Would this still be NFA?


PDA






thegreatwrzesinski
May 6, 2010, 01:31 AM
ok, I have been a browning m2 fan for a long time and now that I am going to have some extra money in my pocket I finally have the chance to build a mock up m2. I want to take a ruger 10/22 and mount it in a case that models an m2 machine gun. I want to have an electronic trigger button on the back that runs a servo and pulls the 10/22 trigger...I was wondering if I could build an arduino board that would safe the gun and let you push the trigger x number of times then after 10 seconds or so it would fire however many times you pulled the trigger. if anything were to happen where you would want to stop firing you would simply release the safety switch [let go of the handle] and the gun would safety.

in case that was confusing let me bullet point it.

instead of you pulling the trigger, you push a button and a computer pulls the trigger 10 seconds later.

the computer will only pull the trigger the number of times that you push the button.

letting go of the handle will safety the weapon [even if it is firing]

Federal law defines a machine gun as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

You would have to function the trigger button each time you wanted the firearm to fire once...it would just be delayed...Is it still NFA or is this do-able?

If you enjoyed reading about "Would this still be NFA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TacoMalo
May 6, 2010, 01:56 AM
Don't take my non-legal opinion for more than just a speculation on your question. I would think that you are still within the legal definition of a single trigger pull per shot, regardless of how many times you pushed the button each action of the trigger only releases one shot per pull and does not automatically chamber and fire multiple rounds per depression. Just my view/opinion. Sounds interesting, although I'd hate to find out which shade of gray you're on when it comes to federal law.

Zak Smith
May 6, 2010, 01:59 AM
Everything is moot until you get a letter in writing from the ATF ruling on the specific case, and even then, it may not be 100% clear.

thegreatwrzesinski
May 6, 2010, 02:09 AM
ok...well how would one go about asking the atf if I could get away with this? Do I just shoot them an email like "Hey bureau of fun sucking, would this be illegal?" Could I get in trouble if I were to draw out plans to submit to the atf of this mechanism?

Zak Smith
May 6, 2010, 02:10 AM
I suggest a clear, well-written letter addressed to the ATF tech branch.

PTK
May 6, 2010, 03:39 AM
Last time I heard of this, it fell under the spring loading opinion, that even delayed mechanical motion to fire more than one round would be illegal, as the "safety" would then count as the trigger to fire X rounds.

FIVETWOSEVEN
May 6, 2010, 09:05 PM
I believe it would be defined as a machine gun, there was one gun which I forgot the name that its semi auto but when you pull the trigger and hold it down it still fires one round till you move the safety, then it becomes a full auto and is ruled as a machine gun.

RyanM
May 6, 2010, 09:16 PM
I'd say that the

or can be readily restored to shoot

portion of the definition is your gun's downfall. Open-bolt semi autos were banned because all it takes is a file to get full auto. In the case of your design, a quick firmware update and you've got a machine gun.

Trebor
May 6, 2010, 09:30 PM
I was wondering if I could build an arduino board that would safe the gun and let you push the trigger x number of times then after 10 seconds or so it would fire however many times you pulled the trigger

I very, very, much doubt this would pass ATF muster.

And, if it did, and you built it, I wouldn't be surprised if they changed their mind after realizing what they'd approved.

If nothing else, the whole system would be too easily "readily converted" to full auto. Just some electronic or software changes and for every button push you've programed it to fire 5 shots instead of one shot.

Prince Yamato
May 7, 2010, 01:14 AM
Ask the ATF. Be polite. You never know.

thegreatwrzesinski
May 7, 2010, 02:44 AM
ok, the chip would be read only, the only way to change it would be a hardware chip swap, but that would be the equivalent of installing a full auto sear on a rifle.

[so couldn't technically all rifles be considered a machine gun? Since all you would need to do is install the new sear?]

and the safety does not act as a trigger, if it is released it would cut power to the whole system and reset the count meaning you would have to depress the trigger button another x times to fire again. it is there in case you want to stop the computer from firing for any reason [loss of control, out of ammo, something bad happened etc etc etc...] pushing the safety only keeps the system on, the trigger button is the only thing that could start firing the weapon, but the safety can stop it [hence...safety]

thegreatwrzesinski
May 7, 2010, 03:36 AM
how does this sound for the proposal:

Good Morning,

I am a huge fan of the Browning M2 machine gun, and what I want to do is make a mock M2 out of a Ruger 10/22 inside a shroud to make it look like the M2 but fire .22 rimfire bullets.

The part in question would be the trigger system. I would want to have the trigger of the Ruger 10/22 attached to an electric servo motor as to pull the trigger electronically. I would have the trigger [a push button wired to a microcontroller] programmed to delay the firing by 10 seconds. When the time expires the computer will pull the physical trigger [on the 10/22] however many times the electronic trigger was actuated [how many times you pushed the button]

The safety would be a button switch directly wired to the battery [if the safety is not held down, there will be no power to the system, so nothing could fire] if the safety is released at any time for any reason, the system will lose power and shut down. If the safety is depressed once it has been released, the system will turn back on with a shot count of 0 until the electronic trigger is actuated again, starting the countdown over.



Some further notes about the system:

The safety could not fire a round, the safety simply keeps the system on.

The microcontroller would only pull the mechanical trigger the number of times that the electronic trigger was actuated and only after the timer had expired.

The microcontroller would be built with a “read only” chip, to prevent the system from doing anything that it was not designed to do [for example: in order to make the system fire full auto with the trigger pressed [like a machine gun] one would have to replace the entire microcontroller with a separately programmed one [the same process as installing a full auto sear into a rifle] which would be illegal because no such microcontroller is registered in the national firearms registry and a machine gun cannot legally be built using parts not in the registry.

A schematic of the wiring is attached. [see: wiring.bmp]
http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee33/jbhsrotc/wiring.jpg

PTK
May 7, 2010, 04:18 AM
Go for it. Don't hold high hopes. ;)

Trebor
May 7, 2010, 01:02 PM
the only way to change it would be a hardware chip swap, but that would be the equivalent of installing a full auto sear on a rifle

It takes more then just swapping out a sear to make a rifle full auto. (Unless you are talking about a RIAS, which is mechanically a kludge and not the "proper" way to make a rifle full-auto)

I still think your plan, if all it requires is a chip swap is so "readily convertable" as to be denied by the ATF.

The only way to know is write up a clear and detailed letter and send it to the ATF tech branch. Like I said though, don't be surprised if they approve it in the letter, but then rescind it when they see and realize what you've built. (See "Atkins Accelerator" for more info).

jmorris
May 7, 2010, 02:41 PM
The ATF has ruled string and stocks as machineguns when put on semiautos but you might get lucky. FWIW the crank fire, cam type, devices are legal until you drive them with an electric motor.

RyanM
May 7, 2010, 05:14 PM
That design is definitely a no go.

Step 1, cut wires attached to the microcontroller.
Step 2, splice them together.

rcmodel
May 7, 2010, 06:03 PM
Yep!
Don't waste a postage stamp asking.

It's a machinegun, or would be really easy.

You have to know you are not the first person to dream up an electronic solenoid fired semi-auto.

If it were legal, Bushmaster or Remington or somebody would already be selling them.

rc

pikid89
May 7, 2010, 06:16 PM
maybe the safety issue would be clarified if you said it was homogenous to a grip safety on a 1911

WardenWolf
May 7, 2010, 07:25 PM
Yes, it's a machine gun. The ATF has stated that any electric or electronic firing mechanism automatically makes it a machine gun because it would be a simple matter to make it fully automatic.

PTK
May 7, 2010, 08:36 PM
Not any. Has to be any electric or electronic firing mechanism on a firearm that is not manually operated. ;)

thegreatwrzesinski
May 7, 2010, 10:13 PM
the servo is not a rotating device, it is an arm that pushes against the trigger, if you bypassed the micro controller all you would get is the equivalent of you holding the trigger down, only a servo is doing it instead...

where does it say that a gun cannot be fired electronically?


and yes, making a gun full auto is as easy as dropping in a new sear or filing your current one, if you file the return catch on a mini-14 off it will keep firing until you let go of the trigger, very illegal yes, but it can still be "readily converted" more so than my proposal.

With my proposal you would have to build a new controller, write a whole nother program [not the easiest thing, it would be a whole lot easier to file the catch on the mini-14, and that is not a machine gun] THEN install it, again, if you bypassed the microcontroller, the servo would hold the trigger down, meaning it would only shoot once.

link to the servo here (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=servo&cid=4205949840119105994&ei=V7nkS4esB5K82AT0m5ThDw&sa=image&ved=0CCQQ8gIwBzgA#p)

and the read only chip (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/679640-REG/JMI_Telescopes_MICROM_ROM_Upgrade_for_NGC_microMAX.html)

thegreatwrzesinski
May 7, 2010, 10:44 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/survival/gear/1277311

no, im not the first to think of it...so if i were to bypass the micro controller altogether and just use a really light switch to power the servo then bounce the trigger like on an electronic paint ball gun so that it can fire more rapidly while still only functioning once per trigger pull, no programs or controllers, just a switch, servo, and a battery...simple and done!

WardenWolf
May 7, 2010, 11:16 PM
I'm just going to say this right now: don't do it. The ATF WILL come down on you and claim it's a machine gun, and you will wind up in jail for a long, long time. All it takes to change it from a semi-auto to a machine gun is maybe 1 or 2 different electronic components, no firmware or microcontroller change required. And these could be installed AFTER any microcontroller, between said controller and the actuator in an inline fashion. Any electrically or electronically operated firearm would basically be 1 step away from being a machine gun, using commonly available components. Have a loose transistor or a capacitor laying around? There's your constructive possession. You do NOT want to do this. Period.

thegreatwrzesinski
May 8, 2010, 12:36 AM
then how does remington get away with it? or anyone who buys the remington?

pikid89
May 8, 2010, 12:40 AM
not saying i agree on the illegality, but the etronix is a bolt action

WardenWolf
May 8, 2010, 04:52 AM
The Etronix is different because it is a bolt action. It is an inherently manual action. However, it would be illegal to make semi-automatic guns chambered in it. Because of this, it is a developmental dead end.

thegreatwrzesinski
May 8, 2010, 04:35 PM
ok what about this servo made by remington? It attaches to the sear in a semi auto rifle...soooo.....

http://s168.photobucket.com/albums/u188/hardpack101/?action=view&current=P4120232.jpg

PTK
May 8, 2010, 04:53 PM
That looks a lot like the command-fired guns, and port-firing guns electronic firing device, fwiw...

Trebor
May 8, 2010, 06:47 PM
You know, quite arguing with us here and just write up a proposal to the ATF already. Most of us here don't think it'll pass, but the ATF answer is the only one that counts.

But, like I said, don't be surprised if they pass an idea "on paper" and later rule it a MG after a physical prototype is built. Google "Atkins accelerator" for an example where they did exactly that.

Btw, leave out all that stuff about being a "Fan of the M2" and the mock-up box that holds a Ruger 10/22. That's irrevelant to your central question and clouds the issue.

You want a clear, unambigious answer and the best way to do that is to ask a clear, unambigious question.

thegreatwrzesinski
May 9, 2010, 03:02 AM
the reason I am arguing on here is so that i can make a better case for myself, through peoples comments i can elaborate more on the design where i need to in order to make a clear concise argument, if i had just asked the atf i would have left soo much out that i probably would have gotten ruled against...my arguing makes my proposal stronger.

kopcicle
May 9, 2010, 12:15 PM
Have you experimented with this concept ?
Do you have a working mock-up of the concept ?
If you have a working mock up has anyone seen it or seen it in operation ?

I'll be clear about this
The BATF is not above using an application as grounds for obtaining a search warrant and or evidence against an applicant . Any evidence that a prototype exists including hearsay (read here "a confidential informant know to me") can not only be support for search and seizure but evidence in and of itself that the defendant has no opportunity to confront . If you don't believe me ask Kevin Mitnick .
If the BATF wants you all they have to do in anonymously mail an auto sear for your semi auto weapon and be there as you innocently take delivery . At the instant you take delivery you are guilty until proven innocent simply because you have in your possession the parts to create an NFA weapon .
So this is admittedly a lay opinion leaning heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal experience with local , state and federal law enforcement agencies over a 30 year period . I just want to inform the OP of the worst possible case scenario and caution that interpretation of the law can and is often self serving .

~kop

edit : "just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get ya"

thegreatwrzesinski
May 9, 2010, 05:22 PM
but they would wait at my door only to search my house and realize that i dont have any of the components to build the device, nor do i have the 10/22 itself, i do not have anything even remotely able to build my design but the idea on this forum and a write up of my design....so i will invite them into my house and ask them myself if it is legal and for a signed contract stating that if the device is to be ruled as illegal then they must give me 30 days notice in person so that i may decommission the device itself.

lessdrop
May 9, 2010, 08:22 PM
Hi, being an 07 sot (mfgr) you are welcome my $.02, although it may not be worth that much! I don't think you wil have too much issue with your new toy being considered a M.G., but I do believe there may be a problem with the delayed ignition. (Safety issue)
They (atf) can be quite helpful working this stuff out before you spend too much on a problem laden project. A lot of the agents are decent folks, they wil help you stay out of trouble if you just talk to them and be honest. I have a few sample builds and never had a problem getting them reg. Or with complience inspections. Last time they visited I heard a knock on the door one morning and stumbled out to open the door in my underwear, still trying to focus and rubbing the sleep out of my eyes, his badge looked big as a freeway sign! But after I got dressed and stoped trying so hard not to look gulty they turned out to be very nice and polite.
Good luck!
Lessdrop. (New guy-first post so hi everyone!)

CYANIDEGENOCIDE
May 9, 2010, 09:47 PM
Why couldn't I pull the board out of a electronic frame paintball gun, solder the output to the solenoid of the paintball gun to the solenoid of your gun? wire cutters and a soldering iron is way easier than trying to mill a new sear. I think that falls under readily convertible

thegreatwrzesinski
May 10, 2010, 12:34 AM
why not use a nail file and file down the catch on the trigger of an m-14? id say that would be easier than any soldering and wire cuting...but anyone that owns an m-14 can own a nail file, or that anyone who owns anything with a large enough bolt handle can also own shoelaces even though it is two knots from being a mg...both are very readily convertible...yet legal...

thegreatwrzesinski
May 10, 2010, 12:35 AM
oh and lessdrop, thanks for choosing my post as the first to comment on!

Sam1911
May 10, 2010, 08:55 AM
thegreatwrzesinski,

We're getting way too many oddball and almost certainly illegal flights of creativity suggested here for this thread to continue.

I appreciate that you're trying to explore your argument before discussing it with the nice folks at the ATF, but we've done what we can for you. Go write your letter now and let us know what they say.

While we could continue to theorize, the time comes, as they say, to make a movement or vacate the commode. ;)

If you enjoyed reading about "Would this still be NFA?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!