blueline541 Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Shine is still readily available here in the Deep South. You just have to know the right person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
full auto 45 Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Yeppers, I'll be glad to take all those evil unwanted parts off your hands. All but that nasty looking reciever. I can put all those parts to a very good home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted August 8, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 I took some additional pics for you guys. I wish I could send them out to you all to get some consensus on the receivers. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG018.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG017.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG016.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG015.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG014.jpg http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y67/Tman1928a1/HomemadeTSMG012.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjb1 Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 That is first rate machining, if the guy actually did it. It looks as good as original factory work - as best you can tell in a photo. Has it been considered that he may be making up the story about doing them himself and these may be "lunchbox" guns smuggled out of the plant during WWII (and before any markings or lettering was put on)? They do seem to have the "patina" of old age that some have mentioned. As to whether they may be exceptionally good welding jobs, the ATF technicians can find out for sure fairly easily. If they are welded together, you would expect to see a difference in shading in the bluing, but if for some reason that didn't show up, you can sand the finish down to bright metal with 600 grit paper and then put on a metallographic etchant (dilute acid) of the right formulation. The three zones of a fusion weld (bead, heat-affected-zone, and parent metal) will be obvious. Good surface prep and the right etchant will bring out the weld structure every time. (I have done hundreds of them.) Steel welds are easy to analyze metallographically, aluminum and exotic alloys like Inconel can be a challenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norm Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 It seems to me that if the guy just wanted an illegal MG to guard the stil, he would have just converted a semi-auto only open bolt MAC-10 like so many gangsters did in the '80s. Converting an AR-15 to an M-16 would have been much easier also, considering that there seem to be so many pre-Nov '81 "safety sears" in SGN. Getting M-16 parts (bolt, hammer, sear, etc.) would not have been hard to do. These Thompson receivers do seem very well made. Maybe he just had a thing for Thompsons, even thought they were illegal. Norm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Tman, you can see the weld on the bottom (picture) of your latest pictures, in the rear part of the blish cut. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Iannamico Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Greg I want your job!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 Hmmmm....here is the mag cutout area on a Philly O receiver...I have to admit there are a lot of similarities..... http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f392/reconbob/IMG_0280.jpg Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
giantpanda4 Posted August 8, 2007 Report Share Posted August 8, 2007 I am in agreement with Dan, I thought that was a cut/weld right behind the blish grooves. The last set of pics sure looks like it. But secondly, what would it take to turn an 80% (from anywhere) dummy into this? Bob....? If that is what he wanted to do, seems like an M1 would be a lot easier! Not all guns have the number under the gripmount. Mine does not. http://www.machinegunbooks.com/forums/invboard1_1_2/upload/html/emoticons/sad.gif Greg, we all want to know why this guy had this. Was he a Thompson nut who just decided he didn't need to get a registered gun, or just a machinist (using the thompson for still defense), or what? As mentioned, a lot of guns are easier to fabricate than the 1928! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 The feature that most 80% Thompson receivers have in common, is that the pocket for the bolt is not machined. There are varying degrees of detail, but the rear part of the 80% receiver, while contoured and finished on the outside, is solid on the inside. So if this started out as an 80% receiver (and I'm sure of it now) the guy had to machine the pocket for the bolt, and put in the 45 degree cuts for the bronze lock. If you compare original bronze lock detail to what this guy did you can see his work, while functional, is a lot rougher. I'm still curious about how the receiver looks so worn as I mentioned before with the drum slot fillets. Maybe he did it on purpose, or maybe he tried his hand at rust bluing or some other process which aged/wore the surface. A good machinist or even a good tinkerer can do a very good job of duplicating a part or mechanism. Of course, it would take way too long for production, but for one or two items it can be done - as we see here. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAS1921AC Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Tman, Thanks for posting the pictures. Have you informed your colleagues that after chopping the receivers of these guns you can get several hundred dollars each for the remaining parts sets? (Or is that not allowed?) I'm sure quite a few folks who are looking for spare parts would enjoy having some with an interesting story/history to them. And then you could possibly send the cut pieces to the "smiths" on the board for their further evaluation. reconbob, I have to agree with your assessment on the machining of a Thompson receiver. I've been doing this work for 26 years and trying to create a Tommygun receiver from scratch is something I wouldn't want to attempt. The basic lines wouldn't be so bad but the Blish lock slots, feed ramp, barrel threads and timing of the ejector threads would require some pretty tricky machining. Could it be done? Of course, but to acquire the necessary tools, and spend that much time and effort for something that would end up being a ten year prison sentence just doesn't seem worth it. Just welding them back together from pieces would be somewhat of a labor of love. I can't help thinking that this fellow wanted a couple of Tommyguns more than he wanted machineguns. After all, he had to have one with a forward pistol grip and one with the straight forearm. I wonder if an M1A1 was in his future plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deerslayer Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Bob, you have a good point, the magazine cutout has the same look as your blanks. I also notice that the bolt channel has what looks like much smaller size end mill marks than the typical WW2 receiver. Be nice to look at the extractor cut. See what it looks like. Faint looking weld marks, familiar internal lines, maybe a bit of everything put together. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
35divmp Posted August 9, 2007 Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 Has anyone tried firing these weapons yet? I just wonder if these guns are even functional. Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted August 9, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 9, 2007 We have been told that the guy has fired the guns with blanks. I don't see how as none of the barrels were restricted or modified for blanks. GP4, He is one of those kind of people that likes a challenge. He admitted that he did it just to see if he could. ReconBob, info received says that he has had these for at least a year but probably longer. TAS, we can't release any parts from weapons that we have in our custody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panaceabeachbum Posted August 11, 2007 Report Share Posted August 11, 2007 I can see the evidence of reweld in at least 3 of the pictures posted , if your going to cut them up anyway just hit them with a splash of nitric acid and the welds will show right up, a quick xray would be revealing also . Def rewelds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reconbob Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Sorry, but I don't see any evidence of welds at all. I think we can agree that the front mag well section looks EXACTLY like a 80% receiver. Also, the rear section is clearly not original which is easy to tell from the machine marks there. So the front and the rear are not pieces of an original gun - plus there are no markings. So if he was welding, he welded an original middle to a homemade front and rear? Not likely. I think what some people are identifying as welds are grind/polishing marks. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPDT Posted August 12, 2007 Report Share Posted August 12, 2007 Maybe he was using these blanks: http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/5/14314464723.jpghttp://img2.putfile.com/thumb/5/14314464745.jpg http://img2.putfile.com/thumb/5/14314464796.jpghttp://img2.putfile.com/thumb/5/14323094791.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GPDT Posted August 13, 2007 Report Share Posted August 13, 2007 There for a while I was collecting Thompson related ammo. Outside of Tracy's book (page 386), this one box is the only example of Peters 45ac blanks I've seen. Because of that, I'm not brave enough to blast through a stick to find out if it will cycle the bolt. I asked some knowledgeable Thompson folks for cycling information and value estimates but came up empty as they couldn't recall seeing them being used or for sale. Page 387 of Tracy's book has the following information: "Blank cartridges were also described in the 1922 sales catalog, as follows: The cartridge has been developed by the Remington Arms Company for the Thompson Gun. The cartridge can be fired single shots by manually retracting the bolt after each shot without blank firing disc. For automatic fire with these blank cartridges, it is necessary to use the cartridge disc." Since Remington purchased Peters in 1934, I assume the 1922 sales catalog information was referring to Remington UMC .45 Automatic Colt Smokeless blank cartridge (also shown on page 386). For what its worth: 1. The last line on the back of the Peters 45ac Blank box reads, "These cartridges are adapted to Colt Automatic Pistol, Thompson Submachine Gun, also S.& W. and Colt 1917 D.A. revolvers, with the use of clips. 2. The cartridge (see picture in my previous post) is necked down to facilitate feeding and possibly to hold more powder. Depending on the depth of the wadding, there might be 2 1/2 + times the powder of a regular .45 cartridge. 3. When I hold the Peters 45ac blank cartridge close to my ear and shake it, there is no movement of loose powder inside. This makes me think its chock full of powder and wadding. Until I turn up a second box or some loose Peters .45ac blanks, I'm not interested in sectioning or test firing a cartridge. Anybody else have a box or have seen or ever used these? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp43sniper Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 This makes me wonder about his level of interest in the Thompson. He is obviously a fan of the gangster era and could possibly be as fanatic as some of us. It's too bad he gave in to the forces of the darkside. You mean, too bad it was impossible for him to register something that is actually a legal item, it's just not legal to register. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill in VA Posted January 9, 2008 Report Share Posted January 9, 2008 You mean, too bad it was impossible for him to register something that is actually a legal item, it's just not legal to register. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Craig If it ain't registered, it ain't legal...real simple. Since it was not registered, it was not legal for him possess it. And for the record, it is legal and possible to register this MG...via a Form 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cplnorton2 Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 When he gets out of jail, can I place an order for him to make me one! lol They look pretty good to me! Sign me up! Man I sure bet the Federal Goverment is going to prosecute the hell out of him on those. Were they completely functional? Have they tried firing them? Just curious. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mp43sniper Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 You mean, too bad it was impossible for him to register something that is actually a legal item, it's just not legal to register. I'm still trying to figure that one out. Craig If it ain't registered, it ain't legal...real simple. Since it was not registered, it was not legal for him possess it. And for the record, it is legal and possible to register this MG...via a Form 10. Bill, surely you understand that was a rhetorical question. And the masses can't just whip out a form 10 and register guns, so that is not a viable option. Should we start calling a form 10 a "loophole"? It fits about as good as your choice of "possible" in my mind. No disrespect towards you, this is my opinion of the retardedness (look it up, it's gotta be a real word somewhere) of the law. I deal with .gov every day and man, they could write up a 100 page procedure for cleaning up a pile of dog s*** that would cost $75/pile and take 45 minutes. Unless you lived in CA/NJ/MD/NY/etc and then it would be 1000 pages, cost $45k, and take 6 months. AND, dogs would be illegal in most major cities. Except on earth day (as long as they wore diapers). Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrlumpp Posted January 10, 2008 Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 We have been told that the guy has fired the guns with blanks. I don't see how as none of the barrels were restricted or modified for blanks. GP4, He is one of those kind of people that likes a challenge. He admitted that he did it just to see if he could. ReconBob, info received says that he has had these for at least a year but probably longer. TAS, we can't release any parts from weapons that we have in our custody. What kind of jail time is this guy looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 When he gets out of jail, can I place an order for him to make me one! lol They look pretty good to me! Sign me up! Man I sure bet the Federal Goverment is going to prosecute the hell out of him on those. Were they completely functional? Have they tried firing them? Just curious. Steve The guns were sent to FTB and they did the test-fire on them. Both were fully functional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tman Posted January 10, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 10, 2008 What kind of jail time is this guy looking at? I don't know what kind of time he is looking at. According to the statute, he could get up to 10 years but the Federal Sentencing Guidelines would probably rate him lower. The guidelines use a formula to develop a range of punishment using a person's previous criminal history and the nature of the crime charged to come up with the range. But with possession of 4 unregistered MG's, he will be close to the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now