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

Many years ago, I saw two MP18s for sale. One was $125, the other $135. The lower priced one was missing the collar on the drum which prevented it from being pushed too far into the housing.
The Luger drum is exempt from the 5 shot magazine restriction, although they are rather expensive.
An MP18 is all machined steel. While it would not be impossible to manufacture a reproduction, it would certainly be a challenge. Scratchbuilding a semiautomatic Sten would be easy in comparison.
 
Bear in mind guys, that while a machine shop could gear up and mass-produce the mag wells, NOBODY is mass-importing the semi-auto bolt kits, which are a needed component. Also, this is still a do-it-yourself proposition. It's not impossible to do at home with a dremel and a mig welder, but it is not as easy as one afternoon's work either.
 
Just an off question - but are you or sten collector going to be making a separate thread of a complete build through of one of these? It would go a long way towards helping us decide if this was a project we could undertake.
 
Go to w ww.theweaponeer.net, go to their build section, and find the Sten section. There are a number of threads detailing builds of US BATFE approved semi auto only Mk. II, III and V Sten clones. In the US, there are many parts kits still to be had, although it is an open question if any more will be allowed to be imported. Their II and V kits will have intact magazine wells, but they are not allowed to use original length barrels, unless the firearm is registered as a short barrelled rifle, or set up with the pistol grip, as a pistol.
I suppose that between the photos that Stencollector has posted, and the ones now appearing in this thread, a photo essay could be assembled.
 
I think that most of the build will be posted here in pics. The pics you see are all that's done so far! Most of us have day jobs ;)

Plus, I don't have the receiver tubes yet, not he bolts, nor the SAS3 internals. Only so much I can do for now!

And you don;t need a lathe or mill to do one of these, provided you don't need to lathe out a barrel from scratch.
 
Well, at least I have a Sten Mk3 parts kit keeping company to my C/A Sten Mk3. Being into car painting, body repair and minor mechanics I have access to the tools I need. That's a start ...

Now IF there were to be a group buy on Sten Mk3 parts kits, canadaammo would be ready to provide us BUT to paraphrase Chris:

We would need to see a fairly large order to make it worth while, say
several hundred guns.


Marstar will bring kits from their European facility but only for 1000 (yep, one thousand) kits no less.

Anyone has a source for parts kits too?

J. Savoie
 
...If my memory serves me right ( I can't be bothered to find the exact post ) stencollector was given his registration, and he then called them to ask if they had made a mistake:eek: It was then that the fun started.

Yes, that is essentially what happened. The cert. was issued, and then they had second thoughts, put an "under review" on the registration, and asked for the gun to be submitted for testing. That is why I suspect that any registration application is going to be flagged, and the gun is going to have to be submitted.
It will be interesting to see if any additional SAS versions have to be inspected, or if the FRT # created for Stencollector's will automatically be applied.
 
Spencer having a Converted Automatic (yes it IS prohibited) , the only alternative available to be able to shoot it is to get a SAS-3 Mk2 like stencollector made. I own an Mk2 and an Mk3 in C/A 12(3) and would LOVE to get restricted or even better unrestricted SAS in both models. At least it would not stay in the safe never to be fired. :mad:


J. Savoie
 
I'm not sure it was a mistake. I know of a CGN member that has had a semi auto belt fed browning approved on the sight of one emailed photograph.

Just my opinion, but I would guess that was because it was made using the now standard semi auto 1919 design.

The point is, that with the pioneering work that some folks have done, it has been established that this sort of project can be legally done.
 
If one makes the receiver from scratch , is it a C/A gun? if so what if a guy maked a sten completely from scratch, would it still qualify as C/A?

I think the answers to these questions are important if one decides not to use a sas3 kit.
 
Nothing is fore sure.

Now it has been explained to me what C/A stands for ( thanks guys ) I think I can confidently say that it would not qualify as a C/A. If you were to make a reciever from scratch as you would have to do in this case, it would qualify as a semi auto reciever. Not a C/A as it was never a fully automatic weapon.

Disregard all the above if you intend to make it full auto :runaway:

Nothing is fore sure. I know a guy that made an semi auto FN C2A1 from parts, he registered it as a C2A1 semi auto. No problem.

Then when some new law changed that you had to re-register converted F/A's he got nailed for not doing it as it was not converted! He was charged & went to court, The NFA. was there to help him.
His argument was then gun was built from parts!. it never was F/A !
but it didn't mean a thing! He lost his gun!
Bye the way , He is a BONIFIDE COLLECTOR OF F/A'S!
How stupid is that??
 
No, he use one he had registerd as a frame only. but it never was complete,
he pieced it together, So it wasn't coverted!

Actuly there's a little know fact that the C.A.F. did have some semi auto
C2's, they usally had scopes on them,
They were used for their heavy barrels & bi-pods. I was a weapons tec. back then.
There also was a C1A1D, looked like a C1 except it was selective fire. they had a large "A" on the bottom of the frame behind the trigger.
They were mostly used for ship clearing by the Navy.

The whole stupid idea of re-registering is a waste of time. they're already registered! Why couldn't they just send us new certificates?
Typical Kim campbell/Alan rock crap!
Part of why they wasted almost 3 billion $!

And whats worse is the whole FN. family were always restricted to start with, ever though they had a 24" barrel!
 
As far as CAs are concerned, there were no standards for conversion. Stens usually had their selectors welded in place, and either the trigger mechanism cover or trigger pin welded to discourage tampering. Some gas operated designs had their gas systems disabled, others had their trigger mechanisms altered. It really depended on who did the alterations, their ingenuity and mechanical skill. Some were so superficially converted that it was a joke.
It is doubtful if CA conversion systems and standards would be particularly useful for newly manufactured firearms, because basically there were no standards. Firearms that are newly manufactured would have to stand on their own two feet, as it were, and qualify as semi auto designs.
Look at the photos of the BD-38 mechanism that have been posted here. The trigger mechanism is quite different than the original (which never had a semi auto function). SSD designed a new mechanism that would fit in the available space.
For a different design, go to the semi auto Browning site, and look at the trigger mechinism used. It uses a combination of new and altered original parts. The resulting firearm is not a CA because it uses what is defined as a new receiver, which will not accept a set of original trigger parts.
Further examples are the Czech 58, 58L and 858. These use original receivers, which had never been assembled into rifles, and which were then altered to preclude use of selective fire trigger components. They aren't CAs, because they never were FAs.
 
Back
Top Bottom