Trigger that fires on both pull and release?

[Domino]

Did a search and came up with nothing...

What is the legality of a trigger that fires both on pull and release? It seems to me that this is two seperate motions and would not qualify as a machine gun. Is anyone interested in a trigger that functions like this? Say a 10/22 or AR-15 that can be switched back to semi-auto at the flip of a switch?

 

[bang_bang]

that can be switched back to semi-auto at the flip of a switch?

I'm not certain of laws, but this statement pretty much sums up a fire control group.

 

[FlyinBryan]

i know a guy who can make a mini14 do it with about an 1/8th inch long piece of the clip that holds a fountain pen in your shirt pocket.

i know because he showed it to me back when i had a mini.

as far as whether or not its legal, i dont remember, its been 10 years or more ago now.

its an interesting notion, especially when you throw in a selector switch.

 

[PT1911]

such a thing would be semi-auto all the time.. fires with each trigger movement.. I have heard of such a thing but am unaware of its availability.

 

[benEzra]

It's legal, according to the BATFE.

However, in my opinion, such mechanisms are useless from a practical standpoint, and dangerous enough that if a company actually set out to manufacture and sell a trigger pack with that functionality, they would be sued out of existence the first time someone had a release-trigger ND, as it would be rather easy to demonstrate that the design is inherently unsafe.

Big uber-thread here, with a letter from the BATFE that someone posted:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=62411

I suppose the primary rationale for it would be to slightly reduce your split times when firing hammers on close-range targets in a defensive situation. But to me, the drawbacks outweigh any advantages, and I'm not even considering the civil liability issues in a defensive shooting (egads). The problem as I see it, as I pointed out in the other thread, is that it commits you to a second shot after the first shot is fired; there is no way to safely stop halfway into the pair.

That's a problem because if you are shooting at any distance other than pretty close range, the second shot will be an automatic miss if you release the trigger immediately, and the requirement to immediately let the second round fly would prevent you from having a decent follow-through (thereby making your first shot worse, as well). But, if you hold the second shot to speed up your transitions, then you open up the whole "uh-oh, now what do I do with it" can of worms if the situation suddenly changes from "shoot" to "no shoot". It's something of a catch-22.

IMHO, a mod that screws up your long-range shooting, slows down your target-to-target transitions (by adding a second recoil pulse, and requiring the gun to hang onto each target for the second shot), and is only faster than a conventional "hammer" by a small fraction of a second if you do need to shoot twice, isn't something I'd want on any of my guns, even if somebody paid me to let them install it.

The letter from the BATFE, FWIW:

 

[Domino]

It's legal, according to the BATFE.

However, in my opinion, such mechanisms are useless from a practical standpoint, and dangerous enough that if a company actually set out to manufacture and sell a trigger pack with that functionality, they would be sued out of existence the first time someone had a release-trigger ND, as it would be rather easy to demonstrate that the design is inherently unsafe.

Big uber-thread here, with a letter from the BATFE that someone posted:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=62411

I suppose the primary rationale for it would be to slightly reduce your split times when firing hammers on close-range targets in a defensive situation. But to me, the drawbacks outweigh any advantages, and I'm not even considering the civil liability issues in a defensive shooting (egads). The problem as I see it, as I pointed out in the other thread, is that it commits you to a second shot after the first shot is fired; there is no way to safely stop halfway into the pair.

That's a problem because if you are shooting at any distance other than pretty close range, the second shot will be an automatic miss if you release the trigger immediately, and the requirement to immediately let the second round fly would prevent you from having a decent follow-through (thereby making your first shot worse, as well). But, if you hold the second shot to speed up your transitions, then you open up the whole "uh-oh, now what do I do with it can of worms if the situation suddenly changes from "shoot" to "no shoot". It's something of a catch-22.

IMHO, a mod that screws up your long-range shooting, slows down your target-to-target transitions (by adding a second recoil pulse, and requiring the gun to hang onto each target for the second shot), and is only faster than a conventional "hammer" by a small fraction of a second if you do need to shoot twice, isn't something I'd want on any of my guns, even if somebody paid me to let them install it.

The letter from the BATFE, FWIW:

WTH does that mean. The BATFE is basically saying "don't try it or we will screw you" from what I can see. Am I wrong?

 

[Float Pilot]

You would always have to fire two shots. Never one. M-16s will do that when one of the pins starts to walk out of the receiver from improper installation. It would be more annoying than anything else.

 

[Bailey Boat]

I can't speak to the practice in rifles but in the shotgun shooting games it's fairly common only backwards to what you described. A "release trigger" requires that the trigger be pulled to "set" and released to fire for the first shot and then normally pulled for the second shot. The majority of these triggers are found on over/unders on the skeet field.

 

[ArmedBear]

A "release trigger" requires that the trigger be pulled to "set" and released to fire for the first shot and then normally pulled for the second shot.

True.

They are somewhat common, but NDs are not unheard-of. Some guns with them have a big brightly-colored R on the buttstock, too.

Some trapshooters swear by them as a flinch cure.

Personally, I don't want one. They don't seem like a great idea. I've tried them, and they're just plain weird. You're holding a gun with the trigger down, and when you let go, the gun fires.

 

[benEzra]

WTH does that mean. The BATFE is basically saying "don't try it or we will screw you" from what I can see. Am I wrong?

The BATFE is saying "No, that would not make the gun a machinegun." First sentence of the last paragraph is the gist of it.

 

[Bailey Boat]

AB, I agree.... Wierd isn't the word!!! I tried a guys trap gun ONCE and promptly shot about 10 feet behind the bird because I was thinking about the trigger not the bird.....

 

[Ditch-Tiger]

I've seen a highly customized Kreigoff (spelled wrong?) with a release trigger for the first barrel and then a normal trigger pull for the second barrel.
(It did have the big "R" on the grip cap)

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

I think benEZRA pretty well summed it up nicely there; thanks. Sounds unsafe to me.

 

[jackdanson]

I've always thought about designing a trigger mechanism that mechanically pushed/reset the trigger back into your finger after firing. Meaning if you kept squeezing it would fire again...

Like on this painball gun (warning, dumb guy in video, just showing you how it would work)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqRHhJHVs8

I think it would be legal and safer than a "double-fire" trigger.

 

[Float Pilot]

Double triggers like an old sideby side shotgun would be better. Just use two fingers and make the walking motion.

 

[WardenWolf]

A trigger that fires on both pull and release may be legal in the most technical sense, but it is not safe, and you may still be charged under various local laws regarding reckless endangerment or unsafe firearms at police discretion. Effectively, once you have fired that first shot, you are committed to firing a second shot, whether or not the threat warrants it. This inherently places you in violation of the law if the firearm is to be used for self-defense, because the law says you shoot to stop the threat, not to kill, and modifying the gun to fire a second shot like this results in "excessive shooting".

 

[Domino]

I've always thought about designing a trigger mechanism that mechanically pushed/reset the trigger back into your finger after firing. Meaning if you kept squeezing it would fire again...

Like on this painball gun (warning, dumb guy in video, just showing you how it would work)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZqRHhJHVs8

I think it would be legal and safer than a "double-fire" trigger.

I like the way you think. I too have considered this as I have a Tippman Custom 98 with a response trigger that works in this same fashion. The only thing is that it uses gas from the CO2 in order to make this work. It works quite well and it is adjustable. For a firearm it needs to be mechanical to be reliable.

After considering what others have said on this post I agree that a pull/release firing trigger is probably a bad idea. I am currently looking at the possibilites of a "response trigger" for the 10/22 and it looks like it would be quite simple. With a speacially designed trigger that allows for the force of the hammer bieng cocked in its most rearward position to reset the trigger. It looks very doable and quite easy. You just need a trigger that extends to allow for this while making room for the sear and hammer spring. Any suggestions?

 

[Maverick223]

I had one...by accident...and it is a little odd at first, especially when you don't know about it. When I converted by Saiga S-12 it did just that. I thought it was going full auto for a moment...and a full-auto 12Ga is less than controllable. First round on target...second in trees. Problem was solved with a little filing to the receiver to promote the trigger to fully reset. It is now the best trigger that I have used in an AK style weapon...needless to say I will not be going back.