Re: rebuild demilled receiver?

FWIW I don't think this is the right news group for that subject. That said, I know the Garand Collectors of America definitely warns against trying to shoot an M1 with a welded receiver. I know I wouldn't try it on a bet.

Bill Shuey

old hoodoo wrote:

> Can a full auto receiver that has been demilled be modified into a > semi-auto design and rewelded? > > snipped-for-privacy@cox-internet.com.
Reply to
William H. Shuey
Loading thread data ...

The longstanding BATF position is that "once a machine gun, always a machine gun." In other words, no amount of redesign can change the status of a registerable receiver.

You're better off just buying a new semi-auto receiver, if one's available for your particular gun. They're pricey, though -- generally more expensive than full-auto guns.

Reply to
Alexander Arnakis

Since we're already off the subject, I'll continue the thread.

The safety of a rewelded Garand receiver depends on how the rewelding was done. Remember, the bolt lugs lock into the receiver ring. Normally, demilled Garands were cut (and subsequently rewelded) back in the area of the rails. If the parts were properly aligned, and the welding was done with good penetration, safety shouldn't be an issue.

Back in the 1960's, Sears and other mass marketers sold thousands of rewelded Garands. I used one for years in target matches without the slightest problem.

Reply to
Alexander Arnakis

Speaking of which, the Darwin Awards second book is now out in bookstores everywhere. Jerry 47

Reply to
jerry 47

OK, I yield to superior knowledge on the subject (I live in Virginia, by the way).

I started my combat tour in Vietman with the M-16 (and a piece of shit it was, too; I'd never want one of those), then carried the M-60 for over 6 mos before becoming a Patrol Leader and trading the "pig" for a 12ga. I wouldn't want (and certainly wouldn't need) to own a 16 or a 60.

I've never been able to understand why someone would want a machinegun or fully-automatic weapon. What would one do with it unless they wanted to dress up in cammies and crawl around the house playing soldier or something like that........but that's only my thoughts.

"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs even though checkered by failure than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat"

Reply to
Bill Woodier

I have to agree that there really isn't much practical use for a machine gun in your house...and that about the only form of gun control I could endorse would be a law that says either EVERYONE has to have one, or NOONE can have one...

But I'd still like to have one from the simple standpoint of being facinated with machinery. They are after all an "engine" of sorts and the mechanism and operation of them is interesting.

Even with that being said, there are really only two types I would like to get hold of - a Thompson, and a an MP-40. I just think the both of them are sort of neat, compact weapons with an historical value. Not to mention that with both of them being chambered for pistol cartreges they'd be a bit more "practical" to fire on occasion and reload for.

Reply to
Rufus

It's mainly the "collector mentality." If you have a nearly complete collection of U.S. military weapons, for example, not having any of the fully automatic ones means leaving a big hole in your collection.

Also, the challenge of getting full-auto weapons is its own sort of justification. It's bragging rights (but I would suggest not bragging too loudly).

Someone who invested in Class III weapons some years ago has made out like a bandit, financially. Every time Congress puts on more restrictions (or threatens to do so), the prices go up again. This is definitely a hobby for someone with lots of disposable income. (If this is a "Walter Mitty" fantasy, it better be a well-heeled Walter Mitty.)

As to the effectiveness of auto weapons in most use scenarios, it's grossly overrated. People don't realize how fast they can burn through their ammunition supply, for example.

There are plenty of "full auto idiots" out there. For example, running

10,000 rounds through an MG on a weekend at the Knob Creek Range in Kentucky is just pure idiocy. Considering the price of ammunition, it's just like burning money. Plus, this sort of misuse destroys a literally irreplaceable firearm.
Reply to
Alexander Arnakis

The Thompson is overrated -- it's way too heavy and way too complicated for what it does. (Actually, the ugly M3 Greasegun is a better choice.) But I agree that for someone getting their first Class III weapons, the Thompson and the BAR are the classic "must have" items. After owning them for awhile, you realize their weaknesses.

If a person were to get one -- and only one -- full auto weapon, I would recommend the .30 Browning belt fed, air cooled gun. IMO it's far superior to the M60 that replaced it.

Reply to
Alexander Arnakis

ma duece and a chevy truck=scrap metal sunday. yee ha. a friend of mine is a mg dealer in nv. of all his toys, i like the m2 and the pay-pay best. though his lewis is fun to play aviator and the d7.

Reply to
e

12 guage crowd control....
Reply to
e

i like mossberg's. i keep a 44 derringer under the pillow. single barrell 2 shot. fools 'em every time.

Reply to
e

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.