Semi-auto sten

FRT# is the Firearms Reference Table number. Definitely not a serial number!
If the sample gun submitted is approved, it gets an FRT # issued.
So, presumably, if you built another to the same exact method, it too should be allowed.

Soon enough, a previously banned member will be along with a new account, and he will be re-banned again.
 
126844-1 is the FRT number for a restricted gun made using the breech mechanism known as the SAS3, marketed by a business known as T-15 Industries, operated by a chap who was active on the 'net under the boardname "YooperAl". Long gone. There are drawings of the bolt and hammer on the 'net if you have a lathe and mill. It is not a trouble free system. A much better mechanism is offered by w ww.indianapolisordnance.com. There is no FRT number for a gun using this design. IO is not registered for export, and will not export. THE SAS3 mechanism is the mechanical equivalent of the design used in the Cooey/Winchester Canada/Savage Model 64 .22 rifles.
If you decide to go ahead with any such project with a restricted classification, you will have to submit it for inspection by the SFSS of the RCMP. You may or may not ever see it again; your hair may have turned grey by the time you get it back. If you elect to go ahead with a project using a non-restricted length barrel, rest assured that if your project is ever noticed, it will be sent to the SFSS for examination. If this were to happen, the thing had better be unequivocally semi auto.
If you are serious about such a project, call 800 731 4000, get patched through to the SFSS, and determine exactly what hoops you will be required to jump through to get the thing registered.
 
I have a question. I do not know, thats why I ask.

If a sten was constructed as all new (NOT a converted auto) to be a single shot only, would that be OK?
Rather than try to change the innards from Open Bolt FA firing to Closed Bolt SA firing, what if the mag was welded shut, and welded to the magwel/receiver?
Manually place a single round in the chamber via the ejection port, aim, and drop the bolt closed by the trigger.
Bolt lurches forward, round fires, case is ejected and bolt is held open again.
So it is a single shot, auto eject.

Ghey, I know, but legal?
 
tootall said:
I have a question. I do not know, thats why I ask.

If a sten was constructed as all new (NOT a converted auto) to be a single shot only, would that be OK?
Rather than try to change the innards from Open Bolt FA firing to Closed Bolt SA firing, what if the mag was welded shut, and welded to the magwel/receiver?
Manually place a single round in the chamber via the ejection port, aim, and drop the bolt closed by the trigger.
Bolt lurches forward, round fires, case is ejected and bolt is held open again.
So it is a single shot, auto eject.

Ghey, I know, but legal?
Click to expand...
To even ask or entertain this line of reasoning shows the depths we have free fallen to under C68
 
tootall said:
I have a question. I do not know, thats why I ask.

If a sten was constructed as all new (NOT a converted auto) to be a single shot only, would that be OK?
Rather than try to change the innards from Open Bolt FA firing to Closed Bolt SA firing, what if the mag was welded shut, and welded to the magwel/receiver?
Manually place a single round in the chamber via the ejection port, aim, and drop the bolt closed by the trigger.
Bolt lurches forward, round fires, case is ejected and bolt is held open again.
So it is a single shot, auto eject.

Ghey, I know, but legal?
Click to expand...

Bolt would not be held open. It would fire from the open, recoil and return to the closed position as there is no bolt hold open device and even if there was the magazine is welded shut.

I imagine it would still be illegal as it is a full auto trigger mechanism but that is just speculation on my part.
 
tootall said:
I have a question. I do not know, thats why I ask.

If a sten was constructed as all new (NOT a converted auto) to be a single shot only, would that be OK?
Rather than try to change the innards from Open Bolt FA firing to Closed Bolt SA firing, what if the mag was welded shut, and welded to the magwel/receiver?
Manually place a single round in the chamber via the ejection port, aim, and drop the bolt closed by the trigger.
Bolt lurches forward, round fires, case is ejected and bolt is held open again.
So it is a single shot, auto eject.

Ghey, I know, but legal?
Click to expand...

like a single shot open bolt auto eject yeah that should be legal heck the part of the sten that is the registered part is the mag well
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Bolt would not be held open. It would fire from the open, recoil and return to the closed position as there is no bolt hold open device and even if there was the magazine is welded shut.

I imagine it would still be illegal as it is a full auto trigger mechanism but that is just speculation on my part.
Click to expand...

if it has no provision for a magazine then it would be legal full auto trigger group or not because it could not go full auto if its a single round that has to be fed into the chamber. also the only part of a original sten we cant own is the old mag wells
 
I'm tempted to jump in here, but the salient points have already been hit.

When I built mine, I ended up meeting in person, with the firearm, in various stages of construction, with the Nova Scotia CFO.

I have no problem with additional inspections, should they be requested, however, the most rounds I was able to sequentially fire with mine was 3. Maybe the RCMP will fix that if they inspect it. LOL.

NS
 
tootall said:
I have a question. I do not know, thats why I ask.

If a sten was constructed as all new (NOT a converted auto) to be a single shot only, would that be OK?
Rather than try to change the innards from Open Bolt FA firing to Closed Bolt SA firing, what if the mag was welded shut, and welded to the magwel/receiver?
Manually place a single round in the chamber via the ejection port, aim, and drop the bolt closed by the trigger.
Bolt lurches forward, round fires, case is ejected and bolt is held open again.
So it is a single shot, auto eject.

Ghey, I know, but legal?
Click to expand...

That would be a slam fire, which some manuals specifically cautioned against. The sten (and later the sterling or the C1 SMG) had detonation before the bolt closed, which meant the recoil first had to slow and reverse the forward moving bolt. By simply having the round already in the chamber, the bolt will already be (or nearly be) stopped, resulting in extra energy over that normally realized to the bolt and spring.

Besides that, it is frustrating enough to be firing a semi sten or a semi sterling with the neutered 5 round mags. You just start feeling nostalgic, and the mag is empty. I could only imagine the disappointment of a single shot sten.

I got to fire a full auto Lanchester with it's full 50 round magazine a few years ago. Now that was exhilarating.
 
Good point, SC.
I didnt make a differentiation between slamfire and Advanced Primer Ignition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(firearms)#Advanced_primer_ignition_.28API.29_blowback
In my mind, as I typed the question above, I was thinking of the round being somehow held in the feedpath, rather than already in the chamber.
Good catch, thanks for keeping me honest.

As for the single round issue, yeah that blows for sure.

Obviously, selective FA would be the first choice, but that door closed in 1978.
Converted auto used to be an option, but thats gone now as well.
Made as new semi only is allowed in theory, but as others have found out, that route has "issues" too.
As well, I tend to be history collector, so would like to have a milsurp as close to original possible.
The new versions have many parts changed. That bugs me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom