Semi-auto Thompson

[javlin]

Indeed an interesting thread but WTH are you saying"And as for adding the short barrel, the proverbial "in your dreams" applies as the DoJ will never permit a private citizen who is not in the business of suppling the movie industry with weapons, to fit one of these to a working receiver "I mean whats an SBR for.Now if you live in Kali and that applies to you then I then can understand your point.Now that this has come up and to go a slightly different tangent if I was to SBR my WH is it forever an SBR?I ask because I do have a parts gun and that maybe I should hold off on the WH SBR deal till maybe these receivers come out in a year or two. Kevin

[762x51]

Bob,

 

Yes, we do have some target pricing but I don't want to get into a discussion of that at the moment.

I'll post prices when we get our classification letter back from the ATF.

I will say that our target will probably be "pleasing" to the majority of those reading this.

 

Kevin,

 

I feel sure he was referring to the CA DOJ and not the US DOJ.

 

Regards,

Orin

[rongee]

I feel sure he was referring to the CA DOJ and not the US DOJ

 

Correct.

 

[Blanksguy]

As I read the new threads on the Board about the semi-Thompsons....and different designs......

 

What is the final status of the semi-Thompson designs here (?).....and which design will the manufacturer be going with (?).

 

Regards, RichardS in MI.

[Ludwig]

Folks,

 

as I'm new in this forum, allow me to introduce myself.

 

I'm German, living in Germany, Bavaria, near Munich. My forums name is also my first name.

 

My reason to be here in this forum, I love guns. Among others I recently own a Thompson 1928A1, with 10rnd stick magazine (original 20rnds, limited to 10rnds according our laws) and an original 50rnd drum. Original so far for the gun but the modifications into semi-auto. The laws here in Germany make it nearly impossible to own full autos. Even I know at least one exemption. A friend owns a German machine gun in full-auto, which btw. gives him many problems. But that's a different story.

 

I noticed this discussion about semi-auto mods for the 1928, so I thought the abouts of my gun could be interesting for you.

Modifications of these Thomsons is done by LDT, that's Luxembourg Defence Technology, www.luxdeftec.lu

Origin should be, as far I was told, lend/lease support deliveries to Russia in WWII.

 

Can't tell how modifications were done, from outside only the missing fire select switch is to notice, replaced with a bolt. Otherwise I see no change in functions, still firing from OBP and it's possible to disassemble it. Currently I have no drawings for the Thompson, so can't tell more. According our laws, modifications have to be permanent, seems not much different to the situation in the US. Can make pictures and post it, if appreciated.

 

Shooting on the range was fun btw.

 

I'd also be interested in the history of my gun, hopefully ATII will tell me more, should have this book in a few days, was happy to get one from IMA-USA, as on this sites order page I was told out of stock.

 

Serial number of my Thompson is NO.S- 4375xx, also I see a weak marking R.L.E on the same side as the serial number, the last letter could also be different letter than "E". Other side of the barrels says AUTO-ORDNANCE CORPORATION BRIDGEPORT CONNECTICUT U.S.A.

Finish looks original, barrel is vented, rear sigh is Lyman "L" type, which I heard was used for war productions, maybe also because of the lend/lease purpose.

Appreciate your feedback.

 

Besides, have a Happy New Year !

 

Ludwig

[Ludwig]

After reading through this whole tread a few times, I'd like to add my 0.05

 

There are basically thee parties involved, Tim Polston, the company Rapid Fire and Orin, who claims to be only hired from Rapid Fire.

 

Tim has provided a design, which went trough ATF.

Rapid Fire was approached from Tim as potential manufacturer

Orin was given the job to check feasibility/economy of Tims design.

 

ATF seems to be about the same like BKA here.

 

It does not work to let BKA approve a prototype and then change the design, which makes the approval void. The same applies to ATF. So my first question would be, why Orin began modifications like described here:

 

Quote Orin: "After this had been finished I started redesigning the fire control group components to not only use as many original parts as I could but also make the remaining parts not only functional but also “production friendlyâ€. Our redesign modified fewer parts keeping the weapon as close to original as we could."

 

This does look in no way like only rounding edges, this looks like modifying the design, regardless what Orin told later. This was not Orin's job (at least to judge from his words), and such was completely out of any question because of ATF.

A sincere manufacturer would have checked the design and said: " We can't economically build this based on your design, so thanks, sorry, bye". It would not start at the same time an own design.

 

A second point are the patents pending. If parts are only slightly modified in regards of the patent specification, then the patent doesn't apply, i.e. has to be ruled out costly in courts, which has to be also afforded from the parties Tim and Rapid Fire. Which may lead to the point, that defending ones right in courts may cost more, than the potential profit is, possibly only giving a 50/50 chance to win.

 

Third, to have insight in the design of Tim, who has successfully put his design through ATF's approval process is alone very valuable. Orin/Rapid Fire tried to build up it's own design on that, as stated from Orin in his first post. This would make Tim's patents and efforts worthless, so I can well understand his anger.

I would be angry too. Imho this smells fishy.

 

But at least it fits pretty well into the history of the Thompson Submachine Gun, folks who have read it, know what I'm talking about.

 

As said, only my 0.05, hope nobody is offended, as I'm pretty new to this forum. If there is somebody who rightfully deserve the blame, well, I explicit do not apologize to them.

[762x51]

Gentlemen,

 

I have tried to be as open and forthright when describing the relationship between myself, Rapid Fire and Mr. Polston but it would appear that there is a lot of misunderstandings.

 

When we received Polston's prototype we found that the conversion had apparently gone through a number of changes along the way to to it's becoming a successful design. Parts had obviously been modified and re-modified several times with the final parts having been welded, filed, and in some cases filled in with JB weld and then reshaped. Yes, they performed their intended functions but there was no way that we were going to manufacture it using the same techniques used by Mr. Polston. We would have simply machined / modified the original parts to match the dimensions of the prototype part. I simply made drawings showing how the originals were to be machined / modified. We had started making the modified receiver when Mr. Polston decided to withdraw from the project.

 

What needs to be understood here is that Polston's basic design was not going to be changed. The component parts still performed the same function, they were simply going to be produced by production machining methods and not by welding bits of metal here and there and reshaping them with files and grinders. If I were to post photos of the Polston conversion parts then I think you would better understand what I am saying but doing so would be a disservice to Mr. Polston so I will not.

 

Once I reveal our new design that is being submitted to ATF then this will all become a moot point because you will see that not one of Polston's design features is being incorporated in my design. What you will see in my design is a little Glock, Browning, and other proven design elements being used in a unique fashion to produce a new product.

 

Regards,

Orin

 

[Ludwig]

Orin,

 

let me say your argumentation changed over the length of this thread. I don't believe there is any misunderstanding, other if you have provided it yourself. I would not have made this post, if I would not have thought very well over it. As said, I've read through it several times, and I always came to the same conclusion. Tim had to expect only the following from Rapid Fire: (1) Yes, we can do it for $$$ bucks, (2) No, we can't do it this way, nothing else.

 

For sure such like a telephone was available, simply give the guy a call before using and redesigning his work. He had not to expect and he had not to accept his design being altered, potentially putting him into an inferior position, it was simply a breach of confidence.

 

Based on your first post it's not to understand any different, and should be my English not good enough, just tell me where I'm wrong, I'm always ready to learn. Should be the story now completely different, well, why you started then to tell it like you did ?

 

But even if you leave out all the words, alone the point that you and Rapid Fire started obviously thinking about a semi-auto kit and also started to develop with your help a different design, only at the same time Tim offered them something working and approved by ATF, gives simply a bad taste.

 

And also this point stays valid: to know in advance what ATF is willing to accept, as seen from Tim's design, is highly valuable, the benefit is obvious.

In stock business such what happens here would be called insider trade.

 

I'm sure, if you develop a working kit, if this kit is affordable and and if you're the only one offering it, you'll have your business and you'll get your profit.

But what's wrong now, becomes not right then. Such is business, isn't it ?

 

I have no personal feelings for or against involved parties, also none for or against you, only I don't like this kind of fair practices.

 

Ludwig

 

Gentlemen,

 

I have tried to be as open and forthright when describing the relationship between myself, Rapid Fire and Mr. Polston but it would appear that there is a lot of misunderstandings.

 

When we received Polston's prototype we found that the conversion had apparently gone through a number of changes along the way to to it's becoming a successful design. Parts had obviously been modified and re-modified several times with the final parts having been welded, filed, and in some cases filled in with JB weld and then reshaped. Yes, they performed their intended functions but there was no way that we were going to manufacture it using the same techniques used by Mr. Polston. We would have simply machined / modified the original parts to match the dimensions of the prototype part. I simply made drawings showing how the originals were to be machined / modified. We had started making the modified receiver when Mr. Polston decided to withdraw from the project.

 

What needs to be understood here is that Polston's basic design was not going to be changed. The component parts still performed the same function, they were simply going to be produced by production machining methods and not by welding bits of metal here and there and reshaping them with files and grinders. If I were to post photos of the Polston conversion parts then I think you would better understand what I am saying but doing so would be a disservice to Mr. Polston so I will not.

 

Once I reveal our new design that is being submitted to ATF then this will all become a moot point because you will see that not one of Polston's design features is being incorporated in my design. What you will see in my design is a little Glock, Browning, and other proven design elements being used in a unique fashion to produce a new product.

 

Regards,

Orin

 

[Ludwig]

Phil,

 

thanks for the welcome, I'm sure I'll enjoy this forum and if possible, I will give back.

 

I do understand the interest in semi-autos, this would make these pretty guns available to many more shooters and this way it would preserve them. Also shooters in states with highly restrictive laws for class III weapons would appreciate to own them. This gun makes lots of fun also in semi-auto, only the trigger finger becomes tired pretty fast

 

Also I do understand, what's good for BKA doesn't has to be good for ATF, but my offer is still valid to provide as much info as possible. Please notice, that Luxembourg Defence Technology does not offer these guns on their website, but I'm sure they would share some info.

 

Btw., I do not work and I have no relations with them, other to have bought one of their guns and have LDT stamped in it.

 

Ludwig

 

Ludwig,

 

Welcome to our group. I'm sure you will find a lot of interesting things here. All the questions you raised about the new semiauto design have been in the minds of various members of this board, I guess. I see that Orin has already responded.

 

I guess we have to wait and see what happens next.

 

...

 

[762x51]

Ludwig,

 

First off let me also extend a welcome to you to the board and I hope to see more postings from you in the future.

 

Regarding the subject at hand - I don't think I have "changed" my story as you have suggested in your posting.

What I have done is to try to add more clarification as this thread has grown and dispel rumors.

 

Maybe you have missed some of the salient points so let me try to present them in outline form and date order:

1) Mr. Polston provided his prototype to Rapid Fire and asked that they produce weapons to his design.

2) Rapid Fire engaged me to produce drawings of this design; drawings of parts that could be produced using normal manufacturing processes.

The basic design wasn't to be changed only cleaned up for manufacturing.

2A) I started working on rough sketches of an alternative design sometime during this phase. These were very rough and at the time just a "fun" diversion for me from the active project.

3) The drawings were completed and the first prototype parts (Polston design) were being started on when Mr. Polston withdrew from the project. Mr. Polston did not offer to compensate me or Rapid Fire for the time and effort that had been expended nor was he asked to make compensation.

4) The alternative design was then looked at again, this time in a more serious manor. After some discussion it was decided to proceed with this design because it was felt that it would result in a product that would be worthy of commercial sales.

5) This alternative design has been completed and component parts are being produced to build the first prototypes.

 

Now, regarding the ATF submission. You may or may not be aware of the process but a manufacturer does not have to submit a design to the ATF for classification. Most, if not all, of the major manufacturers don't submit their designs because it's an unnecessary step and if you have been diligent then there isn't really any reason to. Building conversions that use parts that were originally used in a full auto weapon is a gray area and these designs are normally submitted for classification (ATF does not "approve" anything) to protect both the manufacturer and ultimately their customers. These classification letters have become of less value recently because ATF has, for no apparent reason, changed classifications of the same device at a later date. This has caused some manufacturers, such as Akins, great monetary harm.

 

A simple example of one of their reversals regards the semi-automatic MG42. I wrote the ATF a year ago and asked a simple question: Was a semi-automatic MG42 classified a "firearm" or a "rifle"? Their reply was that it was a "firearm" as defined in the US Code. This made sense because I would have never thought that anyone in their right mind would classify a 25.5 pound (11.6 kg) weapon which was designed to be fired from a bipod or tripod anything but a "firearm". One month later I received a letter from ATF reclassifying the semi-automatic MG42 a rifle. Why? Because it has a buttstock and for no other reason. Logic would indicate that a very small portion of the population could shoulder fire this weapon but ATF decided it was a rifle simply because it has a buttstock. Go figure.....

 

Regards,

Orin

 

 

 

 

[sprat]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but something is wrong with the timing of this reply. I read these post and have been following this thread with great vigor as with other members since it started.

I think it has been beaten to death, with well known contributors having already made their points. then out of left field comes this response, from all places germany????

 

these recent posts from germany have left me to wonder about their validity, maybe I am wrong !!

what the writer is saying about german law is correct, semi-auto designs from full auto's is permitted in some euro nations, not all. I find it interesting that a european would be concerned or know ATF classification. again I could be wrong!!

 

Orin: I give you alot of credit, you are certainly a stand up guy

 

Mr Polston: I hope you can get a working model together through another manufacturer

 

we should stop fighting with each other, the common enemy is the democratic party and we certainly don't need any negative comments from across the pond

 

sprat

[reconbob]

Greetings Ludwig, and welcome to the board. It is interesting to hear about

your semi-auto Thompson and the gun laws in Germany. One BIG difference

between yours (and other) machine gun laws is that in your country (based on

your comments) a machine gun can legally be converted to a semi-auto by

permanently modifying the original receiver and associated mechanism.

Here in the USA it is illegal to own an original machine gun receiver, even

if it has been modified as you describe. Our ATF considers a machine gun

receiver to be a machine gun regardless of permanent modification. Your

Thompson would never be legal in this country and could never be imported.

The exception to this is if the gun was registered in this country no later than

1968. (Yes, I know someone will mention some loophole or exception...) That

is why the guns are so expensive in this country - a fixed number of own-able

guns being sought after by an increasing number of collectors and enthusiasts.

A good example of how strictly they enforce this - some years back a large

quantity of M-14 rifles became available. An enterprising individual bought

a quantity of them and ground off the lug on the receiver which held the

selector parts so that they were identical with legal-to-own semi-auto M1A's.

Without the lug there is really no way to make them selective fire and the

plan was to import and sell them to collectors and shooters in the US, who

would of course, lined up to buy them. BUT no deal. The ATF ruled (as they

always do) that since the guns were originally manufactured as machine guns

that they were still machine guns under US law, even though they were

mechanically identical to legal M1A's.

Other countries are not so strict - you have described how you can have

a machine gun converted to a semi. Great Britain allows uncut but welded

shut machine guns as "De-acts" and Canada allowed (maybe they still do?)

original machine guns to be converted to semis by welding selectors, etc.

Anyway, welcome to the board and I look forward to you becoming one

of the "usual suspects"...

 

ORIN - Sounds like you are making progress on your design. Based on your

comments would it be reasonable to state that your envisioned design may look like a

Thompson, but that mechanically it is completely different on the inside? I was

able to examine the Polston prototype at the SAR show (maybe even the same gun

you had in your posession?) and the Polston design uses just about all of the

original parts - bolt, bronze lock, actuator, trigger, pivot plate, rocker pivot,

safety, trigger frame, etc. and of course most, if not all of these parts are modified,

but the gun is designed and based on original parts which was Mr. Polstons

design goal all along.

You descibe your design using words like "Glock", "Browning", and "unique". This

doesn't sound much like a Thompson. If you are making a semi-automatic carbine

with the outward appearance of a Thompson but with a completely different mechanism

using completely different parts from a Thompson, I would expect that such a rifle

would fall into the catagory of the Thompson-like Fox Carbine, or the Thompson-like

Commado Carbines of yesteryear. These rifles, while perfectly adequate mechanically

never really caught on even though they tried to piggyback on the Thompson

mystique. Of course, your future customers will make the call, but somewhere

along the line if the design drifts too far it will be thought of not as a Thompson, but

as a .45 cal. Carbine, and thats two completely different markets.

 

Bob

 

 

[Ludwig]

Orin,

 

thanks for that, I'll try my best.

 

I do understand in what order things happened, and as I do 3D CAD design in my job, I am also aware, that you and Rapid Fire took great efforts into final design at a time Tim Polston only wanted to know, if Rapid Fire is willing to build it and at what costs. Hammering a real thing into the computer is first and of all lots of work, but not necessary for evaluating function and costs, as more if one has a real prototype handy.

 

It is on one hand an advantage, as everything would be ready as soon the client says, lets go, only put the G-code into the mill and here we go. But disadvantage is, if the client says no, lots of work is lost. Basically, if a client asks me for quote and feasibility, I would not finish most of the work without having the client agreed. That makes absolutely no sense.

 

To consider the worst case, without wanting to offend you, it was possible that Rapid Fire had the intention to make it work, with or without Tim. That could be one explanation.

 

The sentence in your first post:

 

"After this had been finished I started redesigning the fire control group components to not only use as many original parts as I could but also make the remaining parts not only functional but also “production friendlyâ€."

 

could be understood exactly as to bypass Tim's pending patents. Notice that you talk about redesigning parts to keep more original parts, maybe Tim's approach of replacing original parts was explicitly done to make ATF happy. So your redesign without getting in close contact with your client was not appropriate and was capable of damaging Tim's position.

 

To give you/Rapid Fire the benefit of the doubt, I believe the following scenario happened:

 

Rapid Fire believed there will be business anyway with Tim, this way highly overestimating the situation, thinking they have already pocketed the deal. It would give an explanation, why so much effort was put in it in advance from you. It could have been also the try to make Tim find everything ready and overwhelm him this way. Because of the previously insufficient communication and confronted with these "modifications" Tim reacted exactly as I would react if somebody possibly abuses my trust. I would draw back from such a business partner.

 

But already lots of work was done till this moment, and Rapid Fire didn't wanted to write off this potential business, so this was the start of your own design. How much "own" design there's in, I can't judge, that has to be judged from others.

 

If I understand the function of ATF right, then their agreement is necessary because of liability reasons. You can of course sell a parts kit and promise the client, it's completely legal. If your client builds then out of Thompson parts and your kit a semi-auto gun and ATF decides after it is no legal semi-auto, instead still a class III weapon, then this client has an illegal weapon, potentially giving him some publicly paid time-out. So ATF's blessing is in fact highly desirable and essential for doing business. At least that's my understanding, correct me, if I'm wrong. I do understand ATF's rules may be not very understandable, but that doesn't change anything of the previously said.

 

Here in Germany it's similar but to the point that in the registration process we have now to state before, what weapon we want to buy. So without agreement of BKA (Bundeskriminalamt) you get here already stuck in the middle of this registration process.

 

All this said, it doesn't change my opinion that here is done pretty ugly business, reminds me very much of the Chinese, they have similar behavior.

 

Ludwig

 

Ludwig,

 

First off let me also extend a welcome to you to the board and I hope to see more postings from you in the future.

 

Regarding the subject at hand - I don't think I have "changed" my story as you have suggested in your posting.

What I have done is to try to add more clarification as this thread has grown and dispel rumors.

 

Maybe you have missed some of the salient points so let me try to present them in outline form and date order:

1) Mr. Polston provided his prototype to Rapid Fire and asked that they produce weapons to his design.

2) Rapid Fire engaged me to produce drawings of this design; drawings of parts that could be produced using normal manufacturing processes.

The basic design wasn't to be changed only cleaned up for manufacturing.

2A) I started working on rough sketches of an alternative design sometime during this phase. These were very rough and at the time just a "fun" diversion for me from the active project.

3) The drawings were completed and the first prototype parts (Polston design) were being started on when Mr. Polston withdrew from the project. Mr. Polston did not offer to compensate me or Rapid Fire for the time and effort that had been expended nor was he asked to make compensation.

4) The alternative design was then looked at again, this time in a more serious manor. After some discussion it was decided to proceed with this design because it was felt that it would result in a product that would be worthy of commercial sales.

5) This alternative design has been completed and component parts are being produced to build the first prototypes.

 

Now, regarding the ATF submission. You may or may not be aware of the process but a manufacturer does not have to submit a design to the ATF for classification. Most, if not all, of the major manufacturers don't submit their designs because it's an unnecessary step and if you have been diligent then there isn't really any reason to. Building conversions that use parts that were originally used in a full auto weapon is a gray area and these designs are normally submitted for classification (ATF does not "approve" anything) to protect both the manufacturer and ultimately their customers. These classification letters have become of less value recently because ATF has, for no apparent reason, changed classifications of the same device at a later date. This has caused some manufacturers, such as Akins, great monetary harm.

 

A simple example of one of their reversals regards the semi-automatic MG42. I wrote the ATF a year ago and asked a simple question: Was a semi-automatic MG42 classified a "firearm" or a "rifle"? Their reply was that it was a "firearm" as defined in the US Code. This made sense because I would have never thought that anyone in their right mind would classify a 25.5 pound (11.6 kg) weapon which was designed to be fired from a bipod or tripod anything but a "firearm". One month later I received a letter from ATF reclassifying the semi-automatic MG42 a rifle. Why? Because it has a buttstock and for no other reason. Logic would indicate that a very small portion of the population could shoulder fire this weapon but ATF decided it was a rifle simply because it has a buttstock. Go figure.....

 

Regards,

Orin

 

[Ludwig]

Sprat,

 

the response came late, because for me it was not late, for me it was something new. It's not that I have to be concerned about ATF classification, my first post was only a notice, that similar exists in Germany. If considered that modification of the Thompson 1928A1 satisfies German law, which is highly restrictive, it possibly is able to satisfy ATF. That's why I gave the hint with LDT, independent what results out of Tim, Orin and Rapid Fire.

My hint said: LDT did build a wheel, try if you can use it for your benefit. To give this hint was my first intention, only later I went through this thread again and started to question some statements.

 

If you wish me to validate my words, I will do, just name what you want to know.

 

Ludwig

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, but something is wrong with the timing of this reply. I read these post and have been following this thread with great vigor as with other members since it started.

I think it has been beaten to death, with well known contributors having already made their points. then out of left field comes this response, from all places germany????

 

these recent posts from germany have left me to wonder about their validity, maybe I am wrong !!

what the writer is saying about german law is correct, semi-auto designs from full auto's is permitted in some euro nations, not all. I find it interesting that a european would be concerned or know ATF classification. again I could be wrong!!

 

Orin: I give you alot of credit, you are certainly a stand up guy

 

Mr Polston: I hope you can get a working model together through another manufacturer

 

we should stop fighting with each other, the common enemy is the democratic party and we certainly don't need any negative comments from across the pond

 

sprat

 

[Ludwig]

Greetings Bob,

 

thanks also. This is very interesting to know, frankly I was already aware that the machine gun status is "inherited", so this way a semi-auto can be converted into a full-auto, but held then only by an licensed class III dealer, and also can only be sold between class III dealers, not possible sold to "common" people, even if normally allowed class III weapons. Did not think this runs the other way also, but of course it's understandable, that's the reason kits have to have different receivers, I understand now. How different ? The amount of interior difference of the receiver is the trick to make ATF happy ? This would result in the LDT approach will sadly not work for the US, other than ATF would consider remake/modifying from LDT as new manufacturing, which I doubt after hearing your words. I hoped it could work and be an alternative for you. But if I understood right, what I've read recently, it looks like a Thompson like mine could be legally owned in the US by an class III dealer for evaluating purposes...

I have a 3 inch cannon from 1937 standing in front of our house, (demilled, welded), so I guess I'm already "usual suspect"

 

Ludwig

 

Greetings Ludwig, and welcome to the board. It is interesting to hear about

your semi-auto Thompson and the gun laws in Germany. One BIG difference

between yours (and other) machine gun laws is that in your country (based on

your comments) a machine gun can legally be converted to a semi-auto by

permanently modifying the original receiver and associated mechanism.

Here in the USA it is illegal to own an original machine gun receiver, even

if it has been modified as you describe. Our ATF considers a machine gun

receiver to be a machine gun regardless of permanent modification. Your

Thompson would never be legal in this country and could never be imported.

The exception to this is if the gun was registered in this country no later than

1968. (Yes, I know someone will mention some loophole or exception...) That

is why the guns are so expensive in this country - a fixed number of own-able

guns being sought after by an increasing number of collectors and enthusiasts.

A good example of how strictly they enforce this - some years back a large

quantity of M-14 rifles became available. An enterprising individual bought

a quantity of them and ground off the lug on the receiver which held the

selector parts so that they were identical with legal-to-own semi-auto M1A's.

Without the lug there is really no way to make them selective fire and the

plan was to import and sell them to collectors and shooters in the US, who

would of course, lined up to buy them. BUT no deal. The ATF ruled (as they

always do) that since the guns were originally manufactured as machine guns

that they were still machine guns under US law, even though they were

mechanically identical to legal M1A's.

Other countries are not so strict - you have described how you can have

a machine gun converted to a semi. Great Britain allows uncut but welded

shut machine guns as "De-acts" and Canada allowed (maybe they still do?)

original machine guns to be converted to semis by welding selectors, etc.

Anyway, welcome to the board and I look forward to you becoming one

of the "usual suspects"...

...

...

Bob

 

[762x51]

Hi Bob,

 

Boy do I wish I could post photos or renderings at this time but for obvious reasons I cannot. I will say that your assumption that my design doesn't use the original parts is far off the mark. You've seen Polston's design so you are in a position to know the differences between the following list and his:

 

Frame:

Original Frame - Modified

Original Trigger - Unmodified

Original Disconnect - Unmodified

Original Rocker - Modified

Original Rocker Pivot - Modified

Original Sear Lever - Modified

Original Sear - Modified

Original Pivot Plate - Unmodified

Original Trip - Modified

Original Safety - Unmodified

Original Magazine Latch and Spring - Unmodified

Original Springs for Trigger, Disconnect, Sear Lever, and Sear - Unmodified

New parts - Four (4)

Original Frame parts unused - None

 

Bolt:

Original Bolt Body - Modified

Original Hammer - Modified

Original Firing Pin - Unmodified

Original Extractor - Unmodified

Original Blish Lock - Modified

New Parts - Five (5)

Original Bolt parts unused - None

 

Actuator:

Original Actuator Body - Modified

New Parts - Two(2)

 

Receiver: New manufacture modified from original for semi-auto

 

Some of the modifications are very minor while others more complex but all of them can be performed on a bench top mill.

Bob, here is a trick question -

Based on the above list and what you have seen, which design makes use of ALL of the original parts?

 

Ludwig,

 

I have tried to answer your concerns but it appears that I have failed and am unable to so I'll stop trying.

As "Sprat" pointed out, it's interesting that a European would take the time to make comments regarding this issue.

 

Regards,

Orin

 

 

 

 

 

 

[reconbob]

Hi Orin - Thanks for posting the list. I honestly cannot remember every part of Polstons

gun, but it sure seems like the two of you have included many original parts in the design.

I think this is good, because so many of us on this board would prefer a "Thompson" to

a ".45 Cal. Carbine". Its obvious there is quite a market out there - just look at the number

of hits on this thread. It will be interesting to see how you have addressed the various

design challenges inherent in making a semi-auto version of a submachine gun and how

your design will differ from Polstons. Reminds me of Colt and S&W. Anyway, competition

is good for the marketplace (at least in my opinion). No competition has left us with the

West Hurley and now Kahr guns...enough said...although I think Kahr is feeling the heat

and trying to get out ahead of what they see as on-coming competition by offering

enhancements to their guns such as ball knob cocking handles and detachable buttstocks,

but they have a long way to go.

I'll add one point on Polstons gun - yes, his prototype is not a machined work-of-art,

but he did it the old fashioned way - he just made the gun - without CAD, computers,

engineers, and CNC.

Reminds me of a gun designer named Browning who also started that way...if/when it

is converted from prototype into production it seems to me it has the potential to be

a fine gun. Time will tell.

You sound like you are doing it the modern way - CAD drawings, completely rendering

the gun on paper/computer and providing machinists with drawings from which to make

parts, and I'm sure also some CAM to turn drawings directly into code to machine the

parts.

Kind of interesting - he ends up with a gun first, but no drawings or code. You end up

with drawings and code first, but no gun.

Put up some photos when you can.

 

Bob

 

 

 

[762x51]

Hi Bob,

 

From the list you'll see that there is not one original part that wasn't reused in my design and I think that will appeal to the "purist" when they make their selection. Having seen Mr. Polston's I also think he did a remarkable job not using anything but his God given talents and some tools. My hat's off to him for his accomplishment.

 

Yes, I do use a 3-D CAD/CAM program which is a wonderful tool and I think it's really amazing that folks like Browning and Thompson perfected their designs as quickly as they did. Just think of Gen. Thompson and Mr. O.V. Payne - Look how quickly their prototype developed into the 1921 design which with just a few improvements became the Model 1928.

 

Regards,

Orin

[reconbob]

Orin - what CAM software do you use? We use Gibbs here, and draw mostly in Autocad.

For those of you who may be wondering CAM = Computer Assisted Machining. You can

import the data from your drawing into the CAM system, and the software enables you

to create a program to machine the part. You can also watch a 3D rendition of the part

being machined - like watching a cartoon of the workpiece and the cutter, and "see" the

part being machined to pickup mistakes wthout having to actually machine the part. You

can define the tools, the diameter, flute length, etc. You can zoom in and view the process

almost like you're watching with a microscope.

We used our CAM system here to help generate the code for the surface contouring of

our MG-42 and Uzi receivers - we were duplicating the contours of the pressed steel by

machining from solid bar with ball endmills. It woul have taken forever to do this the old

trial-and-error way, but the CAM enables you to try something, and if its not right try

something else, and you can virtually see your part being machined. Amazing stuff.

 

Bob

[762x51]

Bob,

 

I use Alibre Expert with a 3 seat CAD license and a 2 seat CAM license.

 

I've had very good service from them and their online support is great. I don't know if Gibbs has an interactive online support feature but Alibre does. If I have a question, I can connect with one of their assistants, he can see my screen, and we can discuss my question in real time. I don't use the feature much now but it was a HUGE help when I was learning the program.

 

Programming is very much like Solid Works - so much so that I was able to be productive with Solid Works within an hour of seeing that program for the first time. After "playing" with Solid Works for a few hours I could see no real benefit to changing from Alibre. Not only was there not that much difference in program performance, Alibre was about 1/3 the cost.

 

Orin

 

 

[Ludwig]

Orin,

 

I did listen to your answers, but your arguments weren't able to change my POV. If you ask what's my business, I have none, other than to enjoy this discussion. That was worth my time, to enjoy it was my profit.

 

If any of my given info would have provided one more choice to bring a semi-auto Thompson nearer within reach of gun owners, this would have been a very positive thing, don't you think so ? Sadly, after the explanation from Bob, I have to doubt that the LDT approach works for the US too.

 

Imho Tim Polston made a mistake himself not to ask for kind of a nondisclosure agreement, before handing over a prototype. That surly would have avoided certain problems. But I don't want meddle with Tim's, yours, or Rapid Fire's business relationships any further, everything to say from my side was said, other readers will draw their own conclusions.

 

I do hope, that this results at least in a positive outcome, i.e. legally, well working, high quality and reasonable priced kits, I do not hope, what happened will block the whole progress.

But we will see, I will surly follow what happens here.

 

Ludwig

 

answered to your statements

...

...

Ludwig,

 

I have tried to answer your concerns but it appears that I have failed and am unable to so I'll stop trying.

As "Sprat" pointed out, it's interesting that a European would take the time to make comments regarding this issue.

 

Regards,

Orin

 

[762x51]

Good Morning Ludwig,

 

Think what you will but I am comfortable with my actions regarding this. A nondisclosure agreement would have resulted in the same outcome as I have not disclosed any of Mr. Polston's design elements - Therefore your point regarding nondisclosure is meaningless.

 

I still find it interesting that you show up on this board, out-of-the-blue so to speak, make a total of 8 postings all of which attack the integrity of someone that you have never met. I suspect your true agenda will surface in later postings.

 

Have a nice day,

Orin

 

 

 

[reconbob]

Hey Orin - I'm not familiar with Alibre, but if its like Solidworks, I would

assume that you can draw/render your mechanism in 3D, and work and

cycle the mechanism on the screen to check function, interference, etc.?

Gibbs does have the on-line support you mention, athough to be honest

while I maintain my license I don't use it that much. The last big project

I did was the Mark 2 BREN and I found it easier (at least for me) to break

the machining operations down into smaller pieces or subprograms which

I programmed and tested "longhand".

This reminds me of the old days. Its hard to imagine now, but back then

if you wanted to copy a drawing, someone had to literally trace it by hand.

There were no copy machines. Anyone with a WWII drawing can look in

the title block and there will be a box where the "tracer" signed off on his

work. Can you imagine - fighting WWII with millions of drawings for parts

for guns, vehicles, ships, aircraft, etc. and all copied by hand by tracers...

 

Bob

[762x51]

Hi Bob,

 

Yes, Alibre allows you to check the functioning and interference of an assembly which is a great time saver when working with a complex design.

The Thompson receiver is broken down into smaller modules as you described - For example, the 1st program simply makes a skim cut on the top of the billet while the 2nd program cuts the rough top profile, and so on.

 

I've seen some photos of WWII drafting departments with what appears to be hundreds of draftsmen working on drawings.

An amazing accomplishment given the times!!!

 

Orin

[Ludwig]

Good Morning Orin !

 

If you're looking for an agenda, it will be a long search, as I have none. I simply came here because there's little chance to discuss things about the TSMG in German forums. I like this forum, and I like the US, that's the simple reason I'm here.

 

Expected that I'll get questioned why I dare to openly give my opinion. Thought over acceptability of my post, before I made it. Reason why I did anyway, was partly I simply wasn't able to resist to tell the obvious and partly one post gave the other.

 

You will have noticed that even as I spoke out directly my thoughts, this was not without respect to other members, also I believe, I showed respect to you.

 

You made the first post, you should therefore be able to stand the reply, also don't forget freedom of speech applies here within the rules of this forum. I do not think I have violated them.

 

Wonder why you feel that concerned. As you say, you are a hired external for Rapid Fire, so basically only this company should feel concerned about my statements. But at least I had the impression, you speak in their behalf.

 

Be sure I am not mad about you Why should I ? I have what I want, I do not need any kit.

 

If you would agree, I suggest we stop our personal discussion, makes not much further sense.

 

Suggest also you will look for my agenda and I will look for how you get your kit through ATF.

 

If you succeed with a good kit, then I'm happy anyway, as this is exactly what this group waits for.

 

You too have a nice day.

 

Ludwig

 

 

Good Morning Ludwig,

 

Think what you will but I am comfortable with my actions regarding this. A nondisclosure agreement would have resulted in the same outcome as I have not disclosed any of Mr. Polston's design elements - Therefore your point regarding nondisclosure is meaningless.

 

I still find it interesting that you show up on this board, out-of-the-blue so to speak, make a total of 8 postings all of which attack the integrity of someone that you have never met. I suspect your true agenda will surface in later postings.

 

Have a nice day,

Orin