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

USM4 ATF Approved Full Auto

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by AWorthyOpponent, Jan 9, 2014.

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

    AWorthyOpponent Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    Got to see one of these today in person. It's a select fire lower, that uses bump fire to get around the "one shot per trigger pull" definition. Unlike the silly (IMO) bump fire stock, the weapon remains completely still and operates the same as an actual NFA in terms of use. How it works is actually quite simple. Switching the weapon to "auto" moves something and allows the trigger group to move around inside the weapon. The trigger group moves as the weapon cycles. Theoretically that lets the trigger cycle each time the weapon is fired...check out the video. Will try to get my own video if I can...

    http://usautoweapons.com/usm4/
     
  2. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    Yeeaaah... I can see them changing their minds on that sooner, than later.
     
  3. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,651
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    I would be very interested in seeing one up close, would like to know how they managed this, since anything mechanical that assists the bump firing action (such as a return spring in a bump fire stock) is not legal.
     
  4. AWorthyOpponent

    AWorthyOpponent Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    It looks like something moves and simply allows the trigger group to move back and forth just enough to reset on blowback, and pushes it forward when the bolt seats...no springs or anything...

    Very unique and I have seen the ATF letter...how could they go back on it...?
     
  5. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    Let me count the ways.... They've gone back on their word before.

    Sorry, don't have enough fingers.

    :)
     
  6. Quiet

    Quiet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2007
    Messages:
    3,064
    Location:
    bouncing between the 909 & the 702
    Because they can.

    There's precedent in which the BATFE approved a device as not a MG and, after several hundred were sold, then changed their minds and declared it a MG.
     
  7. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    They also banned all shoelaces, at one point in time, declaring a 14" piece of shoestring as an NFA item.

    shoestringmg.jpg

    Note the serial # tag crimped on, this one was registered as a machinegun by the SOT.
     
  8. CharlieDeltaJuliet

    CharlieDeltaJuliet Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    1,456
    Location:
    North Carolinian
    Yep, you have to surrender it and basically lose your money...
     
  9. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    Also, the BATF's reversals can be retroactive and destroy grandfathering provisions everyone previously thought were intact.

    Their capability to do so is still meandering through the slow appeals process but as of the last update I saw, it does NOT bode well. The last ruling threw open the door for anyone possessing certain items which were previously thought to be grandfathered, as NOT grandfathered, which places a large amount of gun owners at risk for owning something that was previously thought to be grandfathered (old FN-FAL's, certain open bolt pistols, etc).

    Basically items which were possessed prior to the ATF's rulings, were assumed to be grandfathered, but now the Federal court says "no", they are not. Once the BATF rules that something is prohibited, it *is* prohibited, across the board, no exceptions for date of acquisition or manufacture.

    http://www.firearmscoalition.org/in...-reversed&catid=19:the-knox-update&Itemid=144

    This makes any of the stuff now pretty dangerous; e.g. Slide-fire, or whatever the new variant will be.

    If they make it contraband at some point it will be retroactive, at least in that federal district. (6th circuit).

    We have a contradictory ruling in the 7th circuit - stating that machineguns produced after the ban are not subject to the NFA, as there is no way to PAY the tax on them at this point, which makes the NFA unconstitutional. That case (http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm) went very strongly in our favor.

    Emphasis added.

    So now we have case law which is contradictory in several Federal circuits... which could lead to a nifty show down at some point in the USSC.
     
  10. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    It's worse than that now. Read my post above (we cross-posted). Depending on where you are in the country, you could technically be tried and convicted for possessing it, the instant the ruling comes down from the BATF that it is contraband (6th circuit). Or, (7th circuit), your lawyer could draw on the Rock Island Armory case and cite that the Federal court ruled that the NFA tax was unconstitutional.

    NOTE: I'm not a laywer, not offering a legal opinion, and this conversation went sideways; my apologies. Perhaps we can get an actual lawyer who understands Federal case law to give us some additional insight.
     
  11. Midwest

    Midwest Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    Messages:
    2,557
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Yes, correct. They can reclassify anything after it was already sold as a regular firearm. Like it was done for these shotguns, the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper. All of which were reclassified as 'Destructive Devices' after being sold over the counter as a regular firearm.

    http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html
     
  12. Ranger Roberts
    • Contributing Member

    Ranger Roberts Become a THR contributing member!

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,078
    Location:
    Skook County, PA
    Google "original akins accelerator".
     
  13. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    Well, to be fair, at the time they were classified as destructive devices the option was given to grandfather in existing specimens in the NFA registration. Which effectively banned *unregistered* versions. Technically, if you registered them during the time allotted, they were still legal to possess (but forevermore considered destructive devices).

    While another topic, that whole situation with USAS/Streetsweepers/etc, (as well as Mac9's, early FN-FAL's, etc), is worth serious consideration with SAIGA shotguns and the ultimate future those who choose to convert them to a "non-sporting" use may someday face.

    US Vs. Aiken demonstrated that despite the Rock Island Armory vs. United States case I cited above, a person who *converts* a firearm from a legitimate title I form, to a restricted (title II destructive device) state, DOES NOT HAVE the protection associated with being a manufacturer. In US Vs. Aiken, the defendant tried to claim he was protected from a 922(o) charge for possession of a sawed off shotgun because he had no method of registering or paying the tax. But as he was not the manufacturer or importer of the firearm, the court said "no way, buddy". (He was also a felon in possession, so he had that going against him as well...) Anyway, not sure where conversion of a firearm from a Title I to a Title II destructive device would apply, if Saigas in a post import, non-sporting form, were ever declared non-sporting (and thus a destructive device).

    Straying too far though.

    Question - Is this is a newly manufactured receiver, or a trigger pack, or ???

    Anyone have a copy of the letter?
     
  14. jlbraun

    jlbraun Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    From the BATFU's perspective, it is better to issue a letter saying something is OK, let someone sink their savings into it, then declare it retroactively illegal and bankrupt them. This hurts gun owners more and destroys more small businesses than if they declared it illegal in the first place.

    Assume government is trying to screw you, and everything makes way more sense.
     
  15. CLP

    CLP Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,032
    Location:
    Alabama
    That's probably the most expensive piece of string in existence!
     
  16. Queen_of_Thunder

    Queen_of_Thunder member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,881
    Location:
    Where God purifies the soul. The West Texas desert
    A LGS has one for sale and another LGS has 13 on order. Price is in the $990 range for the complete lower with this trigger setup. I know it has a letter that comes with it but if a local LE persons looks at it they will assume its a full auto since there is an auto selection. I'm quite sure it will cause an owner quite a bit of trouble and time convincing LE, even with the letter that is ok to have the firearm.
     
  17. marv

    marv Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Location:
    South coast of Indiana
    I find it ironic that with today's near critical ammo shortages, people are designing ways to shoot the stuff up faster.
     
  18. Ranger Roberts
    • Contributing Member

    Ranger Roberts Become a THR contributing member!

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2012
    Messages:
    1,078
    Location:
    Skook County, PA
    Thank the gun gods for reloading equipment!
     
  19. SharpsDressedMan

    SharpsDressedMan member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2007
    Messages:
    5,957
    Location:
    NE Ohio
    Don't ask, don't tell. :D
     
  20. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,318
    Next time I am in Scottsdale I will drop by and ask those folks some questions. I know TacCon has a drop in bumpfire trigger. I'd rather put a trigger in my registered SBR lower than buy a lower I can only use with long barrels.

    Link since this forum does not appear to allow embedded video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQtCTUq4Y_I

    Mike

    PS. I did some more searching and it looks like the USM4 uses the TacCon Trigger.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2014
  21. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    Haha same here. I have a semi-auto MG42, and I've been asked (many, many times) "Why would you want a semi auto belt fed? What's the point?"

    The point is modern factory ammo for 8x57mm costs $0.80 cents a shot, I can regulate that better in semi-auto. If I owned a full auto version - aside from the trouble of having to relocate to a friendly state, find one that's transferrable, and paying several tens of thousands of dollars for the specimen - it would burn through (up to) 1500 rounds per minute.

    That's 25 rounds per second.

    Or, $20 per second using Prvi Partizan, which is about the cheapest factory ammo on the market right now.

    Put in to context, that's $1200 per minute.

    Full auto is fun to shoot, don't get me wrong, I love going to KCR machinegun shoots as much as the next guy does to play with exotic hardware. But the ammo prices in the twenty-teens are nasty, and even if I did own one, it would just collect dust.

    (MG-34 would be better, IMO, because at least it was select fire.)
     
  22. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,408
    Location:
    Illinois
    This was far more true in the days of cheap military pull-down components.

    Today... the gap is much narrower. Can't just run out and pick up a 50 cal can full of 55gr FMJ projectiles for 3 or 4 cents a round, like you could back in the early 2000's.
     
  23. AWorthyOpponent

    AWorthyOpponent Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2009
    Messages:
    421
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    I think the good thing to point out is that the ATF approved it...whether or not they try to retroactively ban it, the point is that someone up there was okay with it...i think thats what we should be looking at as a positive. Maybe a few letters thanking the people responsible for doing the right thing and approving it to begin with are in order...lord only knows that's how the people that are against it are going to start trying to ban it...

    I wanted to look into registering one as an SBR...with the tax stamp involved, would that cover the NFA side if it were retracted...?
     
  24. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,463
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Only as far as having a short upper on the gun. If the ATF decided to reclassify the trigger as a machine gun you'd be out of luck as no new machine guns can be added to the registry.

    Honestly I'm glad that people are willing to push the envelope with these pseudo-full auto trigger groups. On the other hand, I've come to the decision that I'm not going to buy one until they've been on the market for a while. I don't want to be in the position of having to surrender or destroy my gun if the ATF has a change of heart.
     
  25. pjeski
    • Contributing Member

    pjeski Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2013
    Messages:
    405
    No.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page