So, the USPS just delivered this Thompson to me

[mnshooter]

What part of the receiver is the actual receiver per ATF?

 

As applicable to Thompson receivers, I have tried to get an answer to that from ATF -both in person and by phone, more than once.

I've held drawings up, drew lines through them, repeated various versions of "how about this", as in, "could you add new here, or here, or etc.".

All I have ever gotten is (paraphrasing) "we would have to take a look at the individual receiver and proposal, in order to make that determination".

 

I'm hoping someone here has a more definitive answer.

[bug]

 

What part of the receiver is the actual receiver per ATF?

 

As applicable to Thompson receivers, I have tried to get an answer to that from ATF -both in person and by phone, more than once.

I've held drawings up, drew lines through them, repeated various versions of "how about this", as in, "could you add new here, or here, or etc.".

All I have ever gotten is (paraphrasing) "we would have to take a look at the individual receiver and proposal, in order to make that determination".

 

I'm hoping someone here has a more definitive answer.

 

You paraphrased the definitive answer.

[buzz]

I know the receiver would properly be called a "weld" instead of a "re-weld".

 

But everyone calls a receiver that was built from welded torch-cut scrap pieces a "re-weld".

 

it's the official name now

 

people even call the act of making a receiver this way "re-welding"

 

so I just call it a re-weld

 

Actually, I think the off-kilter expression suits the build quality of most re-welds.

Edited March 31, 2015 by buzz

[buzz]

You notice how a lot of re-welds have the weld across the slots?

 

I guess the receivers were de-milled by a torch-cut across the slots?

 

was that a policy or just happenstance?

[reconbob]

I have to admit that I also am irritated when someone says: "its not a reweld...its welded". I have

been in the business since the mid 1970's and for all that time any gun - and back at the beginning

it was M-1 Garands that started the term - that was welded, machined, and rebuilt was called a "reweld".

I believe the term came from RE-manufactured by WELDing. Everybody knows what is meant by the

term and when people get picky and start with "well, the gun was welded once, so technically it can't be a

"reweld".....

Back in the 1960's Garands were non-existent in the arms market, because they were still an issue

rifle. Krags and Springfields were sold through the DCM (now CMP) as complete rifles so there was

no need to weld them. Many M-1 Carbines came back from WW2 because they fit in duffle bags, and

there was no call to weld them. Garands were not sold because of their current-issue status, but were

scrapped out and torch cut thru the middle of the receiver. Back then this was acceptable. There was a

company called Valley Ordnance in Pennsylvania that welded 1000's of M-1 Garand receivers which were

built up into rifles and sold. They were high quality strong rifles because the locking shoulders in the receiver

were intact.

Anyway, that's where "reweld" came from. Everybody knew and knows what a reweld is. Trying to

change this to "welded" is, in my opinion a needless exercise bordering on political correctness...

 

Regarding the torch cutting of receivers, try to imagine you have to destroy 5,000, 10,000, or more

Thompsons. At the time, the parts have almost no value. (In the 1950's - early 1960's a complete DEWAT

Thompson retails for $50-$75). If you won the bid to destroy them you want to do it as fast and cheap as

you can. If the specification does not require complete cutting into separate pieces cutting the gun right

behind the ejection port 1/2 thru will do the job. Later on the specs required cutting into separate pieces.

The guns were lined up on metal rails and the torch guy went right down the line making his cuts and letting

pieces fall to the ground then they were shoveled or bulldozed into trucks to the steel mill.

 

Bob

[Paladin601]

ssshhheesh, it was a joke get your hackles down.

 

@laurencen, they do have a process in the antique car business where they spray tin to fill rust spots on sheet metal , as well. That would not work in this case, since it would not take a normal finish, unless DV decides to Duracoat it.

[deerslayer]

If it functions fine as is.... Buy $3-4000 worth of ammo instead of doing anything to the gun and have FUN.

 

 

Welded guns.... Having some experience with welding them together is that you can make a gun from pieces. It will work fine. But it will crack at some point down the line where you welded it, maybe 20-30,000 rounds is what I've seen. Then you weld the cracks and do it again. That next time it will crack a little sooner.

 

Looks like a small partial cut. The front of the lock where it's cut probably isn't getting very much force applied to it at all. Should not be a problem.

[Roland the Thompsongunner]

I agree shoot the heck out of it and have fun. Would be a great gun for doing reenactments ect because you could crawl around with it and not be too upset over scratches etc. dan

[Dolphinvet]

Ok. I've been reading all the posts here quickly. I do want to get the gun refinished and repaired properly. I don't want to keep an ugly mangled Thompson. So here's a question. I was looking carefully at this weapon and I do believe it was torched then re-welded to make it a serviceable gun. The torch marks extend to the lower that it came with and that was also repaired. I'm not using the lower it came with since I have one of the parts kits that came from Russia that were unused and I will use that lower. Now, since this was a re-weld and probably therefore a rewat, how come they let it transfer to me on my C&R? I doubt it's old enough on that to qualify.

That was question 1.

 

Second, since the nose of the receiver and the channels for the blish lock are welded and a mess, would it be legal to cut off the receiver section behind the ejection port and weld on a new section. Say, a section from a Philly receiver? That would appear to be an easier fix. Then just use a mill to grind off the majority of the rust pitting and then refinish the entire receiver. Is this legal? And would it be a good idea for a repair?

[laurencen]

welding a new front on sounds like a best option if its legal? you will not be replacing the back where the serial number is but has anyone else done this?

 

as for finishing I would use a mill, make or buy a mandrel that will accept a 4 or 5 inch cup wheel and lightly cut across the face until 80% of the pitting is gone and it should leave a similar factory ground appearance, its something I would try on a piece of flat bar first just to se if the feed marls and texture is what you want, the cup wheel will run out of true at first but will dress itself pretty quick

[MrBill]

I have a Savage 28 that was bought with my C&R license. It was welded and after i got the weapon I did a FOIA search with ATF and found out it was amnesty registered in November 1968. All it states on paperwork is the serial number and "live gun" . Possibly your Thompson stumbled into the registry the same way?

[jim c 351]

DV,

A REWAT and a Reweld are not the same.

A REWAT is made from a DEWAT.

A DEWAT is a deactivated war trophy that was registered on an ATF form 5 prior to 1968. No tax was paid at the time and they are considered a C&R.

To make the gun live it is necessary to pay a $200.00 tax and file a ATF form 1. This gun is still considered a C&R. Some of these guns just had a plug in the barrel and others were more extensively deactivated.

 

A reweld is a gun that was destroyed by sawing or torching in pieces . When the pieces were welded back together it was considered as remanufactured and this gun is not a C&R and would not transfer on a C&R license.

 

As far as your second question I will leave that to others to speculate on.

Jim C

[mnshooter]

Second, since the nose of the receiver and the channels for the blish lock are welded and a mess, would it be legal to cut off the receiver section behind the ejection port and weld on a new section. Say, a section from a Philly receiver? That would appear to be an easier fix. Then just use a mill to grind off the majority of the rust pitting and then refinish the entire receiver. Is this legal? And would it be a good idea for a repair?

 

You would need about 1.70" behind the magazine well; that should not get you into the side markings.

Yes, that would be a preferable repair, as the entire locking area would have full integrity.

Still might eventually crack the weld, as Dan mentioned.

As far as what would be legal: see post #26 and 27

Edited March 31, 2015 by mnshooter

[reconbob]

Back in the day when guns were amnesty registered, most people that did so just filled out the form

and put the manufacturer Auto-Ordnance since that's what the receiver says. There was no checking

of the gun to see if it was original un-cut or welded, etc. The papers I have seen for these welded guns

- I get a copy when the people send them for work - all have Auto-Ordnance as the manufacturer.

So you are lucky its on the registry as a C&R. If you want to try to change or correct that you will

just be opening a can of worms...

 

Bob

[Paladin601]

It should not crack if welded properly, and stress relieved after welding

[Dolphinvet]

DV,

A REWAT and a Reweld are not the same.

A REWAT is made from a DEWAT.

A DEWAT is a deactivated war trophy that was registered on an ATF form 5 prior to 1968. No tax was paid at the time and they are considered a C&R.

To make the gun live it is necessary to pay a $200.00 tax and file a ATF form 1. This gun is still considered a C&R. Some of these guns just had a plug in the barrel and others were more extensively deactivated.

 

A reweld is a gun that was destroyed by sawing or torching in pieces . When the pieces were welded back together it was considered as remanufactured and this gun is not a C&R and would not transfer on a C&R license.

 

As far as your second question I will leave that to others to speculate on.

Jim C

Jim I understand the differences, and probably I wasn't clear with my questions in regard to the REWAT. In reality, I don't know if this was a REWAT, or what it started life as other than an Auto Ordnance gun. The one person who could probably tell me was the owner and as he's dead and I purchased it from his widow I rather doubt she knows all about its origin. I could do a FOIA research but really it's not that big a deal. To me, it appears that the gun was torch cut behind the ejection port at the level of the blish lock, and this is a pain in the ass area to fix properly as I understand. I'm not a machinist nor do I try to be, just going on the word of others. But if this was a reweld, then ATF let it slide (I rather doubt they would do that). I think it's probably a REWAT'd gun, since supervisors did some research on it I'm told by my examiner before they gave their stamp of approval.

 

Bob, do you think it would be ok if I have the forward third of the receiver replaced with a Philly receiver? With my wife it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission but with ATF not so much. I don't want to get into hot water with the feds, but I do want a properly repaired/restored gun. If the gun has the forward third of the receiver replaced and all my stamps, etc, are still intact, it would seem to be a simple matter once it's welded to shave a few thousands of an inch off the receiver top and sides to eliminate the majority of the pitting and then refinish the receiver. I understand I stand the chance in the future for cracks in the area of the weld but this would be a small price to pay in my opinion. I've purchased a bunch of good parts for it and have less then ten thousand total in the gun at this point. A couple grand more in repair work wouldn't hurt my feelings. I just am curious if all this would be legal, and I'm betting your answer would have to do with what an examiner would say, which could vary from examiner to examiner.

 

Thanks for the advice,

 

Jim B (Dolphinvet)

[deerslayer]

Looking again at the picture it really appears like it was only a partial cut on parts of the right side. All the rest that is not repaired would still have lots of strength and original metal integrity. I would never suggest cutting the front section off just to weld something back on. Removing the existing finish might give you a better look.

[The Lone Ranger]

You might want to ask about replacing a substantial portion of receiver outside an internet forum. At some point it has to become building. The people with receiver chunks want it to be "destroyed" and the people wanting to replace the same portion of their receiver will want it to not be "destroyed". You won't get a verbal, only writing. People hear what they want and twist the verbal for better or worse. Draw a picture, send it in, and ask.

[bug]

From what I can see in the pictures your gun is a rewat. The deactivation was heavy handed as far as welding goes. Instead of tacking the plugged barrel to the receiver, a deep weld was used. The same for the lower to upper weld which I'm sure destroyed your lock area. The rewat was functional but not too pretty. If I were you, I'd have the gun evaluated by a PK or Andrewsky type and see if the areas can be repaired. If they can't be repaired then go to the method offered by Lone Ranger.

[TD.]

If it were mine I would contact PK. and ask him what he believes is the best course of action. He may be able to tell you via a series of good high quality pictures sent to him on disk. Or he may need to do an in-person inspection to ascertain the extent of the damage and repair costs. I agree with deerslayer that cutting off and replacing the front of the receiver is a pretty radical move. If this is the what needs to be done, listen to The Lone Ranger, above. Given today's prices, waiting a few years for PK's magic would be my first choice, especially if limited firing of the Thompson while waiting would not do any more harm. A repair bill from Diamond K will speak loudly when you or your estate is ready to sell this piece of history.

[Dolphinvet]

From what I can see in the pictures your gun is a rewat. The deactivation was heavy handed as far as welding goes. Instead of tacking the plugged barrel to the receiver, a deep weld was used. The same for the lower to upper weld which I'm sure destroyed your lock area. The rewat was functional but not too pretty. If I were you, I'd have the gun evaluated by a PK or Andrewsky type and see if the areas can be repaired. If they can't be repaired then go to the method offered by Lone Ranger.

I believe you are correct. I've been looking at this thing with my head loops on and it was only torched on the right side of the receiver, although the nose portion appears to have it the top as well. It's an ugly although functional repair. I'm taking it to my Class III repair guy on Thursday for him to look at. He does first rate work and may be able to work with the receiver as is. Deerslayer has a great point in not messing with the receiver in the way I was considering. Additionally, I think the Lone Ranger is correct, if I want to get a legal opinion I'm going to have to refer pictures to NFA and see what they say, in writing, before I proceed.

[Paladin601]

fill the large pitting with epoxy, the small pits with Durafill then Duracoat the Receiver and shoot the crap out of it and enjoy it

[jim c 351]

DV,

Suggest you make sure your gunsmith has experience with Blish locking slots. Very few do. That's why bug made the suggestions listed above.

Just as some puppy problems are best dealt with by older ,more experienced Vet, than one with no familiarity with the problem.

Jim C

Edited April 1, 2015 by jim c 351

[MARK2112]

as far as the barrel timing goes cant you just repin the front sight in its new clocked position? Why would you have to weld the face of the receiver. Could you bob redo all the engravings' would think a 2" face mill in the Bridgeport would work as good as a Blanchard grinder, could you legally weld on a new philly ord front half ,that would eliminate all the welded re machining issues

Edited April 1, 2015 by MARK2112

[21 smoker]

The old NFA montra `one out...one in`....just sayin`