You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Has anyone ever built a Sten
- Thread starter xsiv4s
- Start date
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.
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.
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
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
If you are not a lawyer, then would it not be to his benefit to not post legal opinions on the subject? I am sure there are at least some lawyers on this board who could do that...with authority. Beside that, he made no, zero, nada request for any legal advice, opinions, or offerings. Now, if you have some legal credentials...I have never built one.I am also not an expert on the legal implications.
mapsjanhere
New member
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).
Oh? You have not seen things posted by "...I am not an expert but...", that were just not true? A lawyer has a doctorate in law. That is a total of eight years education, four of which are the study of just law. On the other hand, almost all non-lawyers get their legal knowledge from reading what other non-lawyers have posted on INTERNET forums. Which is more likely to steer you wrong?Pointing out that something might require more thought about legal implication is not necessarily overstepping one's authority as non-lawyer.
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.
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?
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?
m.p.driver
New member
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:
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.
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.
Gunplummer
New member
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.
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.
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.
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."
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."
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
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
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.
You should have seen the attorney our company hired to deal with some ITAR issues.
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).
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.
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.
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
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
Proceed with caution is often sound advice, legal or not.
Let's not be too impressed by a JD. Lots of people get them. It's a three year program, and it isn't anything like a grant of infallibility. Some of the worst judgment I've see comes with an "esq" after its name.
dahermit said:A lawyer has a doctorate in law. That is a total of eight years education, four of which are the study of just law.
Let's not be too impressed by a JD. Lots of people get them. It's a three year program, and it isn't anything like a grant of infallibility. Some of the worst judgment I've see comes with an "esq" after its name.
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.
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...
Just one guys opinion... I keep kicking around doing a build myself. Not a sten though...