Now how is that going to work? - Straight Pull Stgw-57

[snayperskaya]

As for part kits being used to build straight pulls, well it appears to be down to interpretation.

Potentially someones interpretation could see you paying a few grand for a firearm that could very well be a section5 and sat in your cabinet.Thats a scary possibly if their interpretation is incorrect or a suspect component is used.

[Fedaykin]

If this thing is hitting the market you are certainly not going to see much change from £2500 (that would be a conservative estimate as well), certainly not the prices Europeans are paying.

Latest copy of What Gun has the A R Buckland advert with a coming soon for the Stgw-57. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Charlie Muggins]

If the Stg57 works on the same type of roller delayed blowback as the HK series, the bolt carrier will only need its forward shoulders altered to make it S1. It is the pressure of the rollers on these shoulders which forces the carrier rearwards and in turn allows the rollers to retract into the bolt.

[Laurie]

Honey Creek Industries in the US is (allegedly) about to supply US BAFTE legal copies of the StG57 involving a new US manufactured receiver amongst other bits. (ie as per the Springfield Armory M14 to M1A redesign.) In the US case, it's about getting around the original design's selective fire capability, but it could be that A R Buckland seeing this has asked HCI to make a straight-pull bolt and carrier assembly from scratch to meet UK requirements. (Assuming HCI starts with surplus military StG57s and spare parts, it'll have a lot of unwanted 'selective fire' receiver bodies and trigger assemblies on its hands.)

[Fedaykin]

Thanks Charlie and Laurie respectively. A technical answer to my question in the former and a practical answer in the latter.

I will be honest adding a straight pull Stgw57 to my collection would tickle me pink, then again so would be a straight pull heavy barrel RPK (rather surprised that rusmilitary hasn't done that yet so far).

[huntervixen]

I think the issue is availability. Are you saying the parts in these parts kits are brand new never assembled parts?

Yes I have an M14 and it's a newly manufactured rifle, none of the parts were ever assembled on/as a S5 rifle.

Well it's really pushing a fine point of firearms law, very blurred boundaries here regarding Sec5 and we need to take great care we don't cross the line! If I was involved in a project of this type, I would personally play it safe and only use parts kits, just a personal opinion.

Suffolk only use parts kits in the various builds, or dedicated new builds like the M14.

That is the best thing really, I can be clear on the origins of my rifle, its an Enfield 1962 L1A1, it was never an assembled rifle, this can be seen by careful examination of the receiver, it has Enfield factory inspection stamps, lots of them, so factory store I guess.

It still has its original oil black finish applied (as apposed to the suncorite), also this receiver was bought from MOD Donington as a kit, so the all important paper trail is intact.

Just my take on it, but its best to know where your rifle came from, just in case this ever becomes an issue.

The M14's are very cool, good buy!

[Fedaykin]

Problem with that position huntervixen is it lets an absurd level of Jobs-worth officialdom to take over. For me what should define a S1 centre fire rifle is:

As a complete operating centre fire rifle does it allow semi or fully automatic operation? If not then it is S1 and arguing over the origin of individual components is asinine and absurd to the highest degree.

If the parts come from a S5 rifle but the complete rifle is incapable of firing semi or fully automatic then it should be S1.

[huntervixen]

I couldn't agree more, really, you are spot on, but I don't make the rules, we have to operate within a ridiculous set of regulations in the UK!!!

This is only my take on the gray sec 5/1 crossover area, but we must all operate within the legal framework we have been delt mate and try and safeguard our sport!

[Fedaykin]

Don't worry is wasn't a personal jab buddy! More a cry against the absurd jobs-worth nature of our regulations.

I am against the centre fire semi auto ban as semi auto S1 shot guns make a mockery of the concept anyway.

Considering the shortest period between shots at Hungerford was six minutes the idiot could of caused the same amount of carnage with a muzzle loader.

[SevenSixTwo]

I'll just leave this here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 95ap25.htm