Gunco Forums banner

What SMG kit is easiest to convert/build as semi auto?

21K views 42 replies 14 participants last post by  kernelkrink 
#1 ·
I see all these SMG kit cheap right now, Sten, Suomi, Bereta, ect, ect. So which ones are easlly converted? Does anyone make SA kits for any of these? I know one place for SA Sten kit, but allways out of stock. Any advise on how to do this?
 
#27 ·
Red Jacket Firearms said:
I don't think anyone could go wrong with a Sterling ,to me they are the RollsRoyce of subguns . We've got a fullauto I built for a rental gun 3 or 4 years ago . It probably eats 1000 rds a month and it's NEVER had a hicup .
That's why the storm troopers used them as laser guns long long ago in a galaxy far far away ;)
 
#28 ·
:headspin:
jpglee1 said:
Im not sure why DON VITO said that my suggestion would only work for non US people??? The Sterling MK6 semi auto kit I listed

http://www.geocities.com/psarms/LinkedFiles/SAMk6CBSKit.jpg

IS CLOSED BOLT people...look closer. It has a firing pin/striker that is INSIDE the bolt assembly. This is just like on a Glock pistol, the firing pin floats in the slide but has its own spring. When the bolt is blown back, instead of it being held back by the sear (open bolt) the bolt continues back forward as the striker is held back by the sear (closed bolt) When the bolt gets all the way forward you have the striker fully compressed inside the bolt itself. When you drop the sear/pull trigger the striker is released and it runs forward, ignites the next round and the process repeats. The bolt is ALWAYS closed upon firing....

The sterling MK6 FCG is also SEMI AUTO ONLY. It has NO provision for a sear trip for full auto. Accordingly it would be perfect for using w/a STEN to make a semi conversion. I proposed to hide the sterling FCG inside a STEN MK2/3 FCG housing (or sheetmetal cut to the same shape) and use a pull rod from the sterling trigger to the STEN trigger to keep the aesthetics as close to original as is practical. The only deviation would be the rotating safety. You could remove it and retain the original sten selector as a safety instead to block the STEN master trigger (since the original STEN sear/etc would be gone...)

You also gotta remember that the Sterling MK6 carbine was legally sold here until the 94 AWB. It is again legal. You could buy a $200 IMA sterling kit and the above bolt/FCG and buil a semi-auto Sterling for a reasonable price (much nicer carbine than a STEN, and can use STEN or Sterling magazines). OR use the parts in a STEN, as I suggested.... Good luck and stay safe :)
why would it not be legal? What receiver will you put it in? Can't use a full auto Sterling receiver... and thats what the parts are designed for... nor can you use one where full auto parts could easily be introduced. Secondly you can not exceed the foreign parts count. Third that bolt alone would be considered illegal in a semiauto because of the ammunition feed lips which protrude forward of the cartridge seat... and we're not even looking at how easily it would be to alter the function of those parts... AS IS ILLEGAL AS CAN BE!
 
#29 ·
donvito said:
:headspin: why would it not be legal? What receiver will you put it in? Can't use a full auto Sterling receiver... and thats what the parts are designed for... nor can you use one where full auto parts could easily be introduced. Secondly you can not exceed the foreign parts count. Third that bolt alone would be considered illegal in a semiauto because of the ammunition feed lips which protrude forward of the cartridge seat... and we're not even looking at how easily it would be to alter the function of those parts... AS IS ILLEGAL AS CAN BE!
Before we get into a pissing match here, let's evaluate exactly what makes it "illegal as can be"... upon what basis are you making that statement? In other words, is there an ATF ruling letter that states this? See I'm not too familiar with this design so I need to have it spelled out...
 
#30 ·
Just for the reasons I posted to start with. If you want to see it from the ATF go research their website for a few days. All of the answers are there.

You can not build a Sterling or Sten semiauto from all imported parts. You have a 10 part rule. So out of the receiver, trunions, barrel, bolt, hammer, trigger, sear, disconnector cocking handle, stock, mag body, floorplate, follower, and some items I probably left out you can only use 10... the rest need to be US made or you have assembled a firearm that otherwise is forbidden from importation and have broken the law.


Second, those Sterling parts are designed to fit into a full auto Sterling receiver. Even if the parts only allow for semiauto operation the gun itself would still be a machinegun.

Third the bolt incorporates forward protruding ammunition feed lips which by itself would preclude it from being used in a US legal semiauto.
 
#31 ·
donvito said:
Just for the reasons I posted to start with. If you want to see it from the ATF go research their website for a few days. All of the answers are there.

You can not build a Sterling or Sten semiauto from all imported parts. You have a 10 part rule. So out of the receiver, trunions, barrel, bolt, hammer, trigger, sear, disconnector cocking handle, stock, mag body, floorplate, follower, and some items I probably left out you can only use 10... the rest need to be US made or you have assembled a firearm that otherwise is forbidden from importation and have broken the law.


Second, those Sterling parts are designed to fit into a full auto Sterling receiver. Even if the parts only allow for semiauto operation the gun itself would still be a machinegun.

Third the bolt incorporates forward protruding ammunition feed lips which by itself would preclude it from being used in a US legal semiauto.
OK I know the 10 part thingy. And I can (and have) read the ATF info. Thanks for the advice.

My (limited) reading of the semi-auto sten websites indicate the following for legal builds of "tube SMGs". Please correct me if I'm wrong:

1. Don't use the normal tube - use a smaller tube that will physically limit the use of original parts -OR- shim the tube somehow to prevent installation of FA parts

2. Build replacement US parts for parts count compliance

3. Alter desing to be closed-bolt operation. This reverse-engineering is probably the biggest challenge IMO.

That's it! Parts count OK, closed bolt, incapable of accepting FA parts, legally acceptable. Don't think anyone is suggesting using "all" of the original imported parts that aren't US-made. Unless there's some flavor of gun out there that isn't on the AWB list, but that's doubtful.

So... what is your point that I'm missing? I guess the point of my long post is that this discussion is about doing in a garage what the semi-auto sten websites do in their commercial shop. We're just imitating that.
 
#32 ·
The original statement was about using the UK made Sterling semiauto bolt kit to build a semiauto sten or sterling... that would be illegal for the reasons I posted. Building a semisten your self you need to do even more than I mentioned. I'll post details in a day or two when I have time.
 
#33 ·
"The original statement was about using the UK made Sterling semiauto bolt kit to build a semiauto sten or sterling... that would be illegal for the reasons I posted. Building a semisten your self you need to do even more than I mentioned. I'll post details in a day or two when I have time."



No offense dude, but you need to remove your cranium from your rectum...


FIRST of all.. you could build a STEN or STERLING pistol with ALL imported parts. OR NONE..Pistols are exempt...

SECOND... Smarty, the bolt can HAVE push lips on it..its CLOSED. Its NOT an open bolt setup with a semi auto trigger pack. By your logic every AK and AR-15 are illegal along with countless other semi-autos with PUSH LIPS on the CLOSED boltface... Its only an issue with a fixed protruding firing pin. With a floating FP the round will hang up anyway, precluding FA firing...


Look REALLY close and try to understand...
The spring for the main bolt overpowers the spring for the firing pin, holding that disk against the end of the bolt, fully enclosing the FP like in a glock slide.. When the bolt closes, the sear catches the firing pin holding it in the "cocked" position as the main recoil spring forces the bolt closed around it. When the bolt comes to a stop the firing pin is in the same spot but now the spring is compressed since the FP didnt move. So now when you pull the trigger the sear drops and the FP springs forward and hits the primer in the CLOSED bolt...

Regardless of what you think, those SEMI AUTO STERLING rifles were SOLD HERE legally in the 70s and 80s. AS IS. With the bolts just as they are shown. The BATF approved them then. I would ad a block bar just to be safe, but those parts should suffice in a PISTOL build for sure... The FCG has a positve sear trip in it and the parts are clearly CLOSED BOLT.. That is why I posted them.

I didnt wake up yesterday dude. Ive built a few guns, I know SOME of my shit... When it comes to THIS topic I feel I am pretty adept. I "Specialize" in semi auto conversions of tube guns. Its my "passion" if you will... The above parts will work in just about ANY 1st gen 1.375" ID tube gun.. its just a matter of engineering the FCG to work with the existing "frame work" of the donor gun...

Im not trying to bash on you, I just know that what I speak is true or I wouldnt bother posting it... Have a good evening.


L8R

Ad a simple blocking bar and clearance notch and you're set to go...
If you're REALLY worried then turn .1" off the OD of the bolt and use a .1" smaller ID on the tube, then along with the blocking bar no FA bolt will drop back in....
 
#34 ·
you're not as smart as you think... you will end up getting yourself or someone else in trouble...

Stens and Sterlings are traditionally shoulder fired... if you are building an abomination like the Sterling semi auto pistol that was imported a few years ago you would not need the US parts.

And those bolts are ILLEGAL for use in a semiauto, closed bolt or not. You need to pull your head out of your ass and read the laws and ATF opinions. ILLEGAL. ATF has a "readily convertible" opinion on many things and that's one of them! Man, talk about stupid... you say that as long as there is no protruding firing pin it is ok even with the feed lips... have you built a gun like this? If so, YOU HAVE A MACHINEGUN IN THE EYES OF THE ATF.

Scary that building semiauto versions of tube guns is your specialty... what you post IS NOT TRUE.
 
#35 ·
"Stens and Sterlings are traditionally shoulder fired... if you are building an abomination like the Sterling semi auto pistol that was imported a few years ago you would not need the US parts."

Exactly you wouldnt...even if you DID build a carbine you dont need to make many parts... lets see you could make your own:
Receiver, Stock, Striker, US recoil spring, Sear and US trunnions and I believe you would be under the parts count but I didnt add them up that close..point is its not that hard to make it work... The brits used to use a pistol version of the STEN and STERLING BOTH for clandestine black ops type raids and stuff. It has always been a viable version of the Sten/Sterling.. I personally could care less if my projects are exact copies of the real thing. A lot of people want them perfect, I just want something fun that shoots. I know I could make a Semi Sterling Pistol that would be legal AND hella fun to shoot even if it wasnt a "real" model I was basing it on...its MY gun so who cares :)



As for the Push Lips you're so hung up on:

Yes it IS ok to have protruding firing lips.. and YES I have built one like that... By reducing the I.D. of the tubing you are preventing the bolt from going in...by adding a blocking bar thats now TWO things you removed from the FA equation.. BATF has never said you HAVE TO REMOVE the push lips. They suggest it, but it is NOT required....

You know, you're making such a big deal outta some little pieces of metal that can be removed from the bolt with a fuckin dremel/grinder in 5mins. The push lips are nothing to worry about... NO AK 47 on this planet was made originally without them... they are semi auto. My 9mm Carbine (AK-74 based) has push lips on the bolt still...IF your whole argument is about the lips then remove them with an end mill flush to the bolt face.. Its NOT a big deal to get rid of them. I like them, they ad reliability even in a closed bolt.

IF you eliminate the fixed firing pin (add striker) and ad a blocking bar to the receiver you have made it HARDER to be readily convertible...

Just about ANY semi-auto gun can be made to run FA... thats not the concern. BATF is more concerned that Bubba Joe Idiot can make them with little or no effort. The BATF knows that NOTHING you do to a TUBE gun will truly prevent it from being converted...IF you can modify the FA bolt to be semi, you could also mod one to drop back in no matter what steps you take... ANY tube gun that is striker fired can be converted much easier than a hammer fired gun, thats a fact of life...

Man, I have 5 different letters from BATF and CA DOJ on these very subjects. I havent posted them because I dont have a scanner and a JPG of the letters isnt readible. They have informed me in NO uncertain terms that as long as I remove the fixed firing pin, reduce the OD of the bolt and tube by at least .1" and install a blocking bar I will be A-OK...

Look, Im not trying to flame back and forth...just trust me on this one. Take the time to write a letter to the BATF and local DOJ and get it in writing like I DO...Im not worried about proving myself here, I have the papers/documents to prove my projects are legit if questioned at the range and thats all that matters to me...

Do some more research. I have spent since 2004 researching and learning this stuff....
 
#37 ·
Thanks Red Jacket...

On a home built project YOU DONT have to remove the push lips, its preferable if you do of course...

For a while in the 80s you could buy "bolt rings" at various places to TIG onto a closed UZI bolt to make it fully supported again... 1 of those rings and weld the striker to the bolt is all it took back then...Some of the early Semi UZI's had F/A bolt faces...

As he said its simple matter to drop a FA bolt into an UZI or a Tec-9 (not a mac, striker fired vs hammer)or any other striker fired gun just by making some super simple mods... Again thats not what the BATF is worried about. They dont want someone to be able to buy 10 of them and in 20mins have 10 SMGs, like happened with the open bolt semi auto MAC-10s... 20secs with a pair of pliers or a grinder and they were FA....

Anyway, if you do at least TWO of the methods (blocking bar/reduced ID/Remove Push Lips) you will be fine. Submit a sample for approval if you are truly worried about it...As long as you arent out acting like an asshat with your toy no one will care to look inside anyway. As soon as LEO see's that its NOT firing from open bolt and WONT go F/A...he will leave you alone (hell, he'll prolly wanna shoot it LOL)...

Ill see what I can do about getting my letters posted up here. Maybe I can FAX them to someone and they can post the FAX for me?? I dunno...

Anyone else out there agree with me??? L8R
 
#38 ·
jpglee1 said:
As he said its simple matter to drop a FA bolt into an UZI or a Tec-9 (not a mac, striker fired vs hammer)or any other striker fired gun just by making some super simple mods...
Actually, I think you CAN drop a full auto bolt in an M11/Nine and have a "spitfire", if you drop the bolt on a full mag it empties it. I do know that the semi auto bolt has the "pusher lips" on the bolt just like the FA one does, in fact other than missing the notches on the bottom to engage the sear a semi bolt appears to be identical to the FA one. You could probably even jam the semi firing pin in the forward position and make it do the same thing. Yet they made IMI add a blocking bar and remove feedlips. No one has ever accused ATF of being consistent! :confused:
 
#40 ·
donvito said:
don't hold your breath waiting for the BSA3 cause it ain't happening
Still haven't seen a BSA3... have any of you?

jpglee1 said:
SECOND... Smarty, the bolt can HAVE push lips on it..its CLOSED. Its NOT an open bolt setup with a semi auto trigger pack. By your logic every AK and AR-15 are illegal along with countless other semi-autos with PUSH LIPS on the CLOSED boltface... Its only an issue with a fixed protruding firing pin. With a floating FP the round will hang up anyway, precluding FA firing...
Well SMARTY I had a meeting with a Tech Branch agent just the other day on another subject and ran your feedlips by him. He said "NO WAY". Confirms what I thought, you don't know as much as you think you do.
 
#41 ·
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I see all these SMG kit cheap right now, Sten, Suomi, Bereta, ect, ect. So which ones are easlly converted? Does anyone make SA kits for any of these? I know one place for SA Sten kit, but allways out of stock. Any advise on how to do this?

This gets us back to the original open bolt position created by the batf that a gun that fires from an open bolt is considered a mg . The idea that a batf agent gave you an answer about the feed lips is sorry to say crazy as shit .as there have been congressional hearings on the fact that the batf does not have a stardardazation of what it considers illegal from one agent to the next . In fact it would be to everyones best interest to read the JPFO's article about the batf .

http://www.jpfo.org/batfearticles.htm


As for the rest of the story as Paul Harvey would say , it is best to read the decision handed down by the 9th circuit court , Stewart vs the US Goverment. However parts of the stewart vs us have been struck down by the us supreme courts decision due to medical marijauna , but the us supreme refused to hear arguments about the gun issue at that time. Also bear in mind that the 9th circuit has the highest amounts of thier rulings being struck down by the US Supreme court. It would also appear that due to this ruling that it is legal to posses homemade open bolt mgs , no matter if the batf likes it or not ( as long as it is almost completely homemade) as it is not regulated by the commerce clause which is what gives the batf its legal standing ( an arm of the irs). Only time will tell what the final decision will produce , and that partly depends on who gets into the us supreme court and into congress . No matter which position you take on smgs it is best to read the articles by the JFPO about the batf and the article about stewart vs the US goverment- and all relevant articles about robert stewart as this shows how f***ed up the batf can be .



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf
 
#42 ·
Let me stick my toe in these turbulent waters and share a little something everyone might not have thought of,... and should not lose sight of. This thread started with some mention of staying off the books just in case there are future bans. I would like to point out that total avoidance of government paperwork is not going to do that for you. I bought an imported pistol competely legal and papered. Later I bought a replacement barrel, extended and threaded, completely legal- no paperwork. Years pass, and the FBI calls me asking about this barrel and whether I installed it in a pistol,.. and they want it for ballistics tests. I turn it over and quiz the agent about whats going on. He explains to me there is a west coast murder they're trying sew up. The forensics on the bullets in the body and the spent cases indicate a Russian Makarov with a aftermarket barrel. They go to the seller of the barrel, (FAC, Federal Arms Corporation) and they give them a list of customers that bought one of these barrels. I got my pistol back and the agent I dealt with was real nice, but the whole thing made me quite nervous for a while. The point is that sales records are a tremendous resource on top of background checks and paperwork,... any one part you buy may lead them to you.
 
#43 ·
Mauser, the Stewart decision said the 1986 machine gun ban did not apply to Stewart, it did not address the registration and tax issue since he was never charged with violating the NFA/GCA'68 registration and $200 tax requirements. Assuming Stewart stands and is interpreted to allow homemade guns to sidestep the '86 ban, the registration and tax requirements still exist. Many people have attempted to submit and get approved new MG paperwork based on Stewart and so far as I know, none have been approved.

Stewart is also not a clear cut case applicable to everybody who builds a homemade MG. Stewart was a convicted felon and could not legally possess a gun of any kind. When applying the interstate commerce test to the 86 ban in Stewarts case, they found his building MGs for his own use had no IC component. Since he could not legally obtain one, building his own had no effect on "affecting Interstate Commerce" by NOT buying one instead. Since we CAN legally buy one, IC might apply to our cases and Stewart would not apply.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top