Actuators. real, indistinguishable from the original 1928 actuators. They seem to be a part more prone to breakage than other parts.
Doug
What New Thompson Part Would You Want Made?
Started by
full auto 45
, Oct 17 2004 10:10 PM
29 replies to this topic
#22
Zamm
-
- Regular Group
-
- 831 posts
Respected Member & Artist
- Gender:Male
- Location:Long Island, New York
- Interests:Thompsons, and all their goodies!<br>Obsolete Victorian Photomechanical processes,<br>Etching, Engraving and all Printmaking,<br>Entomology, specializing in Coleoptera,<br>Arachnology, specializing in Theraphosidae.
Posted 20 October 2004 - 07:31 PM
Levers levers lerver!
Zamm
Zamm
#23
full auto 45
-
- Board Benefactor
-
- 4723 posts
Respected Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
- Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.
Posted 20 October 2004 - 10:25 PM
Looks like the switch levers has a 3-1 lead on anything else. Except for the 5 who obviously are closet Democrats in hiding. This info will go to my local machinist who can whip these things up. He has already made the original Colt style levers, knurling and all, and sells those for $350-$500 a set. He can't make enough of those for the demand right now! So we talked about these the other day and he is going to do some work and let me know. I will let everybody know when he gets back and gets started on parts. Keep the info and suggestions coming in.
#24
LIONHART
-
- Regular Group
-
- 2785 posts
Long Time RKI Member
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.
Posted 20 October 2004 - 11:40 PM
| QUOTE |
| He has already made the original Colt style levers, knurling and all, and sells those for $350-$500 a set |
WTF?! Surly, you jest.. $350.00-$500.00 for two levers!
If that ain't Thompson Greed, I don't know what is..
#25
full auto 45
-
- Board Benefactor
-
- 4723 posts
Respected Member
- Gender:Male
- Location:Looking over your shoulder right now
- Interests:Thompson's, Any Machinegun, Harley's and scuba diving. In that order.
Posted 21 October 2004 - 08:03 AM
Make some. You'll see how much time is involved.
#26
LIONHART
-
- Regular Group
-
- 2785 posts
Long Time RKI Member
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.
Posted 21 October 2004 - 11:17 AM
Damn, I sold a set of originals some months back to Forum Member David J. (Original Colt, for $200.00. Didn't think repos would be worth or cost more...
#27
Merry Ploughboy
-
- Regular Group
-
- 1005 posts
Long Time RKI Member
- Gender:Male
Posted 21 October 2004 - 11:28 AM
Cost more - yes.
Worth more - ????
And another add to my list of non-standard wants. (I want a gun to shoot for a long time). From the other postings it appears the 21/28 actuator is a "weak link." How about making an actuator that is robust? For example, hardrede once posted a photo of his non-standard TSMG with a very robust looking actuator.
MP
Worth more - ????
And another add to my list of non-standard wants. (I want a gun to shoot for a long time). From the other postings it appears the 21/28 actuator is a "weak link." How about making an actuator that is robust? For example, hardrede once posted a photo of his non-standard TSMG with a very robust looking actuator.
MP
#28
LIONHART
-
- Regular Group
-
- 2785 posts
Long Time RKI Member
- Gender:Male
- Interests:Thompsons of course. All Manufactures and Models.
Posted 21 October 2004 - 09:00 PM
Doug offered a similar unit, utilizing a traditional '21 Style Knob, however it was advised that this assembly would only be suited for Blanks...
#29
PK.
-
- Board Benefactor
-
- 1569 posts
Technical Expert
- Gender:Male
- Location:CO, USA
- Interests:Full time gunsmith who loves Thompsons, 35+ years experience.
Posted 22 October 2004 - 09:52 AM
Well, we are off topic, but I feel the need to address this issue.
Hardrede- as I recall, you are using this bolt assy in a hybrid post sample gun built on a Richardson receiver with 28 outside look, but M1 inside bolt pocket with attending heavier material at the rear (???)
I could never endorse the use of an M1 bolt so modified in a standard ’28 receiver- they were not designed absorb the loads that would be generated in stopping the un-retarded M1 bolt firing bulleted ammunition. This would create a situation much the same as the use of “speed bolts” or “ear less locks” did, which led to the damage of so many 28’s in the past. That is why Doug states that this set up in standard 28’s must be limited to blanks only, where the bolt velocity can be regulated by selecting a proper orifice.
Hardrede- as I recall, you are using this bolt assy in a hybrid post sample gun built on a Richardson receiver with 28 outside look, but M1 inside bolt pocket with attending heavier material at the rear (???)
I could never endorse the use of an M1 bolt so modified in a standard ’28 receiver- they were not designed absorb the loads that would be generated in stopping the un-retarded M1 bolt firing bulleted ammunition. This would create a situation much the same as the use of “speed bolts” or “ear less locks” did, which led to the damage of so many 28’s in the past. That is why Doug states that this set up in standard 28’s must be limited to blanks only, where the bolt velocity can be regulated by selecting a proper orifice.
#30
Merry Ploughboy
-
- Regular Group
-
- 1005 posts
Long Time RKI Member
- Gender:Male
Posted 23 October 2004 - 09:53 AM
Well, since the robust actuator design appears to need more development, how about a belt-fed lower?
Sort of reverse to the mythical Shrike. Go back to the original concept Gen. Thompson had.
One to fit 21 and 28 receivers and one to fit M1 receivers.
And while we're at it, how about a .22 conversion that works without tinkering? Perhaps a belt-fed .22 conversion.
MP
Sort of reverse to the mythical Shrike. Go back to the original concept Gen. Thompson had.
One to fit 21 and 28 receivers and one to fit M1 receivers.
And while we're at it, how about a .22 conversion that works without tinkering? Perhaps a belt-fed .22 conversion.
MP
Edited by Merry Ploughboy, 23 October 2004 - 10:48 AM.
