Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Trying To Understand Parts Kit's


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#1 cocoabill

cocoabill

    Member

  • Board Donor
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Any 20th century guns and interesting relics, beer

Posted 07 January 2013 - 11:16 PM

I saw a thread a page or two back where a Thomson 1928 parts kit sold for $3k. I was on gunbroker this afternoon and you see torch cut parts kits selling for up towards $2k and then you see a display gun like this http://www.gunbroker...m=324457544#PIC for $800 that no one is bidding on, or this one http://www.gunbroker...m=324784568#PIC that has a 90% receiver. Help me understand (if the market is understandable) are not the two links shown parts kits that someone put a fake a receiver on? Is the cut upper receiver worth the one or two grand? Seems to me if someone wants to go to jail and complete an upper to make a functioning parts kit they would be better of machining one then try to mess with the cut one, especially the torch cut.

I might be willing to pay $5-600 to hang a display on my bar wall so I can say I have the real thing in the safe, but to pay $3K seams nuts. Just sounds like it's $3K you wont have to buy a legal one.

Am I missing something?

Thanks
Bill
  • 0

#2 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 08 January 2013 - 04:44 AM

Yes you are... These people only buy readily made guns for one reason.... If you can't figger it out then... I don't know what to tell you.

Edit for a BTW:

I could rebuild torch cut kit... But I certainly could not even start to machine one out... I don't have the money for equipment or the knowledge.

Second edit:

I don't think you can buy display guns at your prices these days... But let me know if you got a place that sells $600 display guns.

Edited by Z3BigDaddy, 08 January 2013 - 12:49 PM.

  • 0

#3 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 05:17 PM

I have to respectfully disagree. I was able to take a Philadelphia Ordnance 80% receiver and drill it out with a
drill press and still include denial "pins" or islands so that it couldn't accept the full-auto bolt and turn it into a semi-auto. Such plans exist on home build sites and others have done pretty much the same thing. There is, of course, the devil in the details but it is doable---otherwise Recon Bob would go out of business except for display guns.

My thought on this is that, yes, some people do it because they think it is easier, and if their welding skills are superior then it probably is; but, others do it because they want an "authentically manufactured" Thompson rather than a self-manufactured Thompson. Either way you can get a working semi-auto that is NOT 1/10 of an
inch less high than the TSMG but is instead exactly the same dimensions.

Edited by T Hound, 15 January 2013 - 05:21 PM.

  • 0

#4 reconbob

reconbob

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1787 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 January 2013 - 06:55 PM

If you go here http://www.weaponsgu...php?board=105.0 you can see

a variety of Thompson semi builds. If that link does not work you might have to join the weaponsguild.net

website to get in. (its free - similar to here make a user name and password)

Bob
  • 0

#5 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:21 PM

Not worth it... Deleted...

Edited by Z3BigDaddy, 15 January 2013 - 11:22 PM.

  • 0

#6 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 15 January 2013 - 11:48 PM

Well brother, with the exception of liberals, communists, and socialists, it takes all kinds.
But some of us like the process of machining and building.

Those who pay big money are doing so for authenticity. If I had that kind of money to blow
then I would too. But then again I wouldn't be living in California either and would be back
in Texas enjoying my TSMG. But the end result is this: If I can't have a real TSMG because
of my circumstances then at least I can have the illusion of having one.

Edited by T Hound, 16 January 2013 - 12:28 AM.

  • 0

#7 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 16 January 2013 - 02:58 AM

Well brother, with the exception of liberals, communists, and socialists, it takes all kinds.
But some of us like the process of machining and building.

Those who pay big money are doing so for authenticity. If I had that kind of money to blow
then I would too. But then again I wouldn't be living in California either and would be back
in Texas enjoying my TSMG. But the end result is this: If I can't have a real TSMG because
of my circumstances then at least I can have the illusion of having one.

Sorry but I don't believe that for one moment. Nice lofty sentiments' though... They just want an easily made full auto.
  • 0

#8 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 16 January 2013 - 10:36 AM

Sorry but I don't believe that for one moment. Nice lofty sentiments' though... They just want an easily made full auto.


Well that's one reason why I didn't buy one of the very cheap demilled FA Thompson receivers. Because
putting denial "pins" in those is an iffy situation. Obviously if you weld one up BEFORE putting the pins in you have committed a felony. That is why you really have to know what you are doing and the requirements before you do a build. It is much safer to just finish the 80% semi-auto receiver yourself and not have to worry about pins. As far as whether it is legal to put denial islands in a 80% receiver --it has already been done by others and submitted to the BATF and a letter of approval returned. I go by THOSE guidelines because I know they are already approved so there is no "easy full auto" there.

As far as being "easy" for others to weld up demilled receivers--I disagree. Welding requires skill and to weld something together like these FA receivers is going to end in failure most of the time simply because these cuts are never convenient cuts. And we both know they risk serious prison time if they succeed. But yes, people still do it. Not saying I agree with it.

Edited by T Hound, 16 January 2013 - 08:31 PM.

  • 0

#9 cocoabill

cocoabill

    Member

  • Board Donor
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Any 20th century guns and interesting relics, beer

Posted 18 January 2013 - 10:21 AM

I am understanding now, the weaponsguild site was very informative as to what is going on and why these kits are so pricey. I know the post above say some have got BAFT approval on a semi, does anyone have first hand knowledge that this is true?

Edited by cocoabill, 18 January 2013 - 01:54 PM.

  • 0

#10 Lancer

Lancer

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Donor
  • 1052 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Fremont, Ohio

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:30 PM

I am understanding now, the weaponsguild site was very informative as to what is going on and why these kits are so pricey. I know the post above say some have got BAFTA approval on a semi, does anyone have first hand knowledge that this is true?


There is a fair amount of discussion here on the board about the Polston Semi-Auto desgn. Here is on link. Do a search, you will find more.

http://www.machinegu...to&fromsearch=1
  • 0

#11 Z3BigDaddy

Z3BigDaddy

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 3631 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:State of Jefferson
  • Interests:Shooting, Hunting, Metal Detecting, Gun Trad'n

Posted 18 January 2013 - 01:51 PM


Sorry but I don't believe that for one moment. Nice lofty sentiments' though... They just want an easily made full auto.


Well that's one reason why I didn't buy one of the very cheap demilled FA Thompson receivers. Because
putting denial "pins" in those is an iffy situation. Obviously if you weld one up BEFORE putting the pins in you have committed a felony. That is why you really have to know what you are doing and the requirements before you do a build. It is much safer to just finish the 80% semi-auto receiver yourself and not have to worry about pins. As far as whether it is legal to put denial islands in a 80% receiver --it has already been done by others and submitted to the BATF and a letter of approval returned. I go by THOSE guidelines because I know they are already approved so there is no "easy full auto" there.

As far as being "easy" for others to weld up demilled receivers--I disagree. Welding requires skill and to weld something together like these FA receivers is going to end in failure most of the time simply because these cuts are never convenient cuts. And we both know they risk serious prison time if they succeed. But yes, people still do it. Not saying I agree with it.

You can do it with tack(sp?) welds with your $50 yard sale Craftsman without too much effort or knowledge... Trust me it ain't rocket science... Ha Ha... Prison time??? yeah right.... That keeps people from playing...
  • 0

#12 Joe H

Joe H

    Regular Member

  • Board Donor
  • 116 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:18 PM

I am understanding now, the weaponsguild site was very informative as to what is going on and why these kits are so pricey. I know the post above say some have got BAFTA approval on a semi, does anyone have first hand knowledge that this is true?


Cocoabill,

The only known Approvals are Polston and N/K Kahr. There may be others but they have not been circulated. You do not legally need an Approval letter to build a semi-auto Thompson for yourself, its your call. If you are going to manufacture one common sense dicates that you get one.

Polston got one but as far as I know it never went into production.

The quote below from Doug Richardson's website about semi-auto Thompsons IMO sums it up pretty well.

Thompson Semi-Autos (26 Jan 08):

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding semi-auto versions of Thompson guns. The yearning for a $20 drop-in semi-auto sear that will convert a Thompson into a legal semi-auto is understandable but not realistic. So, I will attempt here to try to explain the factors involved and the choices that are reasonably available.

Like it or not and regardless of the ingenious designs you may have for a semi-auto Thompson, we are all stuck with the Government’s design requirements. Of course, there are no fixed specifications set down in law that designers can work to, it is the interpretations and political agenda of bureaucrats that dictate a vague set of requirements that usually are summarized by some statement like “every case is different so we must examine the gun in order to make a judgment” or something like that. However, there does seem to be a pattern that has emerged that we can call the “requirements” and here it is as I understand it:

1) A new receiver must be used and if configured as a pistol, must never have had a buttstock style of trigger housing fitted. You can make a pistol into a rifle but you are not allowed to make a pistol out of a rifle.

2) The barrel must be 16" long if a buttstock can be fitted unless the gun is registered as a short barrelled rifle. If no buttstock can be fitted and the foregrip is not a vertical type, then it is a pistol and any length barrel can be used. However, if a person makes a pistol out of a parts kit and retains the short barrel, the Government may conclude that the person intended at some future time to install the short barrel and therefore, has an illegal gun.

3) The gun must fire from the closed bolt position.

4) The bolt face/firing pin arrangement must be such that if the sear is removed from its semi-automatic functioning of re-engaging the firing pin after every shot, the gun will jam on the next cartridge.

5) The receiver must have some means built in to it in order to prevent the operation of an original full-auto bolt if installed.

6) The trigger housing must not be able to accept a full-auto sear.

7) An unmodified full-auto trigger housing must not be able to fit on to the semi-auto receiver.

To date there are only two approved designs. The Numrich/Kahr (N/K) and the Polston.


Contary to 1) above IMO you can build a new semi reciever from a demilled reciever. ATF considers the demilled reciever as scrap steel and not a gun part subject to the limitations T-Hound mentioned above. You cannot build from an unregistered FA reciever.

Joe

  • 0

#13 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:21 PM

Yeah, I have seen tack welds like you're talking about. I wasn't impressed and I
wouldn't want to trust my safety to using such a gun. But tack welds would
certainly be the start of a permanent weld. I never said prison time would stop
people from doing it brother. That's their decision and risk to take. I'd rather
go with mine.
  • 0

#14 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:28 PM

I am understanding now, the weaponsguild site was very informative as to what is going on and why these kits are so pricey. I know the post above say some have got BAFT approval on a semi, does anyone have first hand knowledge that this is true?


Lancer gave a good tip, but the BATF letter I spoke of resides on the Weapons Guild forum and is a THIRD choice or so I thought. But the truth is that the build I was following was similar to the Polston design in that it uses denial "pins" or islands and a full-auto Thompson bolt modified to be semi-auto. So it may very well have been the Polston letter. Polston has, as far as I know, not pursued the manufacture of his design although he had a website. I sent Polston an email a couple of years ago asking if I could order one of his Thompsons and I never heard back from him. So I assumed he was not interested. I later heard a rumor that he sold the design. To who I do not know. But I have not seen it out there on the internet. Maybe at a gun show on the East coast?

As for the letter I speak of, I will try to find it tonight and post the url on this thread so you can take a look OR confirm that it WAS the Polston letter.

Edited by T Hound, 18 January 2013 - 02:37 PM.

  • 0

#15 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 18 January 2013 - 02:33 PM


I am understanding now, the weaponsguild site was very informative as to what is going on and why these kits are so pricey. I know the post above say some have got BAFTA approval on a semi, does anyone have first hand knowledge that this is true?


Cocoabill,

The only known Approvals are Polston and N/K Kahr. There may be others but they have not been circulated. You do not legally need an Approval letter to build a semi-auto Thompson for yourself, its your call. If you are going to manufacture one common sense dicates that you get one.

Polston got one but as far as I know it never went into production.

The quote below from Doug Richardson's website about semi-auto Thompsons IMO sums it up pretty well.

Thompson Semi-Autos (26 Jan 08):

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding semi-auto versions of Thompson guns. The yearning for a $20 drop-in semi-auto sear that will convert a Thompson into a legal semi-auto is understandable but not realistic. So, I will attempt here to try to explain the factors involved and the choices that are reasonably available.

Like it or not and regardless of the ingenious designs you may have for a semi-auto Thompson, we are all stuck with the Government’s design requirements. Of course, there are no fixed specifications set down in law that designers can work to, it is the interpretations and political agenda of bureaucrats that dictate a vague set of requirements that usually are summarized by some statement like “every case is different so we must examine the gun in order to make a judgment” or something like that. However, there does seem to be a pattern that has emerged that we can call the “requirements” and here it is as I understand it:

1) A new receiver must be used and if configured as a pistol, must never have had a buttstock style of trigger housing fitted. You can make a pistol into a rifle but you are not allowed to make a pistol out of a rifle.

2) The barrel must be 16" long if a buttstock can be fitted unless the gun is registered as a short barrelled rifle. If no buttstock can be fitted and the foregrip is not a vertical type, then it is a pistol and any length barrel can be used. However, if a person makes a pistol out of a parts kit and retains the short barrel, the Government may conclude that the person intended at some future time to install the short barrel and therefore, has an illegal gun.

3) The gun must fire from the closed bolt position.

4) The bolt face/firing pin arrangement must be such that if the sear is removed from its semi-automatic functioning of re-engaging the firing pin after every shot, the gun will jam on the next cartridge.

5) The receiver must have some means built in to it in order to prevent the operation of an original full-auto bolt if installed.

6) The trigger housing must not be able to accept a full-auto sear.

7) An unmodified full-auto trigger housing must not be able to fit on to the semi-auto receiver.

To date there are only two approved designs. The Numrich/Kahr (N/K) and the Polston.


Contary to 1) above IMO you can build a new semi reciever from a demilled reciever. ATF considers the demilled reciever as scrap steel and not a gun part subject to the limitations T-Hound mentioned above. You cannot build from an unregistered FA reciever.

Joe


I would only add Joe that they need to be careful to insert denial pins FIRST or they might subject themselves
to accusations of trying to manufacture a full-auto Thompson.
  • 0

#16 cocoabill

cocoabill

    Member

  • Board Donor
  • 98 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:Any 20th century guns and interesting relics, beer

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:23 PM

I read Polston's patent and he went through a lot of trouble and expense not to do anything with it. That is unless he sold the rights for big bucks in which case the buyer went through a lot of expense not to do anything, (that we know of). The corporation that had the rights SA Ordnance from what I read was a sister and brother in law closed up and is no longer active.

If anyone knows what is up with this it would be nice to know, a kit like he envisioned would very popular.

Bill
  • 0

#17 Bridgeport28A1

Bridgeport28A1

    Respected Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 572 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Minnesota
  • Interests:WW2 U.S. Military Firearms

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:31 PM

Maybe Kahr bought the rights to the Polston design to be the sole source?
  • 0

#18 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:49 PM

Unlikely. Given the popularity such a semi-auto would have I would think they would have
already offered it and probably for a premium fee. But I am actually glad this didn't work
out because the idea was to take already existing full-auto parts and machine them into semi-auto parts.
Even if you only own a semi-auto you may very well eventually buy a Full-auto. Best
to keep those full-auto parts in good condition and in circulation. We can always go
to Recon Bob's 80% receivers and trigger frames instead of ruining perfectlly good
full-auto parts. I am sure the full-auto guys here would agree with me.

Edited by T Hound, 19 January 2013 - 11:49 PM.

  • 0

#19 T Hound

T Hound

    Regular Member

  • Regular Group
  • 359 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California
  • Interests:All Thompsons TSMG or Semi-auto; Belt feds, especially the M2 50 BMG. All military guns, because the 2nd Amendment is about
    stopping tyranny and NOT just about hunting guns.

Posted 19 January 2013 - 11:51 PM

I read Polston's patent and he went through a lot of trouble and expense not to do anything with it. That is unless he sold the rights for big bucks in which case the buyer went through a lot of expense not to do anything, (that we know of). The corporation that had the rights SA Ordnance from what I read was a sister and brother in law closed up and is no longer active.

If anyone knows what is up with this it would be nice to know, a kit like he envisioned would very popular.

Bill

My guess is that people didn't want their full-auto parts converted to semi-auto. The Polston patent would be PERFECT for conversion of
full-auto 80% receivers to semi-auto. That is EXACTLY what should have been done with them.
  • 0

#20 mp43sniper

mp43sniper

    Member

  • Regular Group
  • 72 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:PA
  • Interests:FFL 07/C2 SOT; MP44 collector, enthusiast and builder

Posted 20 January 2013 - 01:36 AM

Sorry but I don't believe that for one moment. Nice lofty sentiments' though... They just want an easily made full auto.


I've paid LOTS of money for parts kits that I had no intention of building. I have a very late, aj block StG44 marked rifle that was cut, well, let's say more nicely than what would happen today. It can be hung on the wall as-is and the parts alone are worth a lot of money. However the way it was demilled, along with the uber rare StG marking and barrel in the white, make it very valuable at least to me. And I bet the guy that sold it smiled when he cashed my postal money orders.

And keep in mind I'm a 07/C2 so I don't need to play games. There is some cool stuff out there that idiots like me will pay big bucks for because it has history and is awesome. I'd shell out good money for a '21 kit just because it is what it is. See that AC in my avatar? It came from the local Sheriff's office. They had it from new back in the day until just a couple years ago. If I could ever afford a transferable Thompson, I'd pay extra for it because I want it more than some other one. That's how I roll - it doesn't have to make sense to anyone but me. ;)

Craig

Edited by mp43sniper, 20 January 2013 - 01:39 AM.

  • 0