|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 26, 2011, 07:51 PM | #1 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2011
Posts: 10
|
Has anyone ever built a Sten
I have been kicking around the idea of doing my first build and now the semi-auto parts are available for a Sten, I am thinking about that one. Has anyone here ever built one?
|
August 30, 2011, 11:35 AM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
I have never built one.I am also not an expert on the legal implications.I understand you specified semi-auto only.My understanding is the BATF does not allow the firing from an open bolt designs to be built anymore.Maybe there is a closed bolt design that looks like a Sten,but it would be more complex,not so simple to build.
Another thought,I once read a book called "Unintended Consequences"I do not know if this is a legal fact,but this book indicated that if I were to discuss building a full auto Sten with you,we could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a felony. It is legal to build from scratch your own receiver for a non-restricted firearm.It,I believe,is an "experimental" provision.That would be,you can build one for your personal use.Build two and sell one,and you are in trouble.Once again,this is all my seat of the pants understanding,I offer it only to let you know to find out exactly what you are getting into before you procede. |
August 30, 2011, 11:50 AM | #3 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
IIRC, there was an article in Gun Week a while back on building a semi-auto STEN, but I have no idea of the date. You might contact them and see if they can send you a copy (if it did appear).
I have no familiarity with the semi-auto STEN; mine have been originals and as noted, the semi-autos have to be a lot different inside and I think have to have smaller tubes so that standard bolt won't fit. Jim |
August 30, 2011, 12:01 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
|
|
August 30, 2011, 12:07 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 2,832
|
Pointing out that something might require more thought about legal implication is not necessarily overstepping one's authority as non-lawyer. The OP mentioned that he's planing on a semi-auto, so he's at least aware of one of the limitations in building a STEN. The OP might not have been aware of the open-bolt question (and I don't know the answer to that question in regards to home-build weapons either).
__________________
I used to love being able to hit hard at 1000 yards. As I get older I find hitting a mini ram at 200 yards with the 22 oddly more satisfying. |
August 30, 2011, 12:22 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 28, 2006
Location: South Central Michigan...near
Posts: 6,501
|
Quote:
If you see nothing wrong with non-lawyers giving legal opinions, I am not a doctor, but I noticed that mole on your neck but you should not worry about it, it is just benign. Taking my advice on a medical subject would be a fool's choice. |
|
August 30, 2011, 12:43 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
So you believe only an attorney can have any knowledge of the law?
You are rather full of yourself. I write contracts for the company I work for on an almost daily basis to provide very specialized engineering services. Should I stop what is considered a part of my job? The comment was a good and valid one that Sten type guns have some less than obvious legal implications (BATFEs stand on open bolt guns). Would it upset your little world if someone pointed out that selling cast bullets requires an FFL? |
August 30, 2011, 01:44 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 25, 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 552
|
I am not an attorney nor do i portray one on t.v. but i did however help a friend years ago build one using a reduced bolt, and a ar-15 firing pin,hammer,trigger, and sear.If i had it to do over again i would buy one of the semi Sterlings on the market.For what you'll give for the parts,machine work,and welding(If you don't do it yourself)it might be cheaper with the Sterling.Centerfiire systems has Sterlings for $399.
Last edited by m.p.driver; August 30, 2011 at 05:00 PM. |
August 30, 2011, 04:27 PM | #9 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 7, 2011
Posts: 10
|
I'm no machinist (or attorney), I was just looking into something like the East Mountain machine semi-auto builds or another company like this (I think there are a few).
|
August 30, 2011, 04:48 PM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
|
I built a catco semiauto sten years ago. it worked.
There isn't much else nice that I can say about it. I bought the kit and brazed it together with a cheap oxy acetelene torch and blue rods from lowes. When you do it, just be sure to go slow, have it clamped together well, and allow the tacks to cool before moving on to the next one or it will draw on you really quickly. If you're going to go through all the trouble for a semi auto build, buy a MkII kit or modify your MKIII to MK II configuration with some creative fabrication. |
August 30, 2011, 08:37 PM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2010
Location: South East Pa.
Posts: 3,364
|
I believe you need a License (class 2 ?) to fabricate a receiver unless it is black powder. The other posters are absolutely right about the open bolt.
|
August 30, 2011, 09:12 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 24, 2011
Location: dixie
Posts: 477
|
You don't need any license to fabricate a semi auto receiver unless you intend to sell it.
The problem with semiauto SMGs that were originally open bolt is that the original design relies on the mass of the bolt AND its forward inertia upon firing to retard the blowback action after the round is fired. The lack of forward momentum means that a semiauto bolt moves back even faster than a full auto bolt of the same mass does. In order to make the semiauto legal, it cannot accept an original fixed firing pin open bolt because it would be too easy to change a closed bolt to an open bolt gun, and then full auto. There are only a few ways to ensure that the original bolt won't fit in the semi auto and the surest one is to make the semi bolt have a smaller outside diameter, which means reduced mass unless you add additional mass to it on the end. I've been wanting to build a KP44 semi auto for years, and my idea was to grind a flat spot on the bolt that corresponds to a block welded inside of the reciever. I'd add a piece of steel with the same countour as the bolt equal (or slightly exceeding) the mass of the ground off area of the bolt. This would result in a semiauto that would have a low theoretical cyclic rate that had the same outside diameter for the receiver and would be impossible to install an original bolt in. Once I get my workshop set up I'll be going at it. |
August 31, 2011, 02:38 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
Dahermit..I think I did a fair and honest job of describing where I was coming from.I also think my information was worth sharing.
As far as someone overstepping bounds,I do not see "Moderator" or "Staff" attached to your handle.You might leave running this forum to them.I will be happy to heed any advice they give me.You might try re-reading my last line."This is all seat of the pants.....I suggest you verify before you proceed." |
August 31, 2011, 10:13 AM | #14 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
And so, Dahermit, what are you going to do if I give what you consider legal advice. Sue me? Have an ABA goon squad beat me up? Call the FBI to do same?
I doubt that anyone asking questions on a web site will take responses as anything other than well-meant but possibly incorrect information. But since I have known several people who have taken the advice of attorneys and found that the lawyers were wrong, I have to wonder if the advice of a lawyer is much better than that of anyone else, at least in a specific area of law. I think that in the narrow area of firearms law, many folks on here know more than at least some attorneys, most of whom have never heard of GCA '68, the NFA, etc. I had one attorney tell me machineguns were illegal in my state (they are not), another told me owning a handgun was a violation of federal law. Let me see, didn't Shakespeare say something about "first thing...." Jim |
August 31, 2011, 10:27 AM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
It was obvious he had no idea about anything but what the Federal code said, but he did no understand what it meant. Most of the work we do is covered by ITAR. We have had to turn down work to avoid ITAR violations. We have also negotiated with the government for conditions that allowed us to perform some work. We ended up with authorization letters that carefully defined what we could and could not tell our non-US customer. We could run the test at the cyclotron, but not provide ANY analysis of the results obtained. The government did have some attorneys that understood, but the one we hired was a waste. I would not expect a JD to have the technical knowledge of a couple PhDs in their area of specialization (radiation effects on semiconductor devices). |
|
September 1, 2011, 02:50 AM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,270
|
FWIW,I have very carefully studied relevant portions of the GCA 68 and the Clinton AWB.I have built a number of rifles,some semi-auto.I choose to be sqeeky clean legal.I have also contacted the BATF's Office of Firearms Technology for very specific information.
One important caution I wanted to get posted was the idea that if there was a dialogue on this board that included a" DIY how to" regarding building something the BATF had banned,it might be considered conspiracy to commit a felony.No,I do not know that to be a fact.But,taking care of myself,I would not participate in such a post. Quite a while back,as a non-lawyer,I posted my observation that here in Colorado,a lot of folks think it is real cool to get a Medpot card.I really do not care.It is just that I have read the fine print on the Federal Document we fill out and sign that says "I am not an unlawful user of marijuana or any other controlled substance" It also says it is a felony to make a false statement.Regardless of state law,pot is still considered a controlled substance by the Federal Government.IMO,its not a bad idea to post that,as a non lawyer,for folks to decide for themselves if they want to sign that form if they have a Medpot card,or if they choose to get a Medpot card if they are a shooter.Now,all this is way off topic,and no need to rehash the medpot idea on this thread.It got probably 100 posts and over 3000 hits.We already discussed it. We common folk have to live with and suffer the law.I do not think it wrong for us to discuss it. |
September 1, 2011, 11:32 AM | #17 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
I think detailed advice on building a machinegun could be construed as being part of a conspiracty to commit a felony. Something like, "Cut the sear at a 45 degree angle" would be detail, just as telling someone the exact location of a store safe and how to blow it open would be detail.
But as to making a semi-auto firearm, that is not illegal, they are made by the thousands every day. And it is not only legal for an individual to make one, there is no federal law requiring a license if the manufacture is for one's own use. The fact that the product may resemble a machinegun is irrelevant; a broomstick can "resemble" a machinegun. Jim |
September 1, 2011, 11:52 AM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Proceed with caution is often sound advice, legal or not.
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
September 1, 2011, 01:54 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,131
|
Skimming through the responses, I think that one or some of the posters were just pointing out that assembling a STEN, even if it's semi-auto could be problematic if it still operates as an open-bolt gun. I think there are some semi-auto closed bolt STENS around, and if you can figure out how to make one of those, I see no problem.
|
September 6, 2011, 01:55 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2005
Posts: 2,474
|
Personally, for someone with the requisite metal working skills to fabricate a gun I would pick another platform. The sten is not super useful and has for lack of a better word "history" making it something of a lightening rod for questions / legalities.
Just one guys opinion... I keep kicking around doing a build myself. Not a sten though... |
September 6, 2011, 06:57 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
That is probably the source of many of our politicians. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|