M1919 and M2

That IMA price is based on panic hoarding in the USA. If a warehouse full could be found somewhere in the former USSR, I suspect they would be a LOT less.

http://www.ima-usa.com/maxim-m-1910-machine-gun-parts-set-russian-fluted.html $450 SOLD OUT

http://www.guns.com/2013/04/12/the-...machine-gun-the-gun-wheeled-around-the-wordl/
"The Russian/Soviet Maxim is a hit with collectors in any format. With so many popping up after the peace dividend of the 1990s on the international surplus market, parts kits for these guns fell to as low as $500"

Current Euro price, E899 (X 1.55 = C$1393)
http://www.zib-militaria.de/Maxim-1910-on-wheeled-tripod


The semi rebuild design is already approved by the BATFE, so it does not need to be designed from new. Just approved by the SFSS.

Chris???
 
tootall said:
I still feel that a Russian PM1910 is the way to go.

<<<< Look left.

If someone (perhaps CanAm, after all this is his forum) was to get hold of some of the many Maxims in storage in eastern Europe, and make an all new SA receiver, it would be a winner.
Maxim design, spiffy Sokolov wheeled mount, pre-1946 belts, cheap x54R ammo (yeah baby!), hopefully under $3000.
Give it some thought, Chris!
Click to expand...

I have always wanted a water-cooled Vickers, it's been a life-long dream. Of course, I envision it in FA, lol.

But since that is unlikely to happen (with all the resistance in this country to the graduated training/licensing regime that would be necessary IMO), a semi-auto Maxim would be the next best thing!
Especially in 7.62X54r!
Sign me up for one for sure.
 
tootall said:
The semi rebuild design is already approved by the BATFE, so it does not need to be designed from new. Just approved by the SFSS.
Click to expand...

This is true, but what the BATFE says is ok and what the SFSS says ok are two different things. Proof is the semi 1919 and M2HB. BATFE says only the right side plate has to be replaced and the RCMP tech branch now say it has to be all 5 parts that make up the recieve box. They will apply the same idiotic thinking to a Maxim. I tracted down an image of the trunnion blueprints for the Maxim and it is not an easy part to make. I think sometimes people are not aware of how much work and cost actually goes into manufacturing of these parts. Even with CNC equipment, it still is costly when talking about low production numbers under 1,000. I am still amazed how they managed to make these parts long ago without the modern tooling we have today. The Maxim is quite a complicated firearm when to look at all the parts. A 1919 is so simple in comparison.
 
Where did you find the print for the Maxim trunnion?
Can you post a link to a download, or email a .pdf ?
 
Jay said:
Just a comment wrt the 1919... Didn't Alberta Tactical Rifle put together a semi 1919 which was identical to the non-restricted TNW? And didn't the RCMP Firearms Lab conclude that the ATR 1919 was a converted auto? I tried looking for the thread discussing this, but didn't find it...

Essentially, the two semi 1919's were IDENTICAL side by side, and yet one was considered 'okay' & the other was not... Just something to think about...

Cheers
Jay
Click to expand...

One of the five sides of the receiver came from an original browning. IE a full auto. It was classified as a converted auto as it retain part if the original full auto receiver.

Apparently if all 5 sides of the receiver were made from scratch, it would be non restricted. This is where atrs are going next.
 
tootall said:
I still feel that a Russian PM1910 is the way to go.

<<<< Look left.

If someone (perhaps CanAm, after all this is his forum) was to get hold of some of the many Maxims in storage in eastern Europe, and make an all new SA receiver, it would be a winner.
Maxim design, spiffy Sokolov wheeled mount, pre-1946 belts, cheap x54R ammo (yeah baby!), hopefully under $3000.
Give it some thought, Chris!
Click to expand...

Oh hells ya!!!
 
tootall said:
Where did you find the print for the Maxim trunnion?
Can you post a link to a download, or email a .pdf ?
Click to expand...

I am not sure if they are complete and I believe they might be for an old version Maxim. You will have to right click on each image and select "Save Picture As".

h ttp://www.scribd.com/doc/150309753/The-Maxim-Machine-Gun-Systems-Blueprints-by-1906
 
Last edited:
Now this might sound like I'm a moron (which isn't far off), but why aren't old style 'machine-gun' reproductions cheaper? Excuse my ignorance, but a firearm designed and built by hand in the EARLY 1900's must be easy to produce with today's automated technology, right? Or did it take the advent of machine-stamped metal gun parts (like AK's and what not) instead of forged pieces to significantly lower the costs of production?
 
DiMP said:
Now this might sound like I'm a moron (which isn't far off), but why aren't old style 'machine-gun' reproductions cheaper? Excuse my ignorance, but a firearm designed and built by hand in the EARLY 1900's must be easy to produce with today's automated technology, right? Or did it take the advent of machine-stamped metal gun parts (like AK's and what not) instead of forged pieces to significantly lower the costs of production?
Click to expand...

Back then it was a different mindset I think. It was wartime and wartime production was not about profits. It was about getting the guns to the troops that needed them as fast as possible. The introduction of machined-stamped gun parts was a huge benefit to that goal. They weren't really trying to build guns that would last for years. They wanted a firearm that would do what it needed to do, but still easy to produce in the tens of thousands. The Sten is a prime example of a mass produced yet simple firearm that was cheap to produce. If one of these guns didn't function it was just discarded and replaced with another.

I also think it comes down to the wages of today compared to then. Back then I think alot of work was "piece work". So you the more parts you produced the more money you made. The overhead for a company is alot more today in comparison. You also have to remember that everything was cheaper back then, materials, machines, tools, etc.. We may think things were way cheaper back then, but to the people that lived at that time, things probably appeared to be very expensive.
 
If you have ever looked inside a Maxim or Vickers, it will blow your mind as to how someone could design such a thing.
And Hiram was not copying or adapting the work of others before him.

The cartridge gets pulled rearwards from the belt, then dropped downwards, then pushed forwards into the chamber.
This is not the final version, but sort of similar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiFGKWPSaas

[youtube]hiFGKWPSaas[/youtube]
 
It is one thing to use available parts, and assemble those on newly made semi auto receiver with new semi parts as necessary, and quite another to put an obsolete design back into production, from scratch.
Look at the photos of the factories which built Maxims, Brens, etc. CNC machining centers can replace numbers of single operation machine tools, but the investment in capital assets is still substantial.
Mass production requires a mass market. Limited production for a small specialized enthusiasts' market is something else entirely.
I mentioned the RPD because the receivers and semi parts have been made in the US with the resulting guns selling at less than astronomic prices. It is do-able, and China would have stored RPDs.
There is also the risk of entering into such a project, and then not being able to market the things, because of restrictions. It would be a real gamble.
 
tiriaq said:
It is one thing to use available parts, and assemble those on newly made semi auto receiver with new semi parts as necessary, and quite another to put an obsolete design back into production, from scratch.
Look at the photos of the factories which built Maxims, Brens, etc. CNC machining centers can replace numbers of single operation machine tools, but the investment in capital assets is still substantial.
Mass production requires a mass market. Limited production for a small specialized enthusiasts' market is something else entirely.
I mentioned the RPD because the receivers and semi parts have been made in the US with the resulting guns selling at less than astronomic prices. It is do-able, and China would have stored RPDs.
There is also the risk of entering into such a project, and then not being able to market the things, because of restrictions. It would be a real gamble.
Click to expand...

Exactly why I believe a PM 1910 rebuild is very viable.
A Norinco all new M2HB, not so much...

Blend these few new parts ( http://www.hellboxarmory.com/mm5/me...oduct_Code=1910Semi&Category_Code=MaxInternal ) with a parts kit from eastern Europe.
NOTE. This is USA kit, so only has a RSP, not the rest of the receiver box.
 
tootall said:
Exactly why I believe a PM 1910 rebuild is very viable.
A Norinco all new M2HB, not so much...

Blend these few new parts ( http://www.hellboxarmory.com/mm5/me...oduct_Code=1910Semi&Category_Code=MaxInternal ) with a parts kit from eastern Europe.
NOTE. This is USA kit, so only has a RSP, not the rest of the receiver box.
Click to expand...

I really like the idea of the Maxim as its a work of art. The fact someone has already done the engineering to make it semi auto makes the possibility even more practical. Unfortunately the original parts that would come from the company to make it semi auto would make it a converted auto and prohib, there is no reason a business with a prohib license couldn't bring the converted semi parts in and make drawings off them to build new receivers etc. making it a new semi auto receiver.

Pretty crazy that you can make new semi parts that are exactly the same as the OEM machined semi parts yet ones prohib and ones not.
 
I wouldn't trust a Norinco build 1919 let alone a M2HB. They are not know for using the best quality of steel in China. But that is just my opinion.
 
Beezer said:
I wouldn't trust a Norinco build 1919 let alone a M2HB. They are not know for using the best quality of steel in China. But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I've fired the M2HB QCB.... Its a powerful gun with a lot of violent mechanical action going on inside.... Definitely not something you want made out of pot-metal, with no QC.

New manufacture guns of this nature, produced with the same QC and specs as the guns produced for western militaries, would be cost prohibitive, even if produced in China...
 
Beezer said:
I wouldn't trust a Norinco build 1919 let alone a M2HB. They are not know for using the best quality of steel in China. But that is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's well known M305 and Norinco M1911 uses superior steel to Springfield, it's just that they tend to be a bit rough in finish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom