Maybe this is NFA, but since the ATF has said non-electrical assisted handcranks aren't MGs, has anyone tried applying it to more modern guns? I swear I've seen a handcranked Ma Deuce or Colt 1919. I mean in theory couldn't one replace a trigger on an MP5 clone with a "ring" that one's cranks in lieu of pulling a trigger or even turning fgn actual handcrank? Considering how people love bumpfire devices an AR-15 Handcrank could be worth some money...granted I'm not an engineer so it's not like I could make one. lol
The Handcrank Gun...anyone ever try it on modern guns?
- Thread starter gfanikf
- Start date
- Status
harqueb.us
Member
You mean like this?
http://www.tacticalinc.com/activatorbrcrank-fire-fast-shootingbrfor-rugerreg-1022reg-charger-p-1247.html
In action:
http://www.tacticalinc.com/activatorbrcrank-fire-fast-shootingbrfor-rugerreg-1022reg-charger-p-1247.html
In action:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sure. There are handcrank designs around that are designed for, or can be adapted to, many semi-auto firearms.
In fact, we have members here who have designed and built their own.
In fact, we have members here who have designed and built their own.
Owen Sparks
member
- Joined
- May 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,523
Something like that on a tripod mounted belt fed Browning would be very practical with a shoulder stock to keep the aim steady. It would operate sort of like the old time hand cranked movie cameras. It could probably be made as part of the mount.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
I'm pretty leery of such devices. Yes, I saw a pic of a pair of Ruger 10-22 actions coupled to one crank which looked nifty, and I lusted over it.
But let's not forget that the BATFE has certain laws they are charged with enforcing and sometimes literal reading of these laws can lead to weird results --as with any law, once the lawyers get ahold of it.
If you recall, a while ago there was a big brouhaha about how silly it was for the BATFE to call a looped shoestring an actual machinegun. But on reading their letter citing the way the actual law was written, I could see where they were coming from. I (gasp!) agreed with their viewpoint.
In certain conditions a looped shoestring could literally be called a "machinegun" according to the actual legalese.
For all we know at this point, a single pull of the "rack and pinion" offered in Post 4 above could easily be interpreted as "a single pull of the trigger" thereby making the device, in and of itself, a machinegun.
Who knows?
So, as the saying goes, "take care."
Inquire first.
Terry, 230RN
But let's not forget that the BATFE has certain laws they are charged with enforcing and sometimes literal reading of these laws can lead to weird results --as with any law, once the lawyers get ahold of it.
If you recall, a while ago there was a big brouhaha about how silly it was for the BATFE to call a looped shoestring an actual machinegun. But on reading their letter citing the way the actual law was written, I could see where they were coming from. I (gasp!) agreed with their viewpoint.
In certain conditions a looped shoestring could literally be called a "machinegun" according to the actual legalese.
For all we know at this point, a single pull of the "rack and pinion" offered in Post 4 above could easily be interpreted as "a single pull of the trigger" thereby making the device, in and of itself, a machinegun.
Who knows?
So, as the saying goes, "take care."
Inquire first.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Would all depend on how they define "one operation of the trigger."
In the case of the hand cranks, one operation of the trigger is some fractional part of a circle. One full revolution might fire the gun four times, but they will accept that only 90 degrees of rotation is equal to one operation of the trigger.
In the case of the rack-and-pinion or "ripcord" idea, that would probably be a tougher sell. One operation of the trigger would have to be considered only a pull of, say, one inch, whereas pulling two inches would fire it twice. Pulling it all the way would fire the gun multiple times.
Seems to me it is dancing on the edge already and that might just be over the edge.
But you'd have to get it in writing to be sure. Well, sort of sure. For a while at least.
In the case of the hand cranks, one operation of the trigger is some fractional part of a circle. One full revolution might fire the gun four times, but they will accept that only 90 degrees of rotation is equal to one operation of the trigger.
In the case of the rack-and-pinion or "ripcord" idea, that would probably be a tougher sell. One operation of the trigger would have to be considered only a pull of, say, one inch, whereas pulling two inches would fire it twice. Pulling it all the way would fire the gun multiple times.
Seems to me it is dancing on the edge already and that might just be over the edge.
But you'd have to get it in writing to be sure. Well, sort of sure. For a while at least.
I've shot a semi 1919 with a hand crank. There are two versions commercially available - one is a nice big crank attached to a set of spade grips, and the other is a mach smaller crank that mounts to the bottom of the receiver. I used the small version, with an A6 buttstock and a bipod or M3 tripod. Got around 400-450 rpm (3 rounds fired per turn of the crank). Not the same as a live full auto, but a lot cheaper.
Millwright
Member
Lessee....we're trying to outguess the possible "decision" of an agency that's declared bootlaces and rubber bands "machine guns" in court testimony ? >MW
Sheepdog1968
Member
If I was at a range where I could try one out I would. Otherwise I will let it just be a fantasy. It would suck ammo too quickly to get used that often. As it is, I rarely take out the semiautos as I prefer the lever and bolt actions.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Millwright remarked,
Read Post 7:
I'm sure you're joking, but read the original correspondence, where they made the original decision dictated by the actual law's actual verbiage, and then their later clarification, developed because of the fuss generated by "our" interpretation that we all walk around with two machine guns laced into our shoes.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
I'm not in the habit of defending the BATFE, but as I said above, there are enough vagaries in the laws they are charged with enforcing that I'd think carefully about trying to finesse the system with, say, rack-and-pinion firing systems (see Post 4).
Like it or not, they are trying to enforce a set of Federal firearms laws which sometimes lead to unexpected and unintended results, and which are on the face of it unconstitutional infringements, like having a shotgun with a barrel only 17.99999 inches long. Or got that way by having the temperature drop to 20° Fahrenheit, by shrinkage.
The solution is to get rid of the NFA and, while we're at it, the GCA of 1968 and all derivative laws.
Let the BATFE go after moonshiners and tobacco smugglers and take what's specifically out-of-bounds constitutionally, out of their jurisdiction.
Terry, 230RN
Read Post 7:
I'm sure you're joking, but read the original correspondence, where they made the original decision dictated by the actual law's actual verbiage, and then their later clarification, developed because of the fuss generated by "our" interpretation that we all walk around with two machine guns laced into our shoes.
http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
I'm not in the habit of defending the BATFE, but as I said above, there are enough vagaries in the laws they are charged with enforcing that I'd think carefully about trying to finesse the system with, say, rack-and-pinion firing systems (see Post 4).
Like it or not, they are trying to enforce a set of Federal firearms laws which sometimes lead to unexpected and unintended results, and which are on the face of it unconstitutional infringements, like having a shotgun with a barrel only 17.99999 inches long. Or got that way by having the temperature drop to 20° Fahrenheit, by shrinkage.
The solution is to get rid of the NFA and, while we're at it, the GCA of 1968 and all derivative laws.
Let the BATFE go after moonshiners and tobacco smugglers and take what's specifically out-of-bounds constitutionally, out of their jurisdiction.
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
exavid
Member
I used to have a cute little toy for my mini14. It was called an 'activator', basically a plastic crank with a cam that mounted inside the trigger guard of the rifle. Each turn of the crank generated three or four (don't remember for sure) pushes on the trigger. The thing sounded like a machine gun with very rapid firing. Cost me a mint after all my buddies tried it, the activator wasn't expensive but all that ammo was. Yep, it's the same one the above link goes to. Surprising they're still available considering they really aren't any good for anything but burning up ammo. I bought mine back in 1974. It fit the Mini14 just fine too.
fatcat4620
Member
I asked about these and the BAFTE before and was quickly told that it us still one round fired per trigger pull. I asked if there was a letter out there on these type things but got no response. At what point does the crank become the trigger? If it its permanently attached to the gun and the interface between you and making the gun fire is it the trigger?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Whenever it is attached the the gun it is the "trigger." When it isn't, the trigger is the trigger.
The only time it becomes an issue is if you used some device (like an electric drill) to turn the crank and then the drill's trigger becomes the trigger for the whole system, and depressing it and holding it down makes the system continue to fire multiple shots. That becomes a machine gun in the eyes of the BATFE.
fatcat4620
Member
So how much of a turn of the crank = one trigger pull?
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So far, it seems that there is no limit on what the ATF will accept as the portion of a revolution required to fire a shot.
Most of the devices seem to operate at about 3-4 shots per revolution.
Most of the devices seem to operate at about 3-4 shots per revolution.
exavid
Member
Slide fire stocks are a real kick to shoot. I tried one on another fellow's AR a few weeks ago. The thing will fire as fast as a submachine gun but you can control the amount of fire easily from one to a burst that'll empty a 40 round magazine. If they were a bit cheaper ($300+) I'd buy one for my AR. These are legal and come with a letter from the BATFE saying so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3oAuFg5Ow
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU3oAuFg5Ow
HankB
Member
Hmmm . . . I can envision a system with reduction gearing that would shoot considerably more than 3-4 shots per revolution. With a tripod mounted semi-auto belt-fed system (or an AR with a Beta mag?) it could be interesting.Sam1911 said:
Interesting indeed . . . and more than a little bit silly. Which means that somebody, somewhere, has probably cobbled something like this together already.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Sure. I've watched guys at Knob Creek burn through belts an Beta-Cs doing just that. Don't need gear reduction, just crank faster. Putting it on a tripod frees you up to make some decent cranking speed.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Other than getting a kick out of engineering it and skirting the ATF...why?
Full auto is largely useless outside of supressive fire. Even soldiers in combat generally don't use the full auto or 3 rd burst on their rifles, and just leave the auto stuff to the crew served weapons. Automatic fire is just not very accurate and a waste of ammo unless you have the logistical support to make ammo overuse irrelevant. Something the military has and we do not.
Again besides "I have a right to" and just seeing if it can be done, what would be the point?
Full auto is largely useless outside of supressive fire. Even soldiers in combat generally don't use the full auto or 3 rd burst on their rifles, and just leave the auto stuff to the crew served weapons. Automatic fire is just not very accurate and a waste of ammo unless you have the logistical support to make ammo overuse irrelevant. Something the military has and we do not.
Again besides "I have a right to" and just seeing if it can be done, what would be the point?
MachIVshooter
Member
4 is the most I've seen. There's not enough room in the trigger guard for more than 4 cam lobes that would move the trigger enough on most guns. And remember that using a geared system will increase the cranking effort. A shorter, less obtrusive crank that you can turn faster just makes more sense.
My guess would be that your rack's "loop" becomes the trigger and makes it a machine gun. But you can always write BATF's FTB.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
