Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Phila Ordnance and Richardson receivers side by side


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#1 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 May 2013 - 07:59 PM

    Periodically the question is asked here about which receiver is "better" - Phila Ordnance

or Richardson. My view on this has always been that both receivers are high quality and that

the 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 side

photos.

 

Here are a Richardson "Ultimax" (top) and a Phila Ord "80%" (bottom)

 

image_zpsad72cae7.jpg

 

Front view - Richardson (left) Phila Ord (right)

 

image_zps3ea628a2.jpg

 

Bottom view mag cutout and H-locks - Phila Ord (top) Richardson (bottom)

 

image_zpse15379fb.jpg

 

Left side mag cutout and 17 deg ejector flat - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right)

 

image_zps04106932.jpg

 

Rear view - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right)

 

image_zpsff350041.jpg

 

Top view surface finish detail - Richardson (top) Phila Ord (bottom)

 

image_zps80c5ab70.jpg

 

Side view surface finish detail - Phila Ord (left) Richardson (right)

 

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 is

standard or an option offered by Doug, or if it was done later by the customer.

 

image_zpsa4de19f7.jpg

 

 

 

Bob Bower/Phila Ord


  • 0

#2 ThompsonCrazy

ThompsonCrazy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 474 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 14 May 2013 - 08:11 PM

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
  • 0

#3 Gunner 1928

Gunner 1928

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 357 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western Wisconsin
  • Interests:God, Gun's, Guts & Gold

Posted 14 May 2013 - 10:57 PM

Bob
On comparison of the two receivers I don't believe that you could go wrong with ether one.
Thank you Bob for the comparison.

Bob
  • 0

#4 Paladin601

Paladin601

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Just about anything

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:11 PM

They both are a work of art


  • 0

#5 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:30 PM

   Ok I just looked at this thread on my Iphone and for some reason on the

phone the receivers in the second from the last photo are reversed, but

correct when viewed on my computer. The Richardson receiver is the one

with the filled-in lettering.

 

Bob


  • 0

#6 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3697 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 14 May 2013 - 11:47 PM

Look correct to me......

   Ok I just looked at this thread on my Iphone and for some reason on the

phone the receivers in the second from the last photo are reversed, but

correct when viewed on my computer. The Richardson receiver is the one

with the filled-in lettering.

 

Bob


  • 0

#7 mnshooter

mnshooter

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:04 AM

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 by mnshooter, 15 May 2013 - 10:05 AM.

  • 0

#8 Paladin601

Paladin601

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Just about anything

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:17 AM

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


  • 0

#9 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 01:05 PM

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.


  • 0

#10 mnshooter

mnshooter

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:53 PM

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.


  • 0

#11 Paladin601

Paladin601

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 862 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Just about anything

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:36 PM

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 by Paladin601, 17 May 2013 - 09:20 AM.

  • 0

#12 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:31 PM

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 by AlexanderA, 15 May 2013 - 07:47 PM.

  • 0

#13 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:45 PM

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?

 

image_zpse15379fb.jpg


  • 0

#14 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 164 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:05 PM

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.
  • 0

#15 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:08 PM

  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 are

separated by a small "island" that is left unfinished.

 

Bob


  • 0

#16 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:10 PM

     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


  • 0

#17 darrylta

darrylta

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:West Virginia
  • Interests:Collecting; Thompson SMGs, Commercial BAR's and Colt circa 1920's / 30's handguns. Life Time NRA, NFATCA, WVCDL, USCCA & TCA member and a Constitutional Conservative aka,,, a Tea Party Guy.

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:13 PM

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 blish

lock 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


  • 0

#18 Arthur Fliegenheimer

Arthur Fliegenheimer

    Respected Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:15 PM

  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 are

separated 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....?


  • 0

#19 mnshooter

mnshooter

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1880 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:47 PM

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 blish

lock 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

Even 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 by mnshooter, 15 May 2013 - 08:52 PM.

  • 0

#20 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:27 PM

   Yes, the Blish lock cuts in the receiver are not undersized. I do not machine the 22 1/2 degree bevel

that 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.

 

IMG_3378_zps54fa7f10.jpg

 

 

Bob

 


  • 0