Semi-Sten: CFC AND RCMP approved and Home at Last

So what are your preliminary cost estimates for this project, Claven? I'd like to hear a ballpark figure, maybe a breakdown of what components cost what and so forth...

Any of you guys want to pitch some exepertise at cooking up a semi PPSH43?
 
I am not entirely sure about some of your suggestions. The BD-38 and BD-3008 do not have all those design changes, and are approved.
 
... If one really wanted a folding stock, the Australians had a "version" of the Sten, the "AUSTEN" 'Used the German MP38(?) folding stock design, and a locally designed pistol fore grip, and a rear pistol grip . Pretty neat arrangement, but never produced in really large numbers, as it was superseded by the OWEN GUN. .... David K. ...
 
I am not entirely sure about some of your suggestions. The BD-38 and BD-3008 do not have all those design changes, and are approved.
Click to expand...
Not arguing the BD38. But just try to find any original MP-3008 parts. I double dog dare you. ;)

Not the best pic but the gun in front is an Austen
omc-tommy-sten.jpg
 
stencollector said:
If you are a true gun addict you will possibly go through one or two of those anyway. :)
Click to expand...

Somewhere I have a photo taken quite a few years ago of my wife shooting one of my Stens. My interest in firearms has never been an issue. While she is not an enthusiast herself, I bet that she in more knowledgable about firearms than most members here.
 
tiriaq said:
Somewhere I have a photo taken quite a few years ago of my wife shooting one of my Stens. My interest in firearms has never been an issue. While she is not an enthusiast herself, I bet that she in more knowledgable about firearms than most members here.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, an easy going and accepting partner does exist. In fact, I like to think I have one now.....third time is a charm. :)
And that is not to say that we don't contribute to the problems. Often, the addiction to the toys will far overcome common sense, logic and fairness. I know I have often spent far more cash and time than I should on these things, and too often right before Christmas. Add to that the guns are the lightweight end to my addictions.....restoration of military vehicles are the heavy end.
 
Question: How exactly does one determine if a mag well is an original or a new made reproduction? Take an orignial part and fill/weld the original markings smooth. Then remark the thing as new and attach to gun. I defy the "authorities" to positively determine that part is an original and not a new made reproduction.

This is only one of the issues with declaring a loose part the "receiver" of a firearm.
 
If I were a tech, and faced with the challenge of determining if a Mk. III style mag. housing was a welded over original or a newly made duplicate, I would study how the housing had been made. Originals were formed using tools likely not available to a home builder. Toolmarks would be in evidence. There would also likely be traces of the resistance welds where the box had been attached to the original casing. If the casing tabs were left in place, and the tabs themselves welded to the new tube, it would be apparent. If an original box were welded over, there would be several areas of weld - the STEN MC MK III on top, the LB, serial and /l\. It might be possible to do this much welding in a manner that a well equipped crime lab. could not detect it, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it. If there was any suspicion that an effort was being made to deceive, the techs would have a really close look.
Best procedure to follow would be the one Stencollector illustrated with his photos - a photo record of the housing being scratch built.
 
Exactly. I am not posting photos of my build because I'm bored. I'm posting them to show that those series of photos show proof that I am manufacturing these parts from scratch. Then no arguement can be made that it is NOT a home-built firearm. Here is the gun, here are the pictures of me making it, step by step. In the absolute WORST case, the the CFC techs can come over and I'll build another gun while they stand there and watch.
 
Originals were formed using tools likely not available to a home builder. Toolmarks would be in evidence.
Click to expand...
Then you are not aware of how Stens were made. The majority of the parts were manufactured in small to tiny job shops and bicycle factories and washing machine manufacturers etc. There was no single way that any individual part was made. They didn't care how a part was made as long as it fit and operated as needed in the end. The parts were then shipped to an assembly plant and the guns put together en mass.

Thus two sequentially numbered Stens from the same assembly line could have parts from completely different manufacturers made on completely different machinery in completely different manufacturing methods.

Nobody and I mean NOBODY can state with certainty if a type of toolmark is correct for a specific Sten assembled in a specific factory. Thus anything goes and it would be virtually impossible to determine if a part is new or original except possibly by the chemistry of the metal. And I highly doubt the CFC is going to spend that kind of dough to find out.
 
Suputin said:
Then you are not aware of how Stens were made. The majority of the parts were manufactured in small to tiny job shops and bicycle factories and washing machine manufacturers etc. There was no single way that any individual part was made. They didn't care how a part was made as long as it fit and operated as needed in the end. The parts were then shipped to an assembly plant and the guns put together en mass.

Thus two sequentially numbered Stens from the same assembly line could have parts from completely different manufacturers made on completely different machinery in completely different manufacturing methods.

Nobody and I mean NOBODY can state with certainty if a type of toolmark is correct for a specific Sten assembled in a specific factory. Thus anything goes and it would be virtually impossible to determine if a part is new or original except possibly by the chemistry of the metal. And I highly doubt the CFC is going to spend that kind of dough to find out.
Click to expand...

Yeah. tiriaq doesn't know stens. Have you even READ Laidler's definitive work on this subject? Only the MkII was farmed out. The MkIII was built almost ENTIRELY by Lines Brothers using in-house stampings. Only barrels, rivets, springs and sometimes barrel collars were ever outsourced. ALL MkIII mag housings were made in-house there using sheet metal forming techniques.

And for the record, I have handled and examined about 6 original MkIII's. All were made exactly the same way using the same forming techniques and with tool marks from the forming dies in all the same places. The only real series changes in production was the milling of the sling slot on the top seam and the use of stamped or welded sears from gun to gun.

True, my experience is limited to 6 specimens, all of which just happen to be identical. How many have you looked at closely?

Not trying to rain on your parade, but if you used an original magwell, you have dramatically increased the chances that it will not be deemed acceptable by the CFC.
 
By the way - have you left your bolt in the original diameter, or did you turn it down? Just curious what the CFC had to say on this, if anything.
 
Suputin said:
Nobody and I mean NOBODY can state with certainty if a type of toolmark is correct for a specific Sten assembled in a specific factory. Thus anything goes and it would be virtually impossible to determine if a part is new or original except possibly by the chemistry of the metal. And I highly doubt the CFC is going to spend that kind of dough to find out.
Click to expand...

That is certainly true for most of English production stens. But the Line Brothers mk3 receivers were all made in house. They were a manufacturer of stamped goods. I think the same could be said of Long Branch production....they had no reason to farm out the manufacture of sten components.

With regard to the small portion of the mk3 receiver that is the magwell, while I suspect what the answer may be, there is always the argument that some of those TNW MGs use some original receiver portions. Someone told me the MG34 uses the front portion of an original receiver with the back portion made up new. Then again, the serial etc are not on that portion.

It's too easy to make. I wonder what the actuall reciever ( not the magwell ) of a MKII is known as now ?
Click to expand...
Good question. If you add on the barrel and the rest of the internals, put a round into it, and slam fire the bolt, it will fire a projectile so as to cause serious bodily harm.
 
as for the 1919s the cfc/rcmp considers ONLY the right side plate (RSP) to be the 'reciever" so new semiauto RSP which is thicker then the orig attached to the orig LSP top and bottom is ok

the mg42 i think it is the front trunion not the reciever but ive never looked at one claven care to comment???

any sten mk3 ive seen the serial was on the magwell so cfc/rcmp logic would say it IS the reciever and its (re)use means the sten is a converted auto.....

spencer were not trying to knock you i would hate to see you get is deep crap im glad your building yourself a semi auto sten but the magwell issiue is not clear and untill it is id recomend not attaching it to your tube...
 
contact148 said:
the mg42 i think it is the front trunion not the reciever but ive never looked at one claven care to comment???
Click to expand...

I assume you meant the MG34. The TNW receiver is entirely new made except for the barrel jacket mounting stud which is off an original demilled receiver. It gets welded onto the new receiver. The receiver is the registered part, and when they are made, they are serialized to match the parts kit being used.
 
Well, I'm definitely going ahead with my Mk2 as an SAS kit, but if you do get a registration certificate for this gun, please do let me know. My next build will then be an open-bolt gun.

An interesting consideration, the SAS3 closed-bolt design will be more accurate than an open-bolt gun. Trust me. I have both open and closed bolt semi guns in pistol calibers, the oscillating bolt of the open-bolt guns makes them MUCH harder to keep on target in semi-auto fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom