PDA

View Full Version : Shotgun part repair....was it a bad idea?



winchman
03-24-2011, 02:20 PM
Someone brought in a broken part from a shotgun. I'm not sure what it's called, but it is a trigger-shaped piece that pivots to unlock the barrel(s) in a break-action gun. The piece was broken between the pivot and the hook on the upper end. He said it was an old cheap gun, and parts were no longer available. He said the gunsmith he took it to first told him he couldn't fix it.

I beveled the edges around the break, clamped the parts with shims to get the correct alignment, brazed them together, and filed off the excess brass. The repair looked pretty good, the owner was happy, and he reported back that the gun worked fine again. I don't know if he actually fired it, though.

Now I'm wondering if repairing that part was such a good idea. Seems like it would take a fair amount of load when the gun is fired, and things could get ugly if the barrel(s) unlocked when it was fired.

I know next to nothing about guns and how they're put together, so please tell me if the repair was ill-advised?

Pherdie
03-24-2011, 02:28 PM
Only if you have a conscience or assets.

Hopefully the repair will suffice.

chipmaker4130
03-24-2011, 02:39 PM
Well... If the break had been on the thumb-side of the pivot I would say brazing is fine. On the hook side, perhaps a weld would have been better. I don't think the load on that part is extreme though, and a proper braze job is really quite strong.

I'd like to hear the gunsmiths on here opine. The lawyers not so much. If we listened to them we'd never do anything for anybody.

hareng
03-24-2011, 09:31 PM
You mean the top lever?

Seen loads break and not worth making unless customer willing to pay.
Braze wont hold its weaker than steel and the steel has broke, times i have seen that done. More laughable is when they braze the sears and tumblers up, even seen them glued.

Most are engraved but if customer is happy with possibly losing a bit, tig weld them. Silver solder should hold but will see a thin gold line after reblack.

On the other hand do you mean on the barrels?
Dont want to braze or silver solder there either, lucky the barrels havent come apart!
If its an english they are put together with soft lead solder which wont withstand hot blacking at 145 degrees up.

gary350
03-24-2011, 09:52 PM
That piece your talking latches into the barrel lug and locks the barrel down. I had a barrel lug come off once. It is silver soldered to the under side of the barrel. I resilver soldered it and did a better job and it lasted. If you used some good metal like 4140 or 4150 it will probably be fine. Bad news is you could go to prison for making gun parts without a manufactures license. Just hope ATF does not find out those people are a bunch of jerks they would arrest their own grandmother if they could catch her doing something illegal.

Rif
03-24-2011, 11:11 PM
Hello,

I suppose the ATF could give you a hard time as calling them "jerks" is really being nice. However, as long as you didn't work on the receiver or have the receiver in your possession you were just working on a part. Yes, it was a part to a gun; however, it was not a gun.

(This is only for the U.S. In other countries this varies.)

The "gun" is actually the receiver, frame, upper receiver, or lower receiver...depending upon what the ATF defines as the main part of that particular firearm. In fact, the main part is not even defined as being a gun unless it is at least 80% complete. So, I could build a 70% complete receiver and sell you all of the other parts with it legally, and without a license, as long as you finish the last 30% on your own.

Also, consider this: You can buy all parts of a firearm except the part that is classified as the "gun" with no questions asked.

Now, having liability if something breaks and somebody gets hurt. That is something else.

Regards,

Brian

P.S. This is not legal advise and I would advise you to look it up yourself. However, all of the legal garbage is available online. Take a look here http://www.homegunsmith.com for more information.


That piece your talking latches into the barrel lug and locks the barrel down. I had a barrel lug come off once. It is silver soldered to the under side of the barrel. I resilver soldered it and did a better job and it lasted. If you used some good metal like 4140 or 4150 it will probably be fine. Bad news is you could go to prison for making gun parts without a manufactures license. Just hope ATF does not find out those people are a bunch of jerks they would arrest their own grandmother if they could catch her doing something illegal.

Black_Moons
03-24-2011, 11:18 PM
Yea, Theres a few things I just refuse to make or repair due to lawyers... And lack of total certification in making them meaning I should likey just leave it to the experts:

Lifting equipment when there is ANY chance of any human being on or under it. (Except made for myself, And then i'll be the only person who uses it and the only person that gets near or under it) (Allready been asked and refused)

Medical equipment. Nuff said.

Gun parts. Just too easy to be illegal, or something really bad to happen if it fails.

Critical car/trailer parts: Basicly anything that if it came apart could cause the car to lose control. And by 'lose control' I don't so much mean spin out/crash, but just *any* negative effect on the controlability of the vehical. (Allready been asked to repair a trailer frame.. but the frame was not road worthy and I doubt I could of ever made it road worthy.. And I just don't wanna do critical car work. So its legaly safer for me to send the guy on his way with the trailer frame that I basicly KNOW will fall epicly, But at least will fail without me having touched it. As a bonus it will likey harm someone OTHER then the driver when it fails, And the driver did not care one bit when I tryed to point this fact out to him, saying just "Well thats not my problem is it?")

Implimentation of liability law is.. weird. If anything, I think I should be charged with not reporting that guy to the police for driving an unsafely modifyed trailer (It came to me modifyed in a very unsafe way and the job was to reverse the modifications), But insted I have to refuse work because of the possability it might legaly land on me if my work fails, Dispite my work vastly improving the structural nature of the trailer compaired to how it came to me.

JoeLee
03-24-2011, 11:23 PM
I wouldn't worry about the part failing during firing as the force when fired is straight back against receiver and not on the part you repaired.

JL................

Carld
03-24-2011, 11:37 PM
I'm with JL on this. I don't think the part will break during firing. I can't tell from the original post if the part is the lever on the top of the shotgun that you push with your thumb or the part that holds the barrels closed.

38_Cal
03-24-2011, 11:41 PM
Making or working on parts other than the serial numbered receiver is not covered by BATF as long as the parts themselves are legal to make or own where you live. For instance, threaded muzzles in the Peace Loving Socialist Democratic Republic of California are pretty much forbidden...same with pistol/rifle magazines with more than ten round capacity in that and in a few other states. A locking block for a shotgun, or a top lever for one, should be no problem, especially since you tell us that you just put the broken parts back together and didn't fit them back into the gun yourself.

David

snowman
03-25-2011, 02:25 AM
Making or working on parts other than the serial numbered receiver is not covered by BATF as long as the parts themselves are legal to make or own where you live. For instance, threaded muzzles in the Peace Loving Socialist Democratic Republic of California are pretty much forbidden...same with pistol/rifle magazines with more than ten round capacity in that and in a few other states. A locking block for a shotgun, or a top lever for one, should be no problem, especially since you tell us that you just put the broken parts back together and didn't fit them back into the gun yourself.

David

Even if he had fitted it, as long as the owner was present and never left the premises, it's not a big deal as no FFL is required.

Really, he brought you a part and asked you to braze it. If he didn't ask for engineering services, you have no concerns. This carries no liability. Once you start offering engineering services, is when you start to carry liability.

Carld
03-25-2011, 08:57 AM
Snowman, that is what a lawyer told me too. Someone asked me to make parts for a landing gear strut for an airplane from his drawings. I asked a local lawyer about it and he said as long as I used someone's drawings and didn't change the drawing or make changes to the part different from the drawing I was not liable.

I was also told making or repairing a part for a gun does not require an FFL as long as it is just a part and not the whole gun.

JoeLee
03-25-2011, 09:57 AM
Snowman, that is what a lawyer told me too. Someone asked me to make parts for a landing gear strut for an airplane from his drawings. I asked a local lawyer about it and he said as long as I used someone's drawings and didn't change the drawing or make changes to the part different from the drawing I was not liable.

I was also told making or repairing a part for a gun does not require an FFL as long as it is just a part and not the whole gun.

You forgot to mention as long as you use the specified material for the part you are not liable!!! That is just as important.

JL...................

vpt
03-25-2011, 10:09 AM
I make critical vehicle parts quite often. It is not an easy feeling, every little part has to be thought over, inspected, and tested. The welding of the parts is the most nervous operation of the whole deal.

Carld
03-25-2011, 11:25 AM
Yes, Joe, that was part of his reply. I forgot to add that. Thanks.

I had an FFL in the middle 1960's and the only reason was so I could legally do machine work to our clubs fast draw guns. When the 1968 gun laws were passed I finally gave up my FFL in 1970 because they were starting to harass people like me without a real business location. They didn't want shops at peoples homes. They told me I could work on guns for free without an FFL so I did. That probably has changed.

Isn't it interesting that a bureaucracy can make and change law that the Senate and Congress are the only ones that are supposed to be able to do. The bureaucracy's and the Supreme Court can and do change laws that the constitution does not give them the right to do. But I guess this is a discussion for a different thread or forum:rolleyes:

A.K. Boomer
03-25-2011, 11:35 AM
The part broke for a reason in the first place - its obviously loaded enough to cause concern, the fix is most likely not as strong as the original.

the fact that the part has something to due with a firearm is huge, the fact that that part has something to due with the barrel alignment of a firearm is even huge'er,,, I don't care what the law is - I would not touch that repair for nothing unless I built it from tool steel or something superior to the original - but brazing? no way. it's not about the law, its about getting people hurt.

just my opinion.

JCHannum
03-25-2011, 12:13 PM
With the description furnished, it is possible that the part repaired is one of two or three parts that may or may not be directly affected by firing forces. That makes it extremely difficult to evaluate the potential success or failure of the braze repair.

My guess is that it is the fore end iron, in which case, a braze repair will work just fine and present no danger of harm to the user in the very unlikely chance that it would fail.

Black_Moons
03-25-2011, 12:27 PM
I make critical vehicle parts quite often. It is not an easy feeling, every little part has to be thought over, inspected, and tested. The welding of the parts is the most nervous operation of the whole deal.

you got bigger balls then I do. That or better liability insurance. :)

Cheeseking
03-25-2011, 01:33 PM
The part broke for a reason in the first place - its obviously loaded enough to cause concern, the fix is most likely not as strong as the original.\
\

What's done is done, but going forward, I'd probably turn that kind of work down.

It didn't break - it was broken. :p Sometimes things do just spontaneously separate however mostly due to misapplication of excess force.

cuemaker
03-25-2011, 01:40 PM
Speaking from experiance regarding the as long as a drawing is provided your covered aspect...

At my work, we are asked to provide custom bolts from exotic material for things like nuclear turbines, oil rigs, refineries etc

We will make or have made anything, provided there is a known spec and/or there is a detailed drawing calling out material.

From there as long as we trust the source of material, we know our product will meet the called out specs and drawings...We dont have a liability issue...

jstinem
03-25-2011, 01:59 PM
Quote:
"Isn't it interesting that a bureaucracy can make and change law that the Senate and Congress are the only ones that are supposed to be able to do. The bureaucracy's and the Supreme Court can and do change laws that the constitution does not give them the right to do."

This how then legal is intended to work. This is the root idea of the English law system that our legal system is based on. When a Judge makes a ruling he is first guided by any specific legislation governing the matter. If there is none then he must look at "case law" or what other courts have done in similar situations. If there is no case law to guide him the he must decide the matter using his own judgment to determine, first, what is fair to parties involved and then beneficial to society as a whole.

This system allows the legislature to pass laws with very vague wording and then force the courts define the details on a case by case basis. The Americans with Disabilities Act is a prime example of this political dodge. The politicians can all take credit for voting for the ADA and then blame the courts for parts that their supporters don't like.

On the whole the system works very well, all day, every day, in the courts, with very little trouble. We tend to notice, (Or have thrown in our faces by the media), the systems few failures and not see or think about the thousands of settlements that are crafted each day to keep the country running.

CCWKen
03-25-2011, 03:14 PM
I wouldn't do it without a FFL. I've had many requests to nickel plate parts and turned them down because I don't have a FFL. The ATF is very specific about who can repair firearms. And simply having a part in your possession can constitute a firearm. (To Wit: Parts of a machine gun.) :eek:

lazlo
03-25-2011, 04:19 PM
I've had many requests to nickel plate parts and turned them down because I don't have a FFL. The ATF is very specific about who can repair firearms. And simply having a part in your possession can constitute a firearm.

Like Ken says, I think you need to have an FFL to gunsmith to the public for a fee.

JoeLee
03-25-2011, 04:58 PM
Yes, Joe, that was part of his reply. I forgot to add that. Thanks.

I had an FFL in the middle 1960's and the only reason was so I could legally do machine work to our clubs fast draw guns. When the 1968 gun laws were passed I finally gave up my FFL in 1970 because they were starting to harass people like me without a real business location. They didn't want shops at peoples homes. They told me I could work on guns for free without an FFL so I did. That probably has changed.

Isn't it interesting that a bureaucracy can make and change law that the Senate and Congress are the only ones that are supposed to be able to do. The bureaucracy's and the Supreme Court can and do change laws that the constitution does not give them the right to do. But I guess this is a discussion for a different thread or forum:rolleyes:

A friend of mine is a gun smith, has been for over 30 years...... his father was a gun smith for over 50. They always worked out of the house and there was never a problem. Now my friend is still a licenced gun smith still working out of his house, he doesn't sell anything just does some small repairs for people at the club, most of which aren't even worth his time. Juat does it for the love of doing it.
Each year the ATF calls him and tells him they are comming over to check his books etc. etc. At least they are polite enought to do that. The smart ass broad that did the inspection refered to him as a kitchen table gun dealer because of the way he was set up, not having a real business location. But they couldn't site him on anything as he is always in line with the rules and doesn't sell guns. So talk about being harassed.

Speaking about quick draw guys....... check this out...

http://www.wimp.com/fastestgunman/

Carld
03-25-2011, 10:31 PM
We used Ruger .22 single six guns because they were strong and could take the beating. I retimed the guns, recut the cylinder notches, bored the barrel out to 5/16" and half the cylinder to 5/16". We put wax slugs in the end of the cyl. and used .22 crimps. We shot with a timer at a man sized target and hitting the target turned off the timer. One sweep of the hand was one second and the face was divided into hundredths. When we shot ballons we used ,22 black powder blanks. We used Alfonso rigs from California and I still have my and my wifes rigs and guns and the timer I built in about 1968.

My average with wax was .30 of a second and two others in the club could shoot in the low .20.s with wax. With blanks shooting ballons I could get in the middle to high .20's and my friends could get in the 15-20's. I did what was called a roll out fan in those years but later used the same style the shooter in the video uses. I had to change because it was hurting my rotator cuff. I still practice from time to time, not as fast but still accurate, maybe better.

One guy in the club could thumb in the middle .15's with wax which is damn fast. We never tried to shoot doubles like in the video.

I have a straight up fancy rig for my .45 single action 1883 Colt I used at demo's. I thumbed the Colt, I didn't fan it. I still have the gun and holster.

There was a fastdraw artist, Jammie Marrow, from Louisville Ky that could out shoot anyone at any contest we went to. No matter how fast anyone shot he would shoot just a little faster. We would just shake our heads and walk away. He was like magic. There was another Henderson Ky shooter, Ronnie Phelps, that went on to be a world champion. Damn, those were the days and we sure used them up with pleasure.

My friend Chuck and I are as tight as ticks and we shot until a few years ago when he started having heart trouble.

Joe, the agent told me back then to keep the license because they didn't really enforce as hard as they were supposed to. I was moving to another state and decided it was best and left the license on the counter at their office.

jstinem, read about the Supreme Court. They decide the law according to how they feel, not how the Constitution reads and have done so almost from the start.

Carld
03-25-2011, 10:51 PM
Joe, all this talk about Fast Draw has me wanting to go strap my rig on and shoot some but winter has come back so I may do it when it warms up.

I went back and watched the video and 2/100 of a second can't be including reaction on the light and drawing. when we shot we stood at the line or walked and had to draw when the light came on and our time included the reaction time on the light and the time it took to draw and the wax to hit the target from 10' standing or 15' to 10' walking.

They must be using a different timing method now.

If you want some interesting reading get a copy of the book, Fast and Fancy Revolver Shooting by Ed McGivern.

JoeLee
03-26-2011, 12:14 AM
Carld, watching that fast draw vidio was pretty amazing at first untill I watched it a few times paying close attention to the slo mo part. Looking at his holster and how it's angled and the top is cut away, with a short barrel revolver he really isn't drawing it out as they do in the old west pictures. He doesn't have to pull it out much... just enough to to clear the top cutout on the holster tipping it up a bit and fire. So I would call it more of a modified quick draw. But still it's fast.

JL........................

lazlo
03-26-2011, 12:42 AM
Looking at his holster and how it's angled and the top is cut away, with a short barrel revolver he really isn't drawing it out as they do in the old west pictures. He doesn't have to pull it out much... just enough to to clear the top cutout on the holster tipping it up a bit and fire.

He's also fanning the shot: it's a single-action, and he pulls the trigger while the gun is still in the holder. He tilts/draws the gun up, and slaps the hammer to fire it. That's why he always has his left hand hovering over the gun.

Still, very impressive. It would be fun to see him shoot against Jerry Miculek :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/lLk1v5bSFPw

Carld
03-26-2011, 10:15 AM
Modern fast draw has little to do with the alleged old west gun fighting. You want to fire the gun just after the barrel leaves the holster. In my roll out style I would pull the gun and twist it and as it came out it would slide up against the belt at the top of the holster level with the target and I would fan it there. There was no lost motion and the movement of the gun was very short. I could fire between .25 and .30 that way. It was hard on my shoulder because you have to pull the drawing hand back so far.

I gave that up for the pop up style that almost everyone uses. It is slower but easier on the body. The fastest guns in my area had an average reaction time of 5 hundredths of a second. They said they could see the light starting to glow which I could never do. My average was about 12 hundredths. The average person on the street has a reaction time of close to 1 second. We used to let people test their reaction time if they wanted to.

We used to do a demo where anyone from the audience would fire a cocked gun in their hand against one of us drawing and firing. Of course the fastest of the shooters would perform that and none of them ever got beat. Sometimes we would get 10 or 15 people to try it.

One of the guys would get someone to face him and hold their hands a foot apart where he would have his gun when he would fire. They were supposed to clap their hands when they saw him start to draw and have them closed before he could put the gun between them. I don't remember anyone ever getting their hands together without his gun between their hands. The gun was empty and he didn't fan it, just draw it.

At a demo at West Point Ky a State Trouper said you can't fast draw a Sam Brown rig. I bought a Sam Brown rig like the cops used and a S&W .22 combat master piece and S&W a .38 combat master piece and started practicing. The next year he showed up again and I put on a demo drawing from the Sam Brown in a normal standing position and walking position like a cop would be doing and shot in the .50's with wax. He was impressed. Oh, and the strap was snapped down for each shot and I had to release it with my thumb as I was drawing. It wasn't easy on my thumb for sure.

sansbury
03-26-2011, 10:50 AM
jstinem, read about the Supreme Court. They decide the law according to how they feel, not how the Constitution reads and have done so almost from the start.

FWIW, Congress has the power under the Exceptions clause to put things outside of SCOTUS's jurisdiction. The power is, however, rarely exercised.

I have a little hope because of what's happened with the 2nd amendment over the past 15 years. After the Columbine shooting I thought gun rights would be toast, but that actually turned out to be the high-water mark for the other side.

My dream is to see the Supremes apply the 10th Amendment as aggressively as they apply the $#@!%^& Interstate Commerce Clause. I would gladly trade a 25% federal tax and a 5% state tax for a 5% federal tax and a 25% state tax. The federal government is simply too large. It's not just an issue of it doing things it shouldn't, it's that it does poorly at the things it should do. And it makes it too tempting and easy a target for moochers on all sides.

Carld
03-26-2011, 02:48 PM
Yes, the Senate or Congress seldom if ever limit or over ride the Supreme court. The 14th Amendment was passed under duress of the states. and the Interstate Commerce Clause is used by the Supreme court to do as they please and both houses go along while violating states rights to rule themselves.

From the time of the war of Independence of the South during which time Lincoln suspended the Constitution and writ of habeas corpus and declared Martial law the Supreme Court said he did not have that authority. He declared he did and ignored them and the Constitution. The Constitution gave the states or commonwealths the right of secession so he had to suspend the Constitution to be able to make war with the South.

From there the Constitution has been a worthless piece of paper few politicians have followed and the Supreme court took over.