Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Thompson Vs.m1 Carbine ?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Mike45

Mike45

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 124 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Gulf Coast
  • Interests:shooting,hunting,fishing,drinking,eating.

Posted 09 March 2004 - 08:15 AM

Many years ago the ATF decided that a 27 TSMG was NFA because it used same rec. as FA models. The M1 Carbine used same rec. as M2, why was the M1 not considered NFA?
  • 0

#2 PK.

PK.

    Technical Expert

  • Board Benefactor
  • 1567 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:CO, USA
  • Interests:Full time gunsmith who loves Thompsons, 35+ years experience.

Posted 09 March 2004 - 08:21 AM

Because while the receivers are mechanically the same, the M1 was not originally made as a machinegun. Those marked M2 were. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun as far as ATF is concerned.
  • 0

#3 Bill in VA

Bill in VA

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southwest Virginia

Posted 09 March 2004 - 04:17 PM

I can't seem to find a reference for it now, but IIRC, the BATF considers (or at least used to...we all know they can spell "capricious") the hammer to be the "magic part" in an M2 carbine conversion kit (i.e., those few kits out there that don't rely on a serial numbered trigger frame. I think PK hit the nail on the head with the explanation that even though the receivers are identical, the "M2" marked receivers were manufactured with the intnet of being machineguns whereas the "M1" and overstamped receivers were not originally intended for use as machineguns. As far as the size of the M1/M2 carbine in a paratrooper stock being responsible for its "machinegun" status I don't see that. (Remember, OAL of stocked guns is measured with the stock open, not folded.)

FWIW, I've seen a number of M2 carbines that were converted using registered "kits," registered hammers, registered trigger frames, and even one that was converted using a registered disconnector.

Additionally, David Hardy's outstanding analysis of the '86 FOPA sems to make a good case for the M2 parts being responsible for machineguns being redefined in the '86 FOPA as not just a receiver but also "any combination of parts" intended to convert semis to full-autos.

Other than that, who really knows how/why the BATF determines what is a firearm receiver? There really doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to it, as evidenced by Phil's examples.

  • 0

#4 Waffen Und Bier

Waffen Und Bier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Like the name says "Guns and beer" (and really hot chicks who like guns and beer).

Posted 09 March 2004 - 09:50 PM

We have this thing we do at work. Anytime someone mentions the word "logic" (or any form of that word), it goes like this: Someone holds up one hand, looks at it and says "logic". Holds up the other hand, looks at it and says "government. Holds up one hand, looks at it and says "logic". Holds up the other hand, looks at it and says "government. Everyone gets a good laugh and we go back to our government work.

There are seven parts that ATF considers an M2 Carbine conversion kit (read MACHINE GUN). Possession of all seven of these parts (unregistered) even without an M1 Carbine will get your cat stomped (if ya know whut I mean).

selector
selector spring
selector lever
hammer
disconnector
disconnector spring
disconnector plunger

This is just based on an old pamphlet ATF "Identification of Firearms Within the Purview of the National Firearms Act" ATF P 5300.1 (5-84). Check with your friendly ATF tech branch for more current regulations and interpretations.

I wouldn't feel comfortable with any of those parts without a registered M2 carbine (although the hammer doesn't bother me as it can function in an M1 Carbine, but the others are not needed in an M1 Carbine).

Oddly enough, they don't seem to care about the M2 bolt, the M2 slide, the M2 sear, or the M2 trigger housing (which you will find in many M1 Carbines, BTW).

The receiver of the M1 and M2 are identical save for the markings. Go figure.

Seriously though, "logic"......."government"......."logic"........
  • 0

#5 wolfer113

wolfer113

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 195 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee
  • Interests:Guns,Shooting,Knob Creek,Gun Matches,Hunting,Building Guns etc

Posted 10 March 2004 - 12:54 PM

well...lets not forget the hk/cetme and fal etc etc....same receiver as "machine guns" kinda like the m1 v/s m2 carbine...and..the ar/m16....if you have a legal semi cetme or hk and then buy a parts kit....your able to be pounced on...right? a poor guy needing a straight barrel could go off to the big house.... you have the gun and the parts to make it fullauto..hows that any differant than having the m2 carbine fa parts?? i personally think the laws are screwed up and should be more detailed and not left so wide open for the goverment to make all the deciding factors as to what they want......reckon a man could get away with packing a 1911 with a "badly worn sear"? lol...you know what that'll do don't you?
  • 0

#6 Bill in VA

Bill in VA

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 652 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Southwest Virginia

Posted 10 March 2004 - 05:23 PM

At the risk of nit-picking, I'm afraid the HK/Cetme, AR15/M16, FAL analogy isn't terribly accurate. The M1 carbine and the M2 carbine use identical receivers (markings/roll stamps not withstanding.) This isn't the case with the other examples cited.

Other than a few minor comments, I cannot comment on the HK/Cetme series' receivers. I do know that the full-autos use a clip-on trigger group with the semis (at least here in the US) using a swing-down lower that necessitates modification of the trigger housing. I'm sorry I can't give a better answer...although I've played with plenty of full- and semi-auto HK rifles/subguns, I've never really torn them down for a close examination since I don't own any. (Never really cared to, although when I first bought my TSMG I was given the option of an HK MP5A3 for only $500 less than the TSMG...I'd already made my choice and have never regretted it.)

As for the FAL and the AR15/M16, there are also some differences in the receivers (i.e, the full auto FAL and M16 receivers are different from the semi-auto FAL and AR15 receivers.

The M16's receiver differs from the AR15's receiver by virtue of the pivot hole for the sear....no sear pivot hole in the AR 15 receiver. As for the FAL, the safety sear is mounted in a slot, half of which is on the left side of the ejector block (with the muzzle forward) and the other half machined into the inside of the upper (the part the BATF considers the receiver for the FAL and its variants.) Again, a difference, albeit a minor one, betweeen the full-auto and semi-auto FAL receivers.
  • 0

#7 TactAdv

TactAdv

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Regular Group
  • 61 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:N. Colorado

Posted 10 March 2004 - 05:43 PM

QUOTE (Waffen Und Bier @ Mar 9 2004, 09:50 PM)

There are seven parts that ATF considers an M2 Carbine conversion kit (read MACHINE GUN).  Possession of all seven of these parts (unregistered) even without an M1 Carbine will get your cat stomped (if ya know whut I mean).

Folks,
If I may, let me clear up some long standing confusion over the "M2 Carbine Ruling". When I was in the process of researching this issue for my M2 Carbine series in Small Arms Review magazine awhile back, myself and my legal counselor friend FOIA'ed the BATF and turned up a large amount of information, none of it answering the question "What LEGALLY constitutes a M2 Carbine conversion kit?", but we did apparently raise their concern level high enough to make sure the 'incriminating' parts of certain documents were sensored out. This made further FOIA investigation necessary, and to make a long story short here, what was discovered is that the long assumed "fact" that this was, at the MOST, an Administartive Ruling crumbled under the weight of the documents we uncovered that clearly showed that this extended back to old ATTU Legal Counsel discussions which merely advised that a collection of parts (they listed the "magic seven") COULD be construed as constructive possession of a machine gun conversion kit, but there was NO formal Ruling ever made. There exisits a MYTH of a LEGAL DEFINITION of a "M2 Carbine Conversion kit".
So where does that leave mere mortals?? Basically it falls under the constructive possession assumption. If you own a NFRTR registered M2 Carbine, additional spare parts are not likely to be viewed as a constructive issue,;if you own a Title 1 M1 Carbine, that bag of "rainy day parts" is a serious issue. 'Nuff said, Eh?
But what about those registered "M2 Carbine Conversion kits"? We are left to asume that BATFE Counsel, in previous incarnations at least, allowed the original registrations as industry courtesy, knowing they likely did NOT want to visit this issue in any formal Court surroundings......too much at stake for them.
Bottom Line.....there is NO single, or even all seven, "Evil M2 parts", period. Folks may wish to read my past article series in SAR , for more information.
BATFE Technology Branch is a decidedly twisted and tangled path to try and navigate! We have a virtual archive of Opinion Letters from them on such subjects over the years, it boggles the mind to read all the conflicting "opinions".....makes it tough. For the current series in SAR I did on the 'M60 Machinegun Owners Guide', I got a letter that basically stated a completely confusing and conflicting definition of the legal definition of an M60 receiver. Frustrating to say the least!
-TomH
  • 0

#8 M1tommygun

M1tommygun

    Long Time Member

  • Regular Group
  • 176 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Western NC
  • Interests:Military history especially WW2. Firearms. Some aviation and muscle cars.

Posted 11 March 2004 - 11:20 AM

Hey PhilOhio, Clinton didn't inhale, remember? biggrin.gif

Scott
  • 0

#9 Waffen Und Bier

Waffen Und Bier

    Long Time RKI Member

  • Board Benefactor
  • 629 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Like the name says "Guns and beer" (and really hot chicks who like guns and beer).

Posted 11 March 2004 - 06:57 PM

Hey guys,

I personally don't care what people have as long as they are not committing crimes with the guns or mucking it up for those who walk the straight and narrow and stay out of the shadows. cool.gif

What I quoted came directly out of an ATF pamphlet printed since the 1970's. The most recent printing I have was in the 90's and they still state this (although they pulled the printing because they forgot the 1986 ruling about suppressor parts and left something in there about suppressor parts being okay if you don't have a can and vice versa).

Bottom line, if you have those seven parts and you do something to draw attention to yourself, you are playing a dangerous game. If you have these seven parts and an M1 carbine and do something to draw attention to yourself from the authorities, you are playing a really dangerus game. Bubba's cell mate? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what you are doing and your history. Maybe just a bunch in legal fees. Maybe just give up your right to possess a firearm legally forever. Is it worth risking everything for? All of the above is just my opinion and not worth the paper it's printed on.

Remember guys "Someone holds up one hand, looks at it and says "logic". Holds up the other hand, looks at it and says "government. Holds up one hand, looks at it and says "logic". Holds up the other hand, looks at it and says "government." tongue.gif

Welcome aboard Tom!
  • 0