M1928a1 Engineering Drawings/specification

[The Wizard]

I sent off a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to the Army's Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command (TACOM) and the Rock Island Arsenal Museumfor the following M1928A1 technical information: DWG NO. 51-63, Top Assembly Drawing; SPEC NO. 52-3-30, End Item Specification; DWG NO. D35512, Receiver; DWG NO. C64385, Receiver Assembly. The museum replied saying they had the information but will not/can not release it to the public and TACOM transfered my request to the Army's Research, Development and Engineering Center at Picatinny Arsenal, New Jersey. They said we have no idea what you are talking about.

 

Does anyone know where I may obtai this information? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/banghead.gif

[Junkyardslug]

Try Doug Richardson: Mfg Drawings For what it's worth I have a set of BAR Mfg Drawings that followed the same path (submitted to TACOM, forwarded to Picatinny). I was very specific in what I requested (M1918 drawings) but they still messed it all up (they sent the last revision M1918a2 drawings). I mean they have model numbers so they can keep the models apart, right? http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/banghead.gif

 

Anyway, it cost me a fair amount of money, took around 8 months to get, they sent a set of drawings for the wrong model, and of the drawings I could use will need to be cleaned up before they are useable. If you only want 3 drawings get em from Doug, he has already done the foot work and it will be a lot less of a headache for you.

 

JYS

[giantpanda4]

Here is an interesting sidenote....

 

IF you possess a dummy reciever AND a set of manufacturing drawings, SOMEONE may construe that to be an intent to manufacture.... you DON"T want that!

 

There are a lot of drawings sets advertised on evilbay all the time. I have seen some at a gun show that look like photocopies of old prints, made to look confidential or secret with some stamp added for effect. I do not know who drew them, what revision, or if they even have a title block.

 

I have also seen a listing somewhere for modern cad drawings of a reciever. Again - I do not know the source.

 

As Doug Richardson points out, anyone can "reverse engineer" a set of drawings by taking a part and generating a drawing from it. But - you run into difficulties with the tolerance stack up dwn the road. Be care what you buy, and where you buy it from. Without a doubt Doug is the best source for this info. reCon Bob may also have it available - Bob?

 

But remember but it only if you don't have a dummy gun at home!

 

[reconbob]

My personal experience with getting engineering

drawings from the government was that the place to

go was Rock Island Arsenal. You had to cite the correct

regulation, you had to word it correctly, you had to

address and send it to the right person, you had to

state that you would be willing to pay the reproduction

costs, and if you did all of these things correctly, you

would eventually get the drawings. At the time (this

has to have been 20+ years ago) the drawings were

microfiche positioned in the old IBM computer punch

cards. You then had to get them blown up and printed.

I do not know the state of all this today.

I did get some BAR drawings. I do not believe they

have drawings for the M1918. As far as I can tell most

of this data was achived in the 1950's and they only

archived current data, since they were not creating

a historical archive, but a technical archive. The

M1918A2 BAR receiver is the same as the M1918

receiver except for the markings. All of the things

that are different between the two are in the parts

that attach to the receiver, not in the receivers

themselves. Many M1918 rifles were upgraded to

M1918A2's - they left the barrels on and changed

the other parts.

I have my share of techincal data on the Thompson

but certainly Doug has the most comprehensive and

complete archive of original drawings and data.

I would not worry about having a drawing and an

80% receiver or a dummy gun. Things are not that

bad yet. Different story if its a TUBE gun - i.e. MP-40,

STEN, etc. In that case if you have the raw tube and

a complete parts set the feds will consider that to be

a "set of parts from which a firearm can be assembled".

 

Bob/Philly O

[Junkyardslug]

Bob, now they scan the drawings and send them on a CD. Yes you are right, the Receiver drawings are the same. BUT I requested and got all the part and assymbly drawings, so about 1/2 of the drawings were right (bolt, firing pin) 1/2 of the drawings were wrong (piston, trigger gaurd, buffer). They just sent the drawings for the wrong model (they clamed they didn't have the M1918 drawings which may or may not be the case).

 

Of course my intrest in such things is historic, not technical so I was a little disapointed when they sent the most recent A2 drawings instead of the M1918 as I requested. So it goes.

 

JYS

[nedry]

OT but related: Bob, do you know if the Arsenal has a catalog of blueprints, and if so, if they'd have diagrams for weapons the Army commercially purchased off-the-shelf? I'm looking for info on WWII general officers' pistols and am a little lost about which office to contact. SInce you've BTDT, would you be willing to share any experience-derived advice for us fellow blueprint-seekers?

[21 smoker]

I have the blueprints for many MGs....the Thompson is readily available...was not hard to find...these came from a firm in Arizona..hth... http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/wink.gif

[Jack Wright]

If any government agency refuses to search for the records you request, or if the records

you seek are denied with questionable exemptions cited, you can file an administrative

appeal with the agency possessing the records. That will in most cases get you a better

response. I know--I ran the CIA's FOIA program for about eight years prior to retiring...

[Bob]

Hi Jack! (always wanted to say that at the airport)

 

Welcome!

 

Are you the one that said the UFO'ers were clogging the FOIA system? I get a big kick out of the tinfoil hat folks http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Jack Wright]

Uh, 'fraid so, Bob--the UFOers sure enough did clog the system. Absolutely convinced we

had little green men from saucer crashes in ice chests somewhere out in the desert. We

were once sued by the Ground Saucer Watch Comittee for failing to provide records (which,

of course, we did not have) on all this stuff...

[reconbob]

A word of warning when you buy drawings. There

are a lot of people who specialize in selling drawings.

If the drawings are not original, where did they come

from? Answer - they got "created" from measuring

pieces of guns or torched parts. The drawings are not

proofed, they are not checked. Its not easy measuring

receivers. Usually one of the main datums is the

centerline of the bore. But this location

is "air". You can't put a caliper or a micrometer on it.

So already the errors begin. The only way you know

if a drawing is any good is to make the part and then

check that part. And of course, there is the honest

mistake - like dimensioning 0.385 when it should be

0.358, etc. So I would not trust any drawing unless

its original, or I did it myself. Most of these beautiful CAD

drawings have not been checked and are drawn by

armchair armorers who may be good at CAD

but don't have the machinery or hands-on skill

to make the parts they draw to check their work.

A while back I had to make a Vickers sideplate for

a dummy gun - not even a shooter. The guy sent me

the most beautiful CAD drawing you can imagine to

make his plate with. I got 3/4 of the way through

the part and nothing fit. Nothing. The drawing was

total crap.

The more difficult the receiver - like an MG-34 or

Grease gun - the more likely the drawing is useless.

But they keep selling...

 

Bob

Edited October 7, 2006 by reconbob