall that the usual info was applied to both sides of the receivers and had no reason to believe that it had not been done by Urich. Interesting to entertain the views expressed here and Urich's comments.

Having acquired my first legal, live MG in 1970, by the '72 or '73 I was aware of the issues faced by parties interested in the legal manufacture and registration of MGs from a few conversations with Doug Offinger who had pushed ATF to assist in determining how individuals and licensees could both legally import and manufacture live MGs from those left unregistered during the '68 Amnesty and how to proceed to make and register new receivers. The GCA '68 which included the Amnesty, but did not address or affect the federal laws governing manufacture and registration of live MGs for sale and possession by individuals. So, many issues were raised by him and a number of other persons and ATF responded with the early protocols for registration that existed until May 19, 1986.
One of the issues was markings. Newly manufactured and remanufactured receivers were required to be marked by the maker wether an individual or a licensee. There was no direct oversight or inspection by ATF of products for compliance with manufacturing requirements. If there was it was rare and unusual. The issue of marking by producers of registered MGs was fairly widespread and controversial for a simple reason which was that they felt that the markings "scarred" the MG. Reproducing accurate original factory markings was very popular with a number of makers for a variety of types of MGs and having to put the makers ID on the receiver was considered defacing the gun. As a result, placing the maker's ID in an out of the way location became very popular. Remember that ATF personnel NEVER saw the hardware, which continues today, and an inspection by ATF of the FFL/SOT licensee focussed on paperwork compliance and not hardware compliance.
So, many makers would put their ID info on the receiver under some removable part, done as small as possible or in as inconspicuous a place as possible. Urich did the same but had the clever idea of putting the info under the rear sight that was removable. As far as a "violation" of ATF regs, this is as insignificant as it can be and remains so to this day. It is just not a legal problem with any legally registered MG. The variety of ways to mark MGs is large. The details of markings have been revised with stricter application and depth requirements over the years to where they are today, but enforcement of incorrect marking placement, means or size on registered MGs is an extremely minor issue compared with myriad other compliance issues with the insanely twisted regulations and definitions created by ATF for administration of NFA after the GCA '68 Amnesty. For years compliance was up to the desires and inclinations of the makers, and the extent of their ambition to make money or produce quantities of hardware or other dreams and the industry was pretty wild and indifferent to and interpretative of much of what ATF required, not to mention outright fraud of which there was more than enough.

Another point is that alterations of or additions to the markings, within the law, on registered MGs as time has passed to make them more "authentic" has increased a lot. There are lots of examples of this with quite a variety of MGs.
As far as buyer/collectors not knowing that Urich's products were not "original" factory MGs, that's just part of every collector world. As they say, "get over it". When he was producing his guns there was no effort to conceal their origin, or claim false legitimacy, and it was easily determined with minor inquiry, as with many other newly manufactured and registered MGs. These MGs were recognized as reproductions and it was expected that they could vary In quality from comical to absolutely accurate depending on maker. Just the difference in the cost of a repro compared to an original factory gun made it obvious. Fraudulent or inaccurate representation of the provenence of an MG is nothing new whether deliberate or out of ignorance so caveat emptor always applies. The intricate hierarchy of social/collector's status from possession of an original or a repro has always been alive and well in the MG hobby and Urichs guns have been part of that for a long time. However, these days, and with the internet, the minutiae included on the scale of collectibility with Thompsons is daunting so it was inevitable that it would be applied more and more to Urich's guns as time passed. But, in my opinion, his guns must be assessed in light of the prevailing culture of the MG collector world during the years they were made, as much as a Savage or Colt would be, and, more importantly, not unfairly assigned implications of legal liability that are not germane or valid.

It's a longwinded post, but the observation above that Urich might be trying to "distance" himself from his guns for legal reasons or any other is absurd and insulting to him. He did MG collectors a great favor for harnessing his enthusiasm and skills to produce as many Thompsons as he did and deserves kudos and recognition for that. Personally, I feel indebted to and highly appreciative of all the people who knowingly or inadvertently nurtured this hobby, even from prior to WWI, by their importation of MGs and parts, who brought back MGs from the wars, who manufactured and registered MGs for the eighteen years it was permitted, and even to treasury and then ATF personnel who did their jobs fairly and effectively as best they could and those still doing it despite the long, continuing and amazing thick, curdled consistency of the cultural and legal resistance to what we like to do. And there has been a lot of luck, too. FWIW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Douglas Richardson workshop manual, he quotes the following: Interchanging rear sights, all models of Thompson rear sights fit all models of Thompson receivers and use the same rivets, however, if a Lyman Adjustable Rear Sight is fitted to a Ml/M1A1 receiver, it will appear to overhang the sides of the receiver even though it is the same width, this is because the top edge radii on the receiver create a illusion of the sight being wider than the receiver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Douglas Richardson workshop manual, he quotes the following: Interchanging rear sights, all models of Thompson rear sights fit all models of Thompson receivers and use the same rivets, however, if a Lyman Adjustable Rear Sight is fitted to a Ml/M1A1 receiver, it will appear to overhang the sides of the receiver even though it is the same width, this is because the top edge radii on the receiver create a illusion of the sight being wider than the receiver.

Interesting. Nothing that couldn't be fixed with shortening the Lyman sight up a bit. I'll have to look around to see what those sights are going for. Anyone have a source in mind? Apex has some parts and Numrich has some as well but not a complete one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as buyer/collectors not knowing that Urich's products were not "original" factory MGs, that's just part of every collector world. As they say, "get over it". When he was producing his guns there was no effort to conceal their origin, or claim false legitimacy, and it was easily determined with minor inquiry, as with many other newly manufactured and registered MGs.

 

but the observation above that Urich might be trying to "distance" himself from his guns for legal reasons or any other is absurd and insulting to him. He did MG collectors a great favor for harnessing his enthusiasm and skills to produce as many Thompsons as he did and deserves kudos and recognition for that. Personally,

 

It is not so much of buyer's not knowing about the origin of these Urich receivers, but whether Ira Trask, the supposedly sole legal authority to manufacture smgs with the THOMPSON name affixed to it, knew about them. See post #14

 

If Urich was unaware at the time he was manufacturing his smg in the 70's/80's about the possible unauthorized use of the THOMPSON name he was certainly not alone. But when Kahr came into the picture in 1999, the prospect of legal actions taken against unauthorized use of the THOMPSON name would have increased significantly.

 

Not sure how you perceived any slight or insult of Urich in this thread. If anything, this thread gives recognition to TSMG manufacturers before 1986, other than the "official" one then located in West Hurley, New York.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back prior to the 1986 ban I advertised my guns as "M1A1 Thompson Submachine Guns"

and was promptly threatened by Auto-Ordnance West Hurley with all sorts of legal action

because they claimed to be the original owner of the trademark, etc.

I had display ads in the Shotgun News and I do not recall Urich advertising there or maybe he only

used classified ads and gun shows and went un-noticed by West Hurley. But if they would have known I am

sure they would have gone after him as well.

 

Bob

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back prior to the 1986 ban I advertised my guns as "M1A1 Thompson Submachine Guns"

and was promptly threatened by Auto-Ordnance West Hurley with all sorts of legal action

because they claimed to be the original owner of the trademark, etc.

 

Bob

 

Wonder how far Trast's AOC was prepared to go in spending resources in a court battle. Was it a letter like Opie Taylor got from "The 'Miracle Salve Company" or did you get the impression they would have made an example of you to discourage other Class 2 SOT businesses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi all. I need some advice. I sold my 3 digit Urich mentioned in this thread. I had ran a couple mags through it flawlessly. The buyer's FFL received it yesterday. He stated that it will run if a magazine is downloaded to about 15 rounds on the 30 rnd mag and on the 20 round about 10 rounds. With a fully loaded mag, the bolt pushes a round out of the magazine but at an angle and the bolt stops. I find it odd that both magazines would be bad. He told me he ran four different makes of ammo through it. When I shot this gun, I can't really recall if I shot it with a fully loaded mag or not and only ran a couple mags through it. Could the failure to push a round into the chamber be caused by a weak mainspring? I did disassemble the gun prior to shipping with the upper and lower separated. Anyone have any suggestions on what could cause it to not run with a fully loaded magazine? Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This could be a variety of things and unfortunately you are not there to get

a first hand look. What does it mean that the cartridge comes out at an angle and

the bolt stops? That the cartridge jumps free and is at enough of an angle that it

is jammed sideways against the face of the bolt kind of like a stove pipe jam?

 

It could be-

 

The feed lips of the magazine are ever so slightly nicked or dented

causing friction. The more rounds in the mag the greater the spring force the

greater the friction. When there are fewer rounds in the mag, less friction and

the gun works.

 

The mags could be loose in an up/down direction. Use duct or masking tape

to tape the mag tight up against the receiver. If this fixes the problem it's the mag.

 

The shooter could be slowly squeeezing the trigger causing the sear to drag

on the bottom of the bolt slowing down the bolt, as opposed to decisively pulling

the trigger and dropping the sear all the way.

 

If it's more than the top round in the mag the gun may be short recoiling. The

bolt recoils far enough to eject the case but not far enough to pick up the rim of the

next round and the front

end of the bolt scrapes against the side of the next round pushing it out of the mag

where it jumps free of the feed lips and jams the bolt.

 

Short recoil could be the ammo, the trigger pull, or a shot out barrel.

 

To check for proper power fire the gun on semi and the bolt should

lock to the rear on the rear sear notch every time. If not the gun is short

recoiling due to not enough power.

 

 

Bob

Edited by reconbob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This could be a variety of things and unfortunately you are not there to get

a first hand look. What does it mean that the cartridge comes out at an angle and

the bolt stops? That the cartridge jumps free and is at enough of an angle that it

is jammed sideways against the face of the bolt kind of like a stove pipe jam?

 

It could be-

 

The feed lips of the magazine are ever so slightly nicked or dented

causing friction. The more rounds in the mag the greater the spring force the

greater the friction. When there are fewer rounds in the mag, less friction and

the gun works.

 

The mags could be loose in an up/down direction. Use duct or masking tape

to tape the mag tight up against the receiver. If this fixes the problem it's the mag.

 

The shooter could be slowly squeeezing the trigger causing the sear to drag

on the bottom of the bolt slowing down the bolt, as opposed to decisively pulling

the trigger and dropping the sear all the way.

 

If it's more than the top round in the mag the gun may be short recoiling. The

bolt recoils far enough to eject the case but not far enough to pick up the rim of the

next round and the front

end of the bolt scrapes against the side of the next round pushing it out of the mag

where it jumps free of the feed lips and jams the bolt.

 

Short recoil could be the ammo, the trigger pull, or a shot out barrel.

 

To check for proper power fire the gun on semi and the bolt should

lock to the rear on the rear sear notch every time. If not the gun is short

recoiling due to not enough power.

 

 

Bob

 

Turns out the issue was a weak / kinked main spring. Replaced it and it runs flawlessly. The saga on this gun continues. I sold it to a very happy and satisfied customer but his wife wasn't so happy. I'm now in possession of S/N 823 once again and it's available for sale. I'd love to keep it but I just need to continue to thin the heard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This could be a variety of things and unfortunately you are not there to get

a first hand look. What does it mean that the cartridge comes out at an angle and

the bolt stops? That the cartridge jumps free and is at enough of an angle that it

is jammed sideways against the face of the bolt kind of like a stove pipe jam?

 

It could be-

 

The feed lips of the magazine are ever so slightly nicked or dented

causing friction. The more rounds in the mag the greater the spring force the

greater the friction. When there are fewer rounds in the mag, less friction and

the gun works.

 

The mags could be loose in an up/down direction. Use duct or masking tape

to tape the mag tight up against the receiver. If this fixes the problem it's the mag.

 

The shooter could be slowly squeeezing the trigger causing the sear to drag

on the bottom of the bolt slowing down the bolt, as opposed to decisively pulling

the trigger and dropping the sear all the way.

 

If it's more than the top round in the mag the gun may be short recoiling. The

bolt recoils far enough to eject the case but not far enough to pick up the rim of the

next round and the front

end of the bolt scrapes against the side of the next round pushing it out of the mag

where it jumps free of the feed lips and jams the bolt.

 

Short recoil could be the ammo, the trigger pull, or a shot out barrel.

 

To check for proper power fire the gun on semi and the bolt should

lock to the rear on the rear sear notch every time. If not the gun is short

recoiling due to not enough power.

 

 

Bob

 

Turns out the issue was a weak / kinked main spring. Replaced it and it runs flawlessly. The saga on this gun continues. I sold it to a very happy and satisfied customer but his wife wasn't so happy. I'm now in possession of S/N 823 once again and it's available for sale. I'd love to keep it but I just need to continue to thin the heard.

 

Since you have it back- can you post some clear pics of the markings and of the gun ? Most of the pics earlier in the string are unviewable ( at least to me). Absent original photos from the Mfg, or some one popping up to say they rollmarked the receivers, There is probably no way to really know how these got marked. The question of "new" vs reweld receiver should be fairly easy to answer. an inspection of the receiver should show reweld indicators. No question in my mind these are well made guns. Heck I have a post sample M1A1 welded back together from a kit that is not pretty , but runs without a hiccup. The Urich Thompsons are nice guns from what I have seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morphy Auction ad says: "Current registration form indicates manufacturer in block 4a is "R. W. URICH".

But at the top it says: "Robert Urich assembled and registered Auto Ordinance Bridgeport address marked Thompson"

 

Welded together AOC receiver? Urich made receiver with AOC markings?

 

post-110-0-78657200-1587313854_thumb.jpgpost-110-0-64811500-1587313914_thumb.jpgpost-110-0-65689100-1587313831_thumb.jpg

post-110-0-16184400-1587314053_thumb.jpg

Edited by Arthur Fliegenheimer
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...