Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Akins Accelerator,10/22 Bump Fire stock for 10/22

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Steelcore, Aug 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steelcore

    Steelcore member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2004
    Messages:
    346
    Location:
    Virginia
  2. JesseL

    JesseL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,492
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    Holy *&^%!

    Looks pretty cool, but the price is outrageous! $925-1185 for a 10/22 stock!
    Regardless of what a real transferable full-auto 10/22 goes for, that is insane. I just don't see any way to justify that cost. Unless they've got an airtight patent on it, I expect we'll be seeing chinese knockoffs for $69.95 within the year.
     
  3. toemag

    toemag Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Bavaria Germany via UK
    First post here, a big hello to all.

    That would be fun to try, Bumpfire is definately cheaper though.

    Tony
     
  4. freedom and guns

    freedom and guns member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2006
    Messages:
    126
    Location:
    in a former US state
    Bumpfire

    is alot cheaper and is not limited to 10/22's
     
  5. EddieCoyle

    EddieCoyle Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I can't believe that'll be legal for long.
     
  6. Fosbery

    Fosbery Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,599
    Location:
    Great Britain
    Bah, that's not legal here unfortunately. The law dosn't ban full auto by name it bans any firearm that can "fire more than one round without repeated pressure on the trigger" :(
     
  7. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    That isn't legal, as near as I can tell... how is it the BATFE doesn't know about this?


    Personally, I wouldn't buy one, just because I don't like to stay in a Federal prison...


    EDIT: Upon reading how it works, it's simply a recoil-reduction stock, based on design. Nice bonus of that is that it allows fully automatic firing. Don't kid yourself, though. It's not semi-auto, it's a modification to full-auto and will be legislated as such as soon as they're plentiful.
     
  8. dmckean44

    dmckean44 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2006
    Messages:
    235
    It's be a lot cooler if they a stock for the AR or Mini-14 instead.
     
  9. JesseL

    JesseL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,492
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    How would anyone word the hypothetical legislation to ban something like this? I can't see a way to phrase it without leaving more gaping holes :evil: or making casualties of a lot of conventional semi-autos :fire: .

    The harder they work to ban politically vulnerable firearms, the more apparent it becomes that they are trying to apply technical regulations to their emotional issues. How else would we end up the BATF ruling that a shoelace is a machinegun?
     
  10. Domino

    Domino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Las Vegas. NV
    Eh, the ARF approved the design because they HAD TO, the design is NOT a machine gun. The laws are specific to what the Federal government considers full-auto fire. Kidding aside, it is still technically semi-auto otherwise the ATF would not approve it. The government has no choice but to allow it unless further legislation is pushed upon such a device. It is merely a device that aids to bump-firing, nothing more.

    I am more than willing to bet that your prediction will not turn to be true. There is no current Federal law that can prohibit it and it is unlikely the Congress and the Senate are going to interupt their busy schedule to legislate some device. On the State level, it is another story. Sounds like you have some sort of disbelief about the whole thing that I don't really understand, it IS legal and it IS NOT a machine gun. Get over it.
     
  11. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Read what I said again. By the exact letter of the law, I'd read it as the same as the infamous "Stutter Gun". In this instance, the trigger would be the shooter's finger, which then fires more than one shot in one single movement. With a stroke of a pen, the BATFE could change their opinion and jail anyone who bought one of those.

    I've seen things like this before, but they were all already re-classified to MGs. I don't see why this is much different.


    BTW, it is neat that they not only made it a simple conversion getting around current opinions of the BATFE, but also made it select-fire.
     
  12. Domino

    Domino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Las Vegas. NV
    Well the BATFE could certainly try to make that case if it felt so inclined but, under the current law it didn't as the device is already ATF approved. I would also speculate that if the BATFE felt that it could make the case it probably aready would have done so. As far as I am aware, the definition of a machine gun is the following...

    Machine gun- Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger.

    With this device the "trigger" is operated in a semi-automatic manner just like any other rifle. Since the device functions in this manner it is legal and is merely a bumpfire aid. Somehow, calling the shooters finger a "trigger" seems very inaccurate since it is NOT part of the firearm.

    I am not familiar with the "Stutter Gun" and I would be interested to know more about it and why it was apparently banned or prohibited. Any links would be greatly appreciated.
     
  13. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
  14. Domino

    Domino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Las Vegas. NV
    Hmm, that doesn't appear to be the same thing. From what I can tell is that he eliminated the conventional trigger somehow in which the operators finger was subsituted and worked as such. With the Akin's device the semi-auto trigger and components and their functions remain unmodified and intact, so the same point cannot really be argued. They two weapons shouldn't even be compared and are not similar in any way that I can tell. Afterall, the device in question is not even a gun but a rifle stock.

    Again I have to stress this point, "IF" this concept could be considered illegal under current law, why hasn't the BATFE stated such? it seems to be that the BATFE is very effecient about informing citizens about what could be considered illegal. According to the distributers, it has been approved and even patented. The "sputter gun" was never approved, and apparently the manufactuer was warned against producing it by some sort of government official. If this were the case with the Akin's device, why hasn't the same thing happened?

    The answer is simple and already stated, because there is nothing illegal about it under current Federal Law. If I am wrong than I have no problem admiting it and I would welcome the correction, as of yet I have not seen anything to indicate that I am. ;)
     
  15. MAKOwner

    MAKOwner Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    682
    It's cool, very cool in fact, but $1000??? That has got to be gouging, how can it really cost 5 times the cost of the gun it fits on? Even if the mechanism is precision made and is what most would consider expensively made w/ great stuff, isn't $1000 still kinda ridiculous? I mean it's a stock w/ a few springs, some (hopefully) well made rails and bearings. $1000??? If they're tacking on development costs and stuff they need a business case to recoup that initial cost over a larger number of units or something, that price is too high.

    I would really really like to buy one, but $1k is too much for my blood for a bump fire device. If it was $200-$300 I think I'd bite the bullet and buy one. Maybe they'll be able to make a second generation or something that is more streamlined for cost. Here's hoping, because I want one.

    If a chinese ripoff is offered for $100 I'm on board as soon as possible before they're shutdown for patent infringement, lol

    I can definitely see how it's technically legal, it has a trigger and it's only being fired once per trigger pull. I could see some fancy wrangling done by the BATF if this idea takes off and it is offered for many rifles though. Don't know what justification they'll use but honestly it doesn't have to make a whole lot of sense w/ them... If they had to they could append the definition of a machinegun to close this "loophole" as I'm sure they'll call it. Then again at $1000 this may stay a fairly niche product that doesn't get that popular with every bubba at the local gunshow.

    Wonder if you could take one of those Muzzlelite bullpup stock things and build something similar to this mechanism yourself... Then most of the recipricating rifle would be concealed inside the stock and you could mount a reddot or something on the sight rail on the stock.
     
  16. Mac Attack

    Mac Attack Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2003
    Messages:
    751
    Location:
    Georgia
    If it was affordable it would be fun as hell to own. Could you imagine shooting it with one of the 100 round dumps. Who needs a class III?
     
  17. swingset

    swingset Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    Ohio
    It's pretty easy to bumpfire a 10/22, especially with a light trigger.

    If you use my "bump fire device", you can run a 10/22 bumped from the shoulder very very easily, and my way costs $5 in material, and has the added benefit of not changing your stock and the device can be used on ANY semi-auto....shotguns, pistols, you name it.

    If you haven't seen one, it looks like this:
    [​IMG]

    The specs for making one:
    [​IMG]

    Vid of it in use, 5 round aimed bursts from an AR:
    http://www.localnumber69.com/temp/Aimed_Shoulder_Fire.mpg


    BTW, figuring out the ATF's ruling on legalities with full auto is rather easy. If you get more than 1 shot per SINGLE pull of the trigger, it's an MG. With the stock in question, any bump fire device, or crank device, this is clearly not the case as your finger does pull the trigger each and every time.

    The shoestring/AK method was ruled an MG precisely because it violated this simple definition of full auto. One pull produced more than one shot.

    Very simple.
     
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2006
  18. harvester of sorrow

    harvester of sorrow Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    VA
    If they're wrong with the pricing, you'll see them reduce prices over the next six months. I doubt we'll see that.
     
  19. clange

    clange Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Messages:
    786
    Exactly. With the string they are saying the string is part of the gun, same as any other steel part. Thats why doing that is isnt legal.

    This gun still fires one shot per trigger pull. Its still semi-auto. Its also stupidly overpriced.
     
  20. 'Card

    'Card Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    *shrug*

    As we used to say in the 82nd Airborne: "Full auto is for people who can't aim."
     
  21. JesseL

    JesseL Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,492
    Location:
    Prescott, AZ
    I understand how the ATF reasoned that a string could be a machinegun under the wording of the law. I just picked it as an example of the absurdities that result when you pass stupid laws. I don't think any one can claim that calling a string a machinegun isn't absurd.
     
  22. harvester of sorrow

    harvester of sorrow Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2004
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    VA
    And aiming is for people who can't shoot full auto.:rolleyes: Shooting anything is fun. For some people, shooting full auto is MORE fun. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether we shoot benchrest, or full auto, or USPSA, or trap, or PPC, we all must stand together.
     
  23. Justin

    Justin Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    19,285
    Location:
    THE CHAIR IS AGAINST THE WALL
    I've seen tricked out 10/22's set up for Team Challenge that cost $1,500-$2,000.
     
  24. cslinger

    cslinger Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    4,486
    Location:
    Nashville, TN
    I have known about this for quite some time now and had a chance to handle the preproduction wood stocked versions. Very ingenious and most definitely LEGAL at least at this point in time and like the other posters stated it would make virtually all semi-autos illegal if it was deemed illegal under current law as the shooters finger is actually pulling the trigger for each shot fired.

    Now with the government officials we have I wouldn't be surprised to see this made illegal in the future in some way shape or form.
     
  25. steelhead

    steelhead Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2004
    Messages:
    736
    Location:
    Oregon
    Someone must have failed their business class.....

    I will consider getting one when they figure out the proper price/volume formula. $200 would be a more reasonable start.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page