Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Another Richard W. Urich 3 Digit M1 TSMG

Numrich/Trask/Kahr & Urich

  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3671 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 September 2013 - 09:48 AM

Here is what is really interesting... he said the ONLY stampings HE put on the guns were the stampings under the site.  Serial company city state.  He actually commented that the gun has received quite a "face lift" since he made it (his words).    So I did not dig further but all the fluff on the sides may have been added by another Class 2 dealer that he sold a fair number of his guns to.   Just in case that data is wrong, I will not publish the name of that person / company. 

 

The only information Urich stamped on the receiver were located under the sight? That really doesn't make much sense.  He had to stamp the serial number in plain sight, no pun. Urich purposely purchased 100(?) unmarked Philly and Richardson receivers and then proceeded to put together complete TSMGs, hide his name under the sight, register it with BATFE before the 1986 cut-off and then sell them as mystery TSMGs?  If he didn't want to advertise his name on the receiver then why use unmarked Philly receivers? Did Doug Richardson before 1986 at least mark his receivers with his "DR" somewhere on them?  Marty Pearl used welded together demilled parts as well as newly made receivers during this time. Why wouldn't Urich also use welded together demilled parts? 

 

Since both Urich #823 & #817 have identical receiver markings on them, are we to believe that somebody other than Urich is responsible for the markings?  Who is this person who bought up Urich TSMGs before 1986 and then proceeded to replicate WWII Savage/AO markings on them?  Could it be that Urich is now somewhat paranoid about the markings used on his TSMGs before 1986 and is now disassociating himself  from them?


  • 0

#22 Sandman1957

Sandman1957

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Neck VA
  • Interests:Submachinegun NFA collecting
    History
    Scuba Diving
    Hunting

Posted 14 November 2013 - 10:24 PM

Who has the roll marking dies from this era?  Someone has them.  Who is it?  What do books say,,, ie  photo credits etc according to owners of items associated with photos.  Most likely original roll stamps were used to stamp these unmarked recievers sold by Urich.


  • 0

#23 giantpanda4

giantpanda4

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2322 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Howell, MI 48855
  • Interests:Mechanical toys - cars, instruments, and of course - guns. The 1921-28 thompsons are the epitomy of perfection for a mechanical device that fills all my interests!

Posted 15 November 2013 - 09:38 AM

I had wondered about roll stamping new blank receivers too. At TATA during the lecture about tooling and gauges, roll stamps were passed around and you could see what they were. Of course it was mentioned that the stampings were done prior to final heat treating of the receivers, if they were already treated you could not mark them. I was not sure about  that one but cannot dispute it either.

I doubt original roll stamps were used by Urich. But who knows...


  • 0

#24 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3671 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2013 - 12:23 PM

Who has the roll marking dies from this era?  Someone has them.  Who is it?  What do books say,,, ie  photo credits etc according to owners of items associated with photos.  Most likely original roll stamps were used to stamp these unmarked recievers sold by Urich.

 

Apparently, Jerry Prasser of Recon Ordnance is in possession of the original  roll-stamping dies that were used on the Savage/AO  M1 TSMG.   We know that Urich used DR receivers and Recon Ord receivers, but even though Prasser could have used these original WWII era dies on his receivers, the stampings on the Urich receivers shown in this thread  are significantly  different than original dies.  It is these differences that betrayed the true time period these Urich receivers were manufactured.


  • 0

#25 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3671 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 November 2013 - 09:02 PM

I

I doubt original roll stamps were used by Urich. But who knows...

 

Urich told LongRifle that he was not the one who stamped those markings on the TSMGs he registered as manufacturer and sold.  It doesn't appear that the roll dies are an original set from WWII, but it remains a mystery who made up new stamps and then applied them to registered receivers.  Doug Richardson isn't using original roll dies for his dummy receivers.


  • 0

#26 The Lone Ranger

The Lone Ranger

    Respected Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1096 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:29 AM

Can anyone offer solid production years for the Urich guns? __ - 86? 

 

Semi-solid would also be nice in lieu of exact....

 

Edit for P.S.

 

Did Urich use a trade name or just his name?


Edited by The Lone Ranger, 16 November 2013 - 06:30 AM.

  • 0

#27 mp43sniper

mp43sniper

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 72 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA
  • Interests:FFL 07/C2 SOT; MP44 collector, enthusiast and builder

Posted 13 December 2013 - 02:28 PM

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.


  • 0

#28 Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ellisville, MS

Posted 06 January 2020 - 08:21 AM

After a quick Google search, I stumbled upon this thread.  I'm the current owner of the Urich Thompson S/N 823 and am glad to have this information.  Thanks.


  • 0

#29 LongRifle

LongRifle

    Long Time Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 January 2020 - 11:14 PM

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.
  • 0

#30 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2554 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 January 2020 - 09:03 AM

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
  • 0

#31 Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ellisville, MS

Posted 07 January 2020 - 09:12 AM

I'm going to be listing mine for sale whenever I find the time to do so.  It's excellent, near mint condition.  S/N 823 as discussed previously and in this very thread.


  • 0

#32 Black River Militaria CII

Black River Militaria CII

    Industry Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 894 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 January 2020 - 10:09 AM

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


  • 0

#33 Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ellisville, MS

Posted 07 January 2020 - 10:35 AM

I'm curious if a lyman sight would fit on the M1 if the screws that have the heads removed are removed.  I traded my PMDS 1928 for this same gun so now I don't have a lyman sight to compare it with, lol.  The fixed sight is horribly off high and right.


  • 0

#34 bob241

bob241

    Regular Member

  • Board Donor
  • 275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.C.
  • Interests:Thompsons, lugers, 1966 Shelbys

Posted 07 January 2020 - 12:07 PM

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.


  • 0

#35 Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

Rebel Rifle Ordnance LLC

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 51 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ellisville, MS

Posted 07 January 2020 - 04:37 PM

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.


  • 0

#36 bob241

bob241

    Regular Member

  • Board Donor
  • 275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N.C.
  • Interests:Thompsons, lugers, 1966 Shelbys

Posted 07 January 2020 - 05:54 PM

There is one listed on gun brokers at this time, a little high, around $300.00


  • 0

#37 walleyealx

walleyealx

    New Member

  • Regular Group
  • 18 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2020 - 12:48 PM

I've got 829 sitting in my safe and she's a screamer! When I bought it last year I was able to get a hold of Mr Urich and he answered all of my questions. I have no doubt that these are quality guns.
  • 0

#38 anjong-ni

anjong-ni

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 395 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 11 January 2020 - 07:31 PM

Rebel Rifle, the Lyman adjustable sight overhangs the sides of an M1 receiver because it's a little too "wide".

 

Doug Richardson made his "M2-2" receiver with square (un-radiused) rear sides to accommodate folks who wanted an M1 with a Lyman...Phil


  • 0

#39 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3671 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2020 - 11:54 AM

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.


  • 0

#40 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2554 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 January 2020 - 12:43 PM

   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


  • 0