Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Phila Ordnance and Richardson receivers side by side


  • Please log in to reply
52 replies to this topic

#21 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1742 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 09:36 PM

    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 it

that I would not consider doing so.

 

Bob


  • 0

#22 Paladin601

Paladin601

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 264 posts

Posted 15 May 2013 - 10:25 PM

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.


  • 0

#23 anjong-ni

anjong-ni

    Regular Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 104 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 May 2013 - 11:40 PM

     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

#24 mnshooter

mnshooter

    RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1291 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota

Posted 16 May 2013 - 02:22 PM

 w

   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

Thanks 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 by mnshooter, 17 May 2013 - 10:35 AM.

  • 0

#25 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1742 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 May 2013 - 03:47 PM

     I have encountered 2 West Hurley guns where the H-lock cuts are 0.050"-0.060" too far to the

rear and the owners say they shoot them and have no problems. Now, these are correctly formed

slots that are out of position, not the defective slots as seen on PK's photos on one of the pinned

topics. If the gun shoots ok and the H-lock is not deforming and the receiver is not being battered

I 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 the

shop to check the position of the slots to make sure they are correct. I actually started making a

small batch of them to sell, but got busy and never finished them. If you are others are interested

I 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 flat

of the receiver with the pin placed in the H-lock slots. The gage is pushed to the rear surface of the

slot and the gap between the front face of the gage and the front face of the bolt pocket is

measured to determine the position of the slots.

 

Bob


  • 0

#26 deerslayer

deerslayer

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1438 posts
  • Location:North Iowa

Posted 17 May 2013 - 07:30 AM

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


  • 0

#27 Joe H

Joe H

    Regular Member

  • Board Donor
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:39 AM

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


  • 0

#28 cocoabill

cocoabill

    Member

  • Board Donor
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Any 20th century guns and interesting relics, beer

Posted 17 May 2013 - 10:13 AM

How about a price comparison as shown?


  • 0

#29 Doug Richardson

Doug Richardson

    Technical Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 251 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:02 PM

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
 

Attached File  IMG 1 IMG_1348.JPG   102.47K   283 downloads (Click on the Photo for a large view.)
The first is a bottom view of a 1928A1 "Ultimax" receiver
 
Attached File  IMG 2 Copy of IMG_1385.JPG   179.76K   260 downloads (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, 19 May 2013 - 03:22 PM.

  • 0

#30 Paladin601

Paladin601

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 264 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:36 PM

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?


  • 0

#31 Paladin601

Paladin601

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 264 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 08:41 PM

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?


  • 0

#32 Doug Richardson

Doug Richardson

    Technical Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 251 posts

Posted 17 May 2013 - 09:23 PM

Posted by mkw
The bevel is part of the original design. It facilitates the installation of the lock.

Edited by Doug Richardson, 17 May 2013 - 10:14 PM.

  • 0

#33 Doug Richardson

Doug Richardson

    Technical Expert

  • Regular Group
  • 251 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 02:39 PM

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.

  • 0

#34 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:03 PM

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.
  • 0

#35 Paladin601

Paladin601

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 264 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 04:09 PM

I could imagine the roar of complaints if either went the investment cast route.


  • 0

#36 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1742 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 19 May 2013 - 09:04 PM

     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.

 

IMG_3400_zps83e5d822.jpg

 

IMG_3401_zpsdd5394e5.jpg

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

  


  • 0

#37 TD.

TD.

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 2201 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 10:57 PM

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.


  • 0

#38 Paladin601

Paladin601

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 264 posts

Posted 19 May 2013 - 11:23 PM

I don't think a person can go wrong with either of them. Both are a work of art, with each putting it their own interpetation.

 

Thank you both for the presentation, it was informative.


  • 0

#39 Phillies

Phillies

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 37 posts

Posted 24 May 2013 - 06:41 PM

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?


  • 0

#40 AlexanderA

AlexanderA

    RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 115 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 May 2013 - 08:58 AM

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.


  • 0