Not that new an idea. In paintball its known as "auto-response" and has been around since 1994ish? Ive shot PBguns set up this way, and actually, Id rather have a decent single action trigger. But, hey, its your gun, and I guess its legal, though the Ranger or Sheriffs deputy might not think so. You may want to carry that ATF letter with you. Have you checked AK law? Anyway, not trying to rain on your parade, just my thought.
Ruger Mini-14 2-Shot Okay... BATF!
- Thread starter Badger Arms
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Hogwash. Not that Ruger isn't redesigning their gun. Not that the older guns will be worth more. But here's what I think is hogwash.
The gun will fire without a disconnector, correct? This is no different than removal of a disconnector in respect to 'slam-fire'. I haven't tried it yet, but a slam-fire is a malfunction, not a function. If it were that easy, then I would have posted how to remove the disconnector. Heck, I won't post it, I'll let the people at Gun Digest make the money. It's the "Book of Firearms Disassembly." It has the MINI-14 RIGHT ON THE COVER for goodness sake.
Also hogwash that it was 'people like me' who 'ruined it' for everybody else. Give me a break. In a world where I cannot ask the gov'mnt a legal question, get an answer, and share that answer with the rest of the world, I'd be an outlaw. Here's a news flash for you. You can't hold the trigger halfway back while the gun is rocking and rolling. If you've got that kind of finesse, why not bump-fire the darned gun... or are you going to say posters who explain 'bump-firing' are also bad people. At best, you'll get a 'double' which is a type of malfunction.
Rest assured, if and when Ruger redesigns the trigger mechanism on the Mini-14, it'll sell a bunch of them. Good, sound design with a great following. Just bought another one last night. I'll see you at the range...
The gun will fire without a disconnector, correct? This is no different than removal of a disconnector in respect to 'slam-fire'. I haven't tried it yet, but a slam-fire is a malfunction, not a function. If it were that easy, then I would have posted how to remove the disconnector. Heck, I won't post it, I'll let the people at Gun Digest make the money. It's the "Book of Firearms Disassembly." It has the MINI-14 RIGHT ON THE COVER for goodness sake.
Also hogwash that it was 'people like me' who 'ruined it' for everybody else. Give me a break. In a world where I cannot ask the gov'mnt a legal question, get an answer, and share that answer with the rest of the world, I'd be an outlaw. Here's a news flash for you. You can't hold the trigger halfway back while the gun is rocking and rolling. If you've got that kind of finesse, why not bump-fire the darned gun... or are you going to say posters who explain 'bump-firing' are also bad people. At best, you'll get a 'double' which is a type of malfunction.
Rest assured, if and when Ruger redesigns the trigger mechanism on the Mini-14, it'll sell a bunch of them. Good, sound design with a great following. Just bought another one last night. I'll see you at the range...
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
Hkmp5sd
Member
Since Ruger started the whole "high capacity" magazine ban idea, maybe they'll "update" the Mini-14 so it doesn't take any of the old magazines, just their "new" Ruger 10-rounders.
As long as Ruger refuses to sell >10 round factory magazines to civilians, I have no respect for them. Claiming to redesign the trigger group because of folks making Minis go full auto is also a crock.
As long as Ruger refuses to sell >10 round factory magazines to civilians, I have no respect for them. Claiming to redesign the trigger group because of folks making Minis go full auto is also a crock.
Kestryll
member
Sorry but I gotta call BS on this. Ruger has done their redesign of the Mini-14 last year and based on several gunsmiths familiar with the Mini-14 trigger system there have been no changes.
The changes to the Mini-14 in the redesign off the top of my head were a new buttstock design, new rear sight new front sight and the combining of the Standard and Ranch models into one model.
Besides, would Ruger really cut it's own throat like that?
People dislike the Mini for either practicle reasons, innaccuracy and whippy barrel, or political, Ruger's advocation of the AWB.
People are passing on the Mini in favor of AR's where you can get them and Kel-Tec's where you can't. And Beretta's new rifle is due out so why irritate a portion of you market base?
Not buying it.
The changes to the Mini-14 in the redesign off the top of my head were a new buttstock design, new rear sight new front sight and the combining of the Standard and Ranch models into one model.
Besides, would Ruger really cut it's own throat like that?
People dislike the Mini for either practicle reasons, innaccuracy and whippy barrel, or political, Ruger's advocation of the AWB.
People are passing on the Mini in favor of AR's where you can get them and Kel-Tec's where you can't. And Beretta's new rifle is due out so why irritate a portion of you market base?
Not buying it.
rugerriflesmith said:
Rugerriflesmith: Hey, in the Mini series I dont think the hammer can reach the firing pin until the the bolt rotates to lock, correct? So its not a "slamfire" is it? Its just the sear releases the hammer on release of the trigger, rather than retaining it, correct?
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
You're correct. The firing pin cannot contact the primer until the bolt rotates into battery. However, I'm sure that an out-of-battery strike is possible if you file the 'tail' down on the firing pin, remove the ejector (it's a push-feed gun and the ejector keeps the firing pin) remove the extractor for the same, and JB Weld the firing pin forward! It might be easier to hold it in your hand and hit the primer with a nail, though.
Back to reality. What happens on a mini with the disconnector removed is that the hammer falls and expends its energy on the firing pin before the bolt has had a chance to rotate into battery. No slam fire possible. Bill Ruger designed it well. He knew all about the slam-fire problems with the M16 I'm sure. The worst you get with a 2-shot staple installed is the hammer ending up down on the firing pin with a live round in the chamber.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Back to reality. What happens on a mini with the disconnector removed is that the hammer falls and expends its energy on the firing pin before the bolt has had a chance to rotate into battery. No slam fire possible. Bill Ruger designed it well. He knew all about the slam-fire problems with the M16 I'm sure. The worst you get with a 2-shot staple installed is the hammer ending up down on the firing pin with a live round in the chamber.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Your post belies an extreme ignorance of the function of this modification, and outright disrespect for me. You call me a liar. The BATFE knows me, knows where I live, and sent that letter to my address. I'm a federally licensed firearms dealer. I'll state this again, but I fear it will be lost on you, so others should take heed. This is not a full-auto modification. Each shot is fired by a separate function of the trigger as stated in my letter to them and their letter to me. It's legal. Get over it. Call Ruger if you'd like. Call the BATFE if you'd like.TheGunDealer said:
BTW, when I called BATFE the first time, they stated that they don't answer technical questions over the phone or by email, I'd have to mail them a hard copy. If you want me to eat crow, you write your own letter enclosing my scan and the entire text of this thread. See what you get back. And don't stomp on the thread again until you have your authoritative letter.
And the video didn't work for me, but I guess that's my fault for being stupid enough to click through.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
TheGunDealer said:
Tech Branch doesn't answer these kinds of questions on the phone, and field agents will refer you to Tech Branch, so you obviously don't know what you are talking about.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
So everyone that has ever pinned the grip safety on a 1911 is a felon now?
Everyone who has added a safety to a Glock is a felon?
You really should read the laws a bit more carefully.
It's fine to err on the safe side, but you are ranting like you know all there is to know, and you've clearly made several mistakes so far, this is another.
LaEscopeta
Member
Neither links will work for me.
Domino
Member
TheGunDealer, did you read exactly what his modification does??? It allows for the weapon to fire once upon pulling the trigger, then once upon releasing the trigger. By BATFE definition, a machine gun is classified as a weapon that fires more than one round of ammunition upon a "single" motion of the trigger. Technically speaking pulling is one motion, releasing is another motion, think about it.
If it is illegal, than why don't you show us a BATFE letter that says so? Why, probably because you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, WHERE is your evidence??? I have a book of Federal Fierarms Regulations (circa 2000) sent to me by the BATFE and after reading the NFA act extensively its definition of machine gun is NOT what this trigger mechanism is, PLAIN and SIMPLE. Anyone from the ATF have any comments???
This modification IS legal, probably the only reason you don't see people selling trigger groups that do this is for concern of negligent discharges due to a lack of user understanding in how it works. I, personally think it could be used safely, others do not think it fit for use. Its a matter of opinion but, I think as long as you pull and release the trigger every time you should have no trouble with safety issues.
I do think it could be a usefull tool to some although if I were to use something like that I would like a selector switch change it to a standard trigger mode.
If it is illegal, than why don't you show us a BATFE letter that says so? Why, probably because you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, WHERE is your evidence??? I have a book of Federal Fierarms Regulations (circa 2000) sent to me by the BATFE and after reading the NFA act extensively its definition of machine gun is NOT what this trigger mechanism is, PLAIN and SIMPLE. Anyone from the ATF have any comments???
This modification IS legal, probably the only reason you don't see people selling trigger groups that do this is for concern of negligent discharges due to a lack of user understanding in how it works. I, personally think it could be used safely, others do not think it fit for use. Its a matter of opinion but, I think as long as you pull and release the trigger every time you should have no trouble with safety issues.
I do think it could be a usefull tool to some although if I were to use something like that I would like a selector switch change it to a standard trigger mode.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Where's the video? Where did you get it? You say you have it, but you don't give anybody else a workable link to find it.
You know, it's hard for me to respond when you keep editing your posts after somebody else has replied. I checked the times. I shouldn't have to endure your personal attacks. Show me the video and then show me something from the BATF that says you're right or stop spouting.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
Domino
Member
You know, your probably right. If you think about there are really only two options on this TheGunDealers true intentions.
The first bieng that this is an observer who after reading this thread decided to single handedly throw out a bunch of nonsense to scare readers to not do this modification; perhaps due to some illogical fear of people using it for some reason.
OR...
This is an foolish, loud mouthed, know-it-all who is going to realize his/her huge error in judgement and understanding of the law in the VERY near future. If so, I bet you will not see any more threads from this person if they have any shame.
I would further like to add that Badger Arms is a well-known and respected member of this forum and I am offended of his treatment by this individual. Such behavior is immature and shows a real lack of good character, I hope this person takes thier comments into further consideration before posting in the future.
Also, I hope the moderators make the right choice in NOT allowing misinformation and ignorance to prevail. THR is a quality forum and it should do everything in its power to properly inform its users of the law, I hope to hear some sort of validation from them in the near future.
OP
OP
Badger Arms
Member
Compare this:
He went back and edited many of his posts after people had responded and I wasn't quick enough to catch it and save what he did say.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
...to this:TheGunDealer said:
... and this:rugerriflesmith said:
Now, I'm not a rocket scientist, however I've got a pretty good sense for BS. The 'rugerriflesmith' is the same guy as 'TheGunDealer.' He just posted a phantom troll so he'd have somebody to back up his story. (edit: His posts were deleted by the Moderators for good reason... but this is still funny) Sure, I'm not 100% sure of it, but take some clues from the way he writes. All lower case, poor grammar, the way he jumps into all uppercase type, his use of contractions without appostrophes, his use of the word "there" in place of "they're" and "their," fails to put a space after his commas and periods, etc. Beyond that, he's making claims about terrorism, posting links to videos that don't exist, and making claims about full-auto fire, asserting he's talked to the BATFE, the California DOJ, and gotten information from them. I don't know why he has a beef with me. I was being cordial and tried to help him out earlier with pricing a gun and stock. I'm a nice guy. It's taken too much of my time to figure this out. I don't think this portion of the thread is worthy of continuing though.TheGunDealer said:
He went back and edited many of his posts after people had responded and I wasn't quick enough to catch it and save what he did say.
Edited to remove troll tracks.
Last edited:
Some of you guys have trouble reading and understanding the English language? The procedure described is not f.a. There's no ground being broken here...nothing new. This device is no more illegal than is the rotary, "gatling gun" add-on.
Quit worrying about what the "antis" think. If they could think, they wouldn't be antis. I wouldn't own a Mini on a bet, but the modification mentioned is a far cry from f.a. Don't waste good paper making a copy of the BATFE letter. You aren't going to be arrested for owning a Mini that fires once when you pull the trigger and again when you release the trigger.
Quit worrying about what the "antis" think. If they could think, they wouldn't be antis. I wouldn't own a Mini on a bet, but the modification mentioned is a far cry from f.a. Don't waste good paper making a copy of the BATFE letter. You aren't going to be arrested for owning a Mini that fires once when you pull the trigger and again when you release the trigger.
- Status
Similar threads
