Muzzel-loading machinegun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PAC 762

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
510
Location
Delaware
I was watching a Myth Busters episode where they were trying to see how fast a single-action revolver could be fired. They built a rig to hold a cap & ball revolver with its trigger down. They then used a paddle attachment on an electric drill to fan the hammer. The result was more than one shot per pull of the "trigger" (ie- the drill's trigger). However, the weapon did not fire fixed ammunition. Is this an NFA "machinegun" or not?

I wonder if a revolver cylendar can be replaced with a "belt" of chambers that could be pulled along by the revolvers lockwork... :evil:
 
PAC 762: "I wonder if a revolver cylendar can be replaced with a "belt" of chambers that could be pulled along by the revolvers lockwork... "

YES. These never were very practical because the "belt" must be rather large and heavy. A magazine and fixed breech-loading autoloading pistol makes much more mechanical sense. But if those become restricted, we will see a lot of development work in revolvers and other movable-breech weapons. I dabble in this myself, and while I haven't yet completed a fully developed, patentable design, I have some pretty well-developed patterns and ideas. Just not much of a market for it -- yet.
 
Under Federal law, muzzle-loaders aren't generally considered firearms. That's also why cannons aren't considered destructive devices.
 
yes, but unfortunately some states still do. TX considers anything that uses an explosion or such to expell a projectile from a barrel as a firearm.

my guess is soon there's gonna be alot of interest in airguns and such as they get around almost every gun law
 
TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter B > PART I > § 5845

(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.
Click to expand...
Does it fit the above federal defintion of machine gun?

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 44 > § 922
(o)
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Click to expand...
What do you think?
 
Good Lord! In this terrible,PC world we live in the Myth busters are going to be 'busted' for shooting a black powder gun! What ever will happen to the poor fellow with the Gatling gun at our last Cannon Shoot?!
 
hm. i doubt mythbusters is going to get much flak from the govt about this. its a show that makes their liberal tv show owners lots of money. why would any Democrats complain? hence, there is no need for ATF or anyone to get involved
 
They built a rig to hold a cap & ball revolver with its trigger down. They then used a paddle attachment on an electric drill to fan the hammer. The result was more than one shot per pull of the "trigger" (ie- the drill's trigger). However, the weapon did not fire fixed ammunition. Is this an NFA "machinegun" or not?
Click to expand...
No, or every single-action revolver would be a machine gun. More importantly, it is not automatic fire, i.e., the power of the previous round ejecting the fired case and feeding the next round. Each round, regardless of whether it is fixed or loose ammunition, is individually, mechanically fired. You could take a semi-auto firearm, rig a hand crank or even an electric motor with a cam to trip the trigger, and this would be legal (at least under NFA).
 
Lone Haranger: "You could take a semi-auto firearm, rig a hand crank or even an electric motor with a cam to trip the trigger, and this would be legal (at least under NFA)."

About eight years ago a guy did just this using eight SKS rifles. It was a hand-cranked Gatling gun. Looked bizarre, and it took up a lot of space, but that's what he did. It was all over the firearms sites.
 
IIRC, a gattling gun with a handcrank is legal, but a gattling that turns with a drill is illegal. The alphabet-soup gang consider the electric drill a "trigger". A crank is considered multiple trigger pulls, while a drill is one pull.

For instance, if I were to make a paddle for an electric drill to pull the trigger of a semi-auto multiple times, I would be making a MG. If I built a manual crank with a paddle to pull the triiger multiple times, the gun remains a semi-auto.

If the myth busters used a modern cartridge arm in their rig, I'm 99% sure it would be classified a MG. However, I'm not sure with the use of a C&B revolver that does not used fixed ammo.
 
The Mythbusters are very high profile. Even if they did technically break the law, it would create such negitive publicity to arrest them on NFA charges that it will never happen.

You however, might be made an example of.
 
What was that device that turned a regular firearm into a machine gun? The inventory asked for a ruling from the BATF which stated it wasn't a machine gun and then he went forward mfgering them. When it was time to sell them the BATF decided it was now a machine gun.
 
It is a machinegun.

No, or every single-action revolver would be a machine gun. More importantly, it is not automatic fire, i.e., the power of the previous round ejecting the fired case and feeding the next round. Each round, regardless of whether it is fixed or loose ammunition, is individually, mechanically fired. You could take a semi-auto firearm, rig a hand crank or even an electric motor with a cam to trip the trigger, and this would be legal (at least under NFA).
Click to expand...

Yes
No

An electric drill is going to get you in really big trouble. A hand crank is ok.


(b) Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means 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.
Click to expand...
Pulling the hammer back is manually reloading. The contraption pulls the trigger only once, but pulls the hammer back repeatedly. BUT, whatever switch or button starts the contraption becomes the "trigger", thus making this a machinegun, since it is capable of firing multiple shots with a single push of the button "trigger".
 
I'm pretty sure Mythbusters works with local law enforcement so that they aren't breaking any laws. I couldn't imagine the producer being stupid enough not to.
 
I'm pretty sure Mythbusters works with local law enforcement so that they aren't breaking any laws. I couldn't imagine the producer being stupid enough not to.
Click to expand...
I could. What they created was a machinegun, per the ATF definition. It was illegal.
 
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
Click to expand...

Any chance that they had local police on hand? There's just no way that they'd do something like this without covering their ass, so I'll bet that they could just claim it was just possessed under the authority of the police department.
 
Any chance that they had local police on hand? There's just no way that they'd do something like this without covering their ass, so I'll bet that they could just claim it was just possessed under the authority of the police department.
Click to expand...
Or... they figure that they are allowed to do whatever they want because they're MythBusters, and don't really understand the law.
 
Or... they figure that they are allowed to do whatever they want because they're MythBusters, and don't really understand the law.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but from my experience with TV production for a show of that popularity, every little decision is fed to a battalion of managers, lawyers, etc. I just doubt that this idea could've completely missed their legal team. Will they have an excuse? I'll bet my life savings. Does that mean it's a good excuse? Nope. But they don't need a good excuse, they're the Mythbusters. :D

In other words, I think they "get" the law, and have a plausible way around it. Plausible enough for a pack of lawyers to handle, at least. They wouldn't do it if they couldn't think of some arguable way to circumvent the law.
 
"yes, but unfortunately some states still do. TX considers anything that uses an explosion or such to expell a projectile from a barrel as a firearm."

And yet you can walk into Bass Pro, grab a muzzle loader off the shelf, walk to the register, pay, walk out...

Not exactly regulated like a firearm, though...
p
 
By Federal law.....

Gatling guns are not considered machine guns... they only fire one round at a time cranked and have gravity fed mags... so why would a revolver that was assisted be any different than one of those trigger thingy's that you can put on a semi auto...

PA113254.jpg
 
Gatling guns are not considered machine guns... they only fire one round at a time cranked and have gravity fed mags... so why would a revolver that was assisted be any different than one of those trigger thingy's that you can put on a semi auto...
Click to expand...
Because it was "assisted" by an electrical device that in effect created a full-auto trigger. The crank is viewed differently by the ATF. If you hooked that legal gatling gun up to a drill and used the drill to turn the crank, that would be illegal too.

To the atf, the trigger is not the physical trigger of the firearm, but WHATEVER you press to make the gun fire. Even if that is the trigger of a drill, a button or a switch, it is now the trigger, because it is the part that you touch to make the gun fire. If it fires more than one bullet per touch of that "trigger", you have created a machinegun. That is why what the MythBusters did was illegal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
Ex post facto MG ban, letter to Len Savage
Replies
10
Views
938
saltydog
saltydog
H
  • Locked
Recent Federal Case (Merged with " Rifle malfunction= prosecution?")
2 3 4 5 6 7
Replies
164
Views
13K
alan
A
M
  • Locked
what will put you in prison in America - a short list (letter)
Replies
17
Views
829
MicroBalrog
M
S
  • Locked
Automated weapon legality?
Replies
22
Views
3K
brickeyee
B
O
  • Locked
Is That Thing Legal: Understanding NFA 34
Replies
15
Views
2K
ptmmatssc
P
Back
Top