FRT for semi MG42
- Thread starter XRCD011
- Start date
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
I think Marstar had one approved, but it would only be applicable to their builds, which apparently, other than the prototype, has not gone into production.
So, only Marstar could build a semi only, non restricted, MG42? I am just wondering about what all a fellow would have to do, if one was so inclined, to make an all new semi only receiver and modify all the internals to ONLY fire semi. If the RCMP have assigned a FRT number for this make/model to Marstar would it not be good for all other home built, semi only, NR, MG42. At MG42.US they seem to have a pretty good handle at making semi only, NR, 42s. Just wondering what hoops one would have to leap through (many I am sure).
#1bcshooter
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- North Of The DMZ (US border)
You could build one & then you will have to send it to the RCMP for approval .
Good luck on ever seeing it again
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
Anyone could build one, but only Marstar can build the one that the FRT is assigned to. It would be like if you built a .308 cal Lee Enfield, you would not register it as a Australian International Arms Enfield.
Gaff has a good point. If you build it as a semi auto, then it does not have to be registered. But if some patrol or firearms officer ever seizes it to let the lab determine what you are shooting, then the lab will get to decide it's status. And as BC shooter alludes to, they tend to use the term "in que" to act as a long term seizure.
As I recall, John from Marstar was talking about some patented internals for their example. But I sense that Marstar felt the writing was on the wall for beltfeds in this country, so did not proceed with production. Also likely the reason we did not see the CZ59s that they were talking about importing.
Gaff has a good point. If you build it as a semi auto, then it does not have to be registered. But if some patrol or firearms officer ever seizes it to let the lab determine what you are shooting, then the lab will get to decide it's status. And as BC shooter alludes to, they tend to use the term "in que" to act as a long term seizure.
As I recall, John from Marstar was talking about some patented internals for their example. But I sense that Marstar felt the writing was on the wall for beltfeds in this country, so did not proceed with production. Also likely the reason we did not see the CZ59s that they were talking about importing.
Albayo. Can you support what you are saying that it has to be an "all new" build with no actual/real MG42 parts incorporated? I get it about the receiver makes NO sense to make a CA gun to sit in a safe forevermore. If people can make 1919s and use actual C5/1919 parts then that roads been traveled, I also doubt the TNW 1919 or M37 are "all new". As for the FRT question I was wondering just how that whole wonderfull system applied to a home built firearm.
The recently approved TNW Suomi is an example of a design which uses a lot of original parts. Recycling parts isn't necessarily a problem.
johnone described the operating system for his semi auto MG42 in quite some detail a while back.
IIRC, he offered to sell the complete design package if anyone was interested.
The FRT system was developed for the purpose of cataloguing firearms, a unique number being assigned to each design and all its variations. It was taxonomic in nature.
With universal registration and controlled transfers, the FRT number became part of the control system - a firearm could not be transferred without a FRT number, as part of the identification process. The RCMP used withdrawal of a FRT number as a mechanism to freeze a firearm. None could be introduced into the system, none transferred.
There is no legal requirement for a non-restricted firearm to be assigned a FRT number. Assigning a number would serve to make the entire FRT catalogue more complete, but that isn't a concern of the builder/owner.
A FRT entry can be useful if the question arises about how a firearm is classified. The opinion of the RCMP can be seen, as it exists at a particular point in time.
FRT number for the Marstar designed, Zastava manufactured MG-42S is 124942.
johnone described the operating system for his semi auto MG42 in quite some detail a while back.
IIRC, he offered to sell the complete design package if anyone was interested.
The FRT system was developed for the purpose of cataloguing firearms, a unique number being assigned to each design and all its variations. It was taxonomic in nature.
With universal registration and controlled transfers, the FRT number became part of the control system - a firearm could not be transferred without a FRT number, as part of the identification process. The RCMP used withdrawal of a FRT number as a mechanism to freeze a firearm. None could be introduced into the system, none transferred.
There is no legal requirement for a non-restricted firearm to be assigned a FRT number. Assigning a number would serve to make the entire FRT catalogue more complete, but that isn't a concern of the builder/owner.
A FRT entry can be useful if the question arises about how a firearm is classified. The opinion of the RCMP can be seen, as it exists at a particular point in time.
FRT number for the Marstar designed, Zastava manufactured MG-42S is 124942.
Last edited:
To me, the fact that there is no associated 'time line' for the RCMP Firearms Lab to complete a review or decide the status of a firearm 'in question', simply leaves it open to abuse... The RCMP should have to have a review done in a reasonable timeframe, say 30 or 60 days (at the most).
The T97 & semi stens are examples of the RCMP 'sitting' on reviews for LONG periods of time, with reviews lasting YEARS!!! This abuse simply shouldn't be allowed in a democratic society.
Cheers
Jay
the mg42 reciever would have to be 100% newly made you could reuse the internals (provided they were made to semi auto ONLY) with the 1919's the internals were milled smaller, the right hand reciever side plate was newly made thicker then the orig preventing instalation of orig FA parts. the RCMP also insisted the reciever was welded so you could not readily remove the side plate
The gun would have to have a new receiver and specific parts that can't be swapped for full auto parts.
There was a member on the site that was making semi auto Sten guns, he would have all of the criteria for a build.
Whatever pieces that are considered the registered receiver of a gun you can't use an original.
The Browning 1919 is a squared receiver easy to make a new one compared to an MG-42.
The registered part of the Sten is the magazine housing, the tube doesn't have to be registered.
There was a member on the site that was making semi auto Sten guns, he would have all of the criteria for a build.
Whatever pieces that are considered the registered receiver of a gun you can't use an original.
The Browning 1919 is a squared receiver easy to make a new one compared to an MG-42.
The registered part of the Sten is the magazine housing, the tube doesn't have to be registered.
I think that with the right donour internal parts, milled to fit into a new made receiver, a person could legally make a semi only MG42. Albayo I do get it what a semi only receiver (thicker side plate/denial island, etc) is. No doubt the good folks at the RCMP lab would go to great lengths to get more then one round off per squeeze of the trigger. I started this thread to see if there are other avenues open then taking a working CA or FA gun and welding it into a expensive lump which over the next decade or so I suspect current owners of them will be weighing the options (other then dewating). Just because its never been done before does not mean it CANNOT be done.
There was a long thread on a US site which detailed the steps necessary to make an open bolt Sten acceptable to the RCMP. Its gone now, the OP had a hissy fit, and deleted his posts before being banned from that site.
Basically: The magazine housing must be newly made. A new main casing tube is fitted to the trigger box and head collar. The trigger mechanism must be sealed, so that it cannot be manipulated or altered. The bolt must be made non-removeable.
The procedure used to prevent the gun from being made full auto involved Allen head screws with the hex socket drilled out, secured in place with thread locker.
No welding was done.
Conversion to auto could be easily done with a few minutes of Dremel application, of course.
The conversion to auto would take a few minutes longer than conversion of the BD3008 to auto. But the BD is now prohibited, the others are still restricted or non-restricted, depending on barrel length.
This just shows how finely tuned the application of the Hasselwander decision is. A few minutes difference in the time required makes all the difference in the world.
Basically: The magazine housing must be newly made. A new main casing tube is fitted to the trigger box and head collar. The trigger mechanism must be sealed, so that it cannot be manipulated or altered. The bolt must be made non-removeable.
The procedure used to prevent the gun from being made full auto involved Allen head screws with the hex socket drilled out, secured in place with thread locker.
No welding was done.
Conversion to auto could be easily done with a few minutes of Dremel application, of course.
The conversion to auto would take a few minutes longer than conversion of the BD3008 to auto. But the BD is now prohibited, the others are still restricted or non-restricted, depending on barrel length.
This just shows how finely tuned the application of the Hasselwander decision is. A few minutes difference in the time required makes all the difference in the world.
The trigger mech of the 42 can be modded to handle a DISCONNECTOR which is depressed each and every time the Bolt travels forwards or backwards.
This gives you open-bolt firing but with the Disconnector being operated TWICE for every shot.
The gun already has a Trigger Disconnect which allows the SEAR to jump up really fast to STOP the thing; you make the Disconnector operate this part.
Parts required: 1 Disconnector which operates and looks much like one from a Sten, a Pin for it to ride upon and a Spring to operate it.
The Receiver of the gun has to be modded to allow the top arm of this Disconnector to protrude up into the pathway of the bottom of the Bolt.
I actually had this one approved by the Atty-General of Newfoundland and Labrador late in 1978, along with 2 different mods to render a Sten strictly SA.
The way they are doing things now, likely you would have to make a whole new receiver for the gun. It is a complex series of sheet-metal stampings rivetted/welded together.
If you are going to do that, then make the frame for the new Trigger Mech a bit LONGER and move one mounting-hole so that a FA trigger group will NOT fit your new SA receiver. This way, you have dedicated SA parts and the gun cannot be made FA with its full complement of parts should our Guardians of the Public Safety decide that they want it in THEIR collection rather than in yours.
When dealing with any agency of our Gummint, one must be VERY careful at all times.
If you're a violent criminal, of course, you get a free lawyer.
Them's the breaks, Tovarishch!
This gives you open-bolt firing but with the Disconnector being operated TWICE for every shot.
The gun already has a Trigger Disconnect which allows the SEAR to jump up really fast to STOP the thing; you make the Disconnector operate this part.
Parts required: 1 Disconnector which operates and looks much like one from a Sten, a Pin for it to ride upon and a Spring to operate it.
The Receiver of the gun has to be modded to allow the top arm of this Disconnector to protrude up into the pathway of the bottom of the Bolt.
I actually had this one approved by the Atty-General of Newfoundland and Labrador late in 1978, along with 2 different mods to render a Sten strictly SA.
The way they are doing things now, likely you would have to make a whole new receiver for the gun. It is a complex series of sheet-metal stampings rivetted/welded together.
If you are going to do that, then make the frame for the new Trigger Mech a bit LONGER and move one mounting-hole so that a FA trigger group will NOT fit your new SA receiver. This way, you have dedicated SA parts and the gun cannot be made FA with its full complement of parts should our Guardians of the Public Safety decide that they want it in THEIR collection rather than in yours.
When dealing with any agency of our Gummint, one must be VERY careful at all times.
If you're a violent criminal, of course, you get a free lawyer.
Them's the breaks, Tovarishch!
I suspect that the only option would be dismantling, destruction of the original receiver, and production of a new one, which would permit only the installation of a sound semi auto fire control system.
The catch with a MG-42 or Sarac M53 is that the receiver is fabricated from two very large heavy sheet steel pressings. The tooling requirement would be substantial. The semi auto 42s being made in the US use smaller pressed sections, welded together with salvaged portions of the original destroyed receivers.
Marstar's MG-42S was made by Zastava, who manufactured M53 guns, and has the tooling.
The MG 3 is still made in Pakistan so I wonder if raw incomplete receivers could be obtained from there and then reworked into a semi MG-42 semi legal for both the Canadian and US market. The US is firmly entrenched in rewelding receivers while in Canada we cannot. The market in Canada is too small to even think of assembling new MG-3 receivers in semi for Canadian sales but with the US it could be a viable venture. However, the new round of knee jerk "gun control" in the USA might kill any new initiatives there.
Not sure if the SARAC M-53 is still being made in Bosnia Herzegovina but that is also another alternative for the entrepreneur.
Just a thought.........
- Location
- Leduc County, Alberta
