Cracked Receiver Welding

[Laminatrap]

I have a Auto Ordnance 1927 (semi) receiver that cracked from the charging handle slot to the side and bottom area the lower mounts. Is this area hardened? any precautions or tips on TIGing this up? Edited March 25, 2008 by Laminatrap

[Laminatrap]

http://www.members.aol.com/laminatrap/thomp.jpg

 

after it reaches top it goes straight to the cocking slot and ends

[1921 Gangsta]

http://www.members.aol.com/laminatrap/thomp.jpg

 

after it reaches top it goes straight to the cocking slot and ends

 

 

If you were to TIG that it would warp the receiver upward and to the right, you would have to use "Kentucky windage' & aim low to hit your target.

 

 

[Hawkeye_Joe]

http://www.members.aol.com/laminatrap/thomp.jpg

 

after it reaches top it goes straight to the cocking slot and ends

 

 

Holy Moly Batman!!....

[Motorcar]

Wow! I've heard of that on WH receivers but never seen a photo...yikes! Maybe PK can chime in or Bob or Dan. Perhaps it would be cheaper to put a Kahr receiver on it than attempt a fix. PK told me once that the Kahr receiver was much better on a '27 than the older WH. Let us know what you do.

[PhilOhio]

Ouch! That really hurts to look at; about as bad as it gets. If it were mine, I'd carefully "vee" the crack as best I could, jig it firmly and accurately, and lay only a tiny fused bit of bead at a time, allowing full cooling in between; like cast iron. And I guess I'd just hope for the best.

 

I'm not so sure I'd use Tig. Maybe arc and 1/16" rod.

 

Hope your rod or wire machines about like the surrounding metal...which I guess is why you ask about the heat treating.

 

It might be easier to write that one off. Or just consider the repair attempt an educational experience. It may come out pretty well, if you are careful and keep the heat down. Don't hurry.

 

How did this sad event happen?

[Hawkeye_Joe]

Yes.. how did this happen? Do you think that the actuator hitting the front of the slot stressed the receiver or was it something else? Would releaving a bit of the front of the slot have prevented it, there are probably some 27 Khar owners that would like to know....

[deerslayer]

If it were me, I'd "V" the crack from both side and weld with a MIG welder in short sections, tacking the bottom part first. Weld, cool it down, weld some more etc... it may never look perfect, but should work fine. If it cracks at some point, just weld it again.

[reconbob]

I just saw this. The primary concern I have is that there has been for years

an on-going belief by many (me included) that these receivers are

machined from leaded steel. If you try to TIG it, the lead will instantly vaporize

and you will never get a calm puddle - it will constantly pop and fizz as the lead

burns, and you'll never get a good weld. The way to check this would be to do

a test weld under the rear sight where it won't show and see if you can get a stable weld.

I have been meaning (yes, I know, talk is cheap) to send some steel samples

from both WH and Kahr receivers to a testing lab for months now to get them

analyzed for lead. When you file or machine these receivers they are so soft

and cut so freely it seems like it has to be free machining leaded steel, but no

one has ever (to my knowledge) had one tested.

This is a very ineresting piece. I would not expect a relatively soft piece of steel

to fail the way it has in the photo.

I may have a better idea than welding. I'll be making 4140 steel WH and Kahr

pattern receivers within a few months. Maybe we can work out a deal/trade involving

this receiver. To me its worth more the way it is to study, than to reweld it. Or

maybe you'd like to sell it outright?

 

Bob/Philly O

Edited March 26, 2008 by reconbob

[hipwr223]

What would one's options be had this been a registered Machinegun? Lets assume it is beyond repair.

[Hawkeye_Joe]

http://www.floridadude.com/ShitCreekPaddleStore.jpg

 

This store would be closed....................

Edited March 27, 2008 by Hawkeye_Joe

[reconbob]

That is a funny photo. But yes, you would be up that creek because

my understanding is (and I believe it has been discussed here) that

only the ORIGINAL manufacturer can replace a worn out or damaged

receiver. Hmmm...maybe we could convince the Colt custom shop to

replace the receivers on all those reblued, fire damaged, etc. guns?

 

Bob

[Z3BigDaddy]

Actually with the whole Olympic Arms fiasco I don't think anyone can "replace", only repair.....

[FireMerc]

Actually with the whole Olympic Arms fiasco I don't think anyone can "replace", only repair.....

 

Unfortunately I believe that is exactly correct. If the receiver is cracked beyond repair, the only way they could repair it would be to replace it with another already registered receiver and redo the paperwork. So basically it becomes a parts kit.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2008 by FireMerc

[Tripphammer]

HMMMM, That senerio just doesn't seem acceptable.

 

I abide the law and I donot have the skill, but i wouldn't put it past a very competant machinest to replace a cracked, damaged registered WH TSMG receiver w/ identical markings w/ out any noticable difference.

 

I'm not suggesting this, Its a forum and Its free speach. Its an aweful scenerio if someone was to loose an investment weapon to this type of catastrophy. Many people just could not accept that type of cash loss, no matter the consequences.

 

Unless the ATF goes around doing metalurgy test on receivers who would know? Besides, your not creating "another" weapon just doing what Colt or Auto Ordnance should do.

 

I beleive Ruger still does this, but of course I never beleive everything I read on boards and it was mentioned on another forum.

 

Again just free speach, not saying I would or that I know of anyone that would.

[Z3BigDaddy]

HMMMM, That senerio just doesn't seem acceptable.

 

I abide the law and I donot have the skill, but i wouldn't put it past a very competant machinest to replace a cracked, damaged registered WH TSMG receiver w/ identical markings w/ out any noticable difference.

 

I'm not suggesting this, Its a forum and Its free speach. Its an aweful scenerio if someone was to loose an investment weapon to this type of catastrophy. Many people just could not accept that type of cash loss, no matter the consequences.

 

Unless the ATF goes around doing metalurgy test on receivers who would know? Besides, your not creating "another" weapon just doing what Colt or Auto Ordnance should do.

 

I beleive Ruger still does this, but of course I never beleive everything I read on boards and it was mentioned on another forum.

 

Again just free speach, not saying I would or that I know of anyone that would.

 

If the original was destroyed it would be a very long shot of it every being questioned.... I cannot see a scenario that would even bring it up... Now if somehow you ended up with two receivers with the same #.... As for Ruger I think their deal is a law enforcement only setup.

BTW There is a collectible gun insurance underwriter who's policy is an "all risk" policy that actually covers blowed up guns.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Z3BigDaddy

[PK.]

I think we have apples and oranges going on here: It is illegal to “make” a new machine gun, but it is not illegal to make a new (non NFA) gun.

 

The receiver in question is a semi auto and could be replaced by A/O, if they chose to do so.

 

[bug]

HMMMM, That senerio just doesn't seem acceptable.

 

I abide the law and I donot have the skill, but i wouldn't put it past a very competant machinest to replace a cracked, damaged registered WH TSMG receiver w/ identical markings w/ out any noticable difference.

 

I'm not suggesting this, Its a forum and Its free speach. Its an aweful scenerio if someone was to loose an investment weapon to this type of catastrophy. Many people just could not accept that type of cash loss, no matter the consequences.

 

Unless the ATF goes around doing metalurgy test on receivers who would know? Besides, your not creating "another" weapon just doing what Colt or Auto Ordnance should do.

 

I beleive Ruger still does this, but of course I never beleive everything I read on boards and it was mentioned on another forum.

 

Again just free speach, not saying I would or that I know of anyone that would.

 

 

 

That would be between you and God. The chances of a poor outcome would increase exponentially as the number rose above two. Amen.

 

 

[anticus]

Is there a significant difference in quality between the WH and Kahr semi-auto receivers ?

As the owner of both I have a more than academic interest....

[PhilOhio]

Laminatrap,

 

PK has it right. There is nothing complicated about the ease and legality of simply replacing the semiauto receiver. Kahr can do this any time they feel like it. Even with the same serial number. But my guess is that they aren't likely to feel like it, unless what we see is the result of clear manufacturing error...which could be Numrich or Kahr, depending upon vintage.

 

You have an offer here you'll never beat. Why not sell the cracked receiver to Bob for his study, and buy a new one from Kahr, even if they make you send all your parts to them for assembly? There is no better possible outcome. Well, except for buying a full auto Thompson. Or if you feel up to the challenge, try to weld it as suggested, and if it doesn't work out, buy the new receiver. Feel lucky this is not a registered WW-II vintage full auto receiver. Then would come the possible ATF challenge to Kahr's baloney claims that it is the famous "original" manufacturer of the "famous" Thompson submachinegun first built in the 1920s, part of the unbroken chain of succession. "In a pig's eye", as we say out here.

 

The more I think about it, the more interesting that last question becomes. If Kahr is what it says it is, it can legally replace just about all registered full auto Thompson receivers. I would bet they have never replaced even one, and are not so foolish as to try, because they know full well they could never support their succession claim. But they could probably support the claim that they are the successor to George Numrich's version of AO, and under the law, I think they could indeed replace one of his registered post-war full auto WH receivers. Interesting issues.

[FireMerc]

What would one's options be had this been a registered Machinegun? Lets assume it is beyond repair.

 

 

We got off topic a bit in response to hipwr223's question.

 

Some time back Olympic Arms (if I remember correctly) got into trouble with the ATF. During a repair of an Olympic Arms M-16 that had a damaged lower, the damaged lower was completely destroyed and it was replaced with a new lower with the same S/N. ATF ruled that in doing so they were manufacturing a new machine gun after the ban.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2008 by FireMerc

[dieselten]

The Olympic M16 issue was questionable because they manufactured the original receiver as a semi-auto. It was converted by some other company to full auto. This full auto conversion made this new company the actual mfg. of the lower - it erased Oly as the mfg. So even though the receiver was clearly stamped as an Olympic reciver, technically they were not the mfg. and could not legally replace it.

[Tripphammer]

I think this subject is thought prevoking and yes a bit off subject thank to me.

 

As PK stated theres really no issues reguarding a title one weapon replacement receiver. Its probably done quite often.

 

My thoughts where if this would have been a class two WH or Colt registered receiver, I probably would be thinking

about all my options.

 

By the way I beleive dieselten is correct in his assesment of the Olympic registered receiver.

 

The weapon could have been converted by someone like John Norrell on an Olympic semi auto receiver. In that case John Norrell would be the manufacture of the class two receiver not Olympic and I believe this is why BATF supported their findings.

 

Lets face it though guy's the rules are quacky anyway. Most people wouldn't have a clue.

 

back to the cracked Kahr receiver. I would think placing it in a make shift copper madrel and spot welding it w/ a tig and then running a small bead weld would work as long as you took your time and did it in sections.

 

its a great practice peice if you ask me

 

 

 

[reconbob]

Reweld it? Have you no sympathy for engineering geeks? I'd still

like to study this receiver...even if its on loan before welding...I have

heard/seen receiver cracking at the tail, but not like this. Also, what

is the history of this piece? Shot a lot? A little? What kind of ammo?

Was it dry fired a lot? And especially - was it dropped or solidly hit

at the muzzle in an upward direction - if so, that corner of the front

of the frame rails is where it would fail....with a 16" barrel plus a comp

that would creat quite a moment-arm and could lead to a tiny crack which

would be expolited by shooting the gun....

 

Bob/Philly O (cautiously optimistic)

[kruuth]

Interestingly if this is the case, then that's great. I was one of ten people with a certain issue with m vector uzi and they were delighted to more or less rebuild the damaged receiver. If they're claiming they're the successor then they inherited all the responsibility too I bet.

 

BTW, my WH shooter has never failed me. What kind of ammo are you putting through that?

 

 

 

Laminatrap,

 

PK has it right. There is nothing complicated about the ease and legality of simply replacing the semiauto receiver. Kahr can do this any time they feel like it. Even with the same serial number. But my guess is that they aren't likely to feel like it, unless what we see is the result of clear manufacturing error...which could be Numrich or Kahr, depending upon vintage.

 

You have an offer here you'll never beat. Why not sell the cracked receiver to Bob for his study, and buy a new one from Kahr, even if they make you send all your parts to them for assembly? There is no better possible outcome. Well, except for buying a full auto Thompson. Or if you feel up to the challenge, try to weld it as suggested, and if it doesn't work out, buy the new receiver. Feel lucky this is not a registered WW-II vintage full auto receiver. Then would come the possible ATF challenge to Kahr's baloney claims that it is the famous "original" manufacturer of the "famous" Thompson submachinegun first built in the 1920s, part of the unbroken chain of succession. "In a pig's eye", as we say out here.

 

The more I think about it, the more interesting that last question becomes. If Kahr is what it says it is, it can legally replace just about all registered full auto Thompson receivers. I would bet they have never replaced even one, and are not so foolish as to try, because they know full well they could never support their succession claim. But they could probably support the claim that they are the successor to George Numrich's version of AO, and under the law, I think they could indeed replace one of his registered post-war full auto WH receivers. Interesting issues.