Why Not More Simulated Full-Auto Guns

[MagnumDweeb]

Start off thinking bump-fire stocks as your groove with what I'm saying. I got KO'ed with a sinus infection, and ear infection, so a call to the boss and with his graces I took off Thursday and Friday to recover (still working but only four hours a day instead of nine). As I'm sitting looking at some drawings I have on the Thompson SMG (the Thompson is a want of my fiancees for some crazy reason, I like them, don't get me wrong I just don't like them for $24,000). I got to thinking of a few designs for simulated full auto.

Essentially full-auto is anything that lets someone only have to pull the trigger once to accomplish two or more shots. So when we look at bump fire stocks and the new Tac-3 activator trigger group (I think that's it), they are legal because they do not accomplish more than one shot when held down.

That got me thinking about Thompsons and the pistol foregrips. I started drawing out the mechanism (lawyer by education and training, hobbyist gunsmith because I own a CNC minimill and have an obsession for all things metal cutting) that would be tied integrally to the pistol foregrip.

Essentially when the shot is fired, if all one does is hold down the trigger, there will be only semi-auto fire. But then you have the fore-grip which would have a safety lever in it that once selected for fun time than allows the grip to float. The fore-grip then rests against a spring plunger that countervails the pressure from the recoil of the discharged shot. T

The length of travel would be half a centimeter but it would still require travel, in essence if you hold the gun real tight, pulling the foregrip back towards you, the gun will only function in semi-auto fire. But if you loosen your grip a little so it only holds the gun level or at the angle you want it to fire at, then the fore-grip rides the recoil going slightly forward triggering the closed bolt mechanism in the receiver to trip like someone is again pulling the trigger.

In essence the gun is rocking back and forth in the grip of the shooter, not true full-auto, but enough like it for that smile to form on someone's face.

As I played with the drawings some more I opened up what I had on the Reising. I thought of building one from scratch with a closed bolt and after some drawings I just decided it wasn't worth the headache when AKs are so much easier to build in semi-auto only, but again it looks doable. Not only that, it's an idea that could be adapted for many different platforms.

I don't consider it a patentable idea, lots of folks are making knock-offs of the slide stocks and what. And some are just making their own with a couple hours of quick work you can have one of your own.

So I'm wondering, why aren't we seeing more and more proliferation of these devices. If we did, then it would kind of make the machine gun registry closing seem kind of obsolete (get where I'm going with this).

I mean I'm just doing the drawings now and I don't have a Thompson semi-auto sitting in front of me, but it looks very doable. I'm like a year out thought from having the time to actually do one, drawings and plans are easy, cutting metal and canceling other projects not so easy.

Plus I'd have to get a letter from the ATF saying it's legal I'm sure, but if the conversion was doable and legal on the latest semi-auto Thompson clones, I think a gunsmith could make a pretty penny doing it.

Just a thought on it, before the bump fire stocks came out I had a few different ideas but the bump fire stock made them grossly overcomplicated. Plus this goes back to my whole idea that tech should set us free. If we get enough guns that function like but not as machine guns, then maybe we could get the registry reopened with a $2,000 tax stamp on new machine guns (give a little to get a little guys).

Anyone else have any ideas.

 

[Bubbles]

So I'm wondering, why aren't we seeing more and more proliferation of these devices.

Probably because people saw what the ATF did to Akins. ATF gave approval, Akins spent a ton of money to get the product into production, ATF withdrew approval.

ETA: Also, gun owners more so than other consumers are picky and less likely to be impressed by "fakes". They know the real difference between real f/a and bump-firing.

 

[Telekinesis]

Essentially when the shot is fired, if all one does is hold down the trigger, there will be only semi-auto fire. But then you have the fore-grip which would have a safety lever in it that once selected for fun time than allows the grip to float. The fore-grip then rests against a spring plunger that countervails the pressure from the recoil of the discharged shot.

Sounds a lot like the Atkins Accelerator which was ruled a machine gun. The reason the bumpfire stocks are legal is because they have no spring. Once you introduce a spring into the system it becomes a machine gun per the ATF.

maybe we could get the registry reopened with a $2,000 tax stamp on new machine guns (give a little to get a little guys).

That's the wrong method when dealing with anything gun related. For a recent example look at the NFATCA screwup that got us the proposed regs about requiring CLEO sign off on trusts. That started out as a "give something to get something" bargain and the ATF said "nice try, we're taking everything and giving you nothing".



Honestly I like that people are pushing the envelope with these systems that simulate full auto fire but with mechanisms that are technically semi auto. Remember that this is still a relatively new concept. The bumpfire stocks have only been out for a couple of years and the trigger groups have been out for less than that. This isn't really an example of companies decidin to only make stuff for ARs and AKs, I bet they're waiting for the ATF to come back with either a reversal of their opinion or a tacit approval of the systems before they start spending more time and money to convert the setup to other types of weapons.

 

[Comrade Mike]

I think the point may be to push the envelope so far that the like between machine guns and "simulated" machine guns becomes so muddled that banning true full autos won't make sense anymore

 

[AK103K]

Once you introduce a spring into the system it becomes a machine gun per the ATF.

Dont get caught with your AR and a rubber band in your pocket.

maybe we could get the registry reopened with a $2,000 tax stamp on new machine guns (give a little to get a little guys).

Dont even go there. They figured out back in '34 that taxing them was legal, and the only way to get around the Constitution (back when it still kind of meant something). When you consider the average cost of a car was $625 then, $200 was near an impossible sum for most people, and an effective way to limit your rights, without technically depriving you of them.

These days, they dont seemed to be to concerned about the Constitution or our rights, and Im really surprised they havent raised the $200 tax to compensate and restrict things more. Im actually surprised they havent flat out banned everything in the NFA, and a lot more.

With the state of the treasury, and all the money worries the US government has, its obvious they dont care about collecting the tax on the guns not in the registry, and there are a boat load of them out there. Its all about control, and nothing more.

Why the import of machine guns for civilian consumption was restricted in '68, why the registry was closed to anything already here, not previously registered beyond that, why the restriction of newly made machine guns was passed in '86, etc, etc, etc, has noting to do with anything other than control. Once that all started, its obvious that the Constitution is simply a rag, and the only rights we really have, are the rights they give us.

I think the point may be to push the envelope so far that the like between machine guns and "simulated" machine guns becomes so muddled that banning true full autos won't make sense anymore

If we are to push a point, it needs to be that all their silly rules are null and void, and they have no jurisdiction to apply them to us at all, which they really dont. Like their sister agency, the IRS, they only have the power we allow them, and its seems, we have given them everything with only an occasional whimper.

 

[Sam1911]

Actually, I was kind of thinking the opposite thing recently. Here we are in 2014, and you've got several versions of the slidefire stock around, you've got several new trigger packs that drop into rifles and do the same thing.

Then you've got that oh-what-a-dumb-idea...hey-wait-look-what-they-did-there! "arm brace" thing from SIG (of all people???! ) so you can have a very serviceable buttstock on your not-an-SBR AR pistol. Which you can put an AFG on...

AND, the reversal of the "once a rifle" nonsense about building ARs and such on "pistol" receivers?

It seems like the BATFE has just been hit with an avalanche of stuff they couldn't keep down and so they've about given up trying to uphold their jackbooted image. It's like, even with a very unsympathetic administration in charge, they've just about declared, "you know, a lot of this stuff is really dumb and just not worth the trouble to fight about..."

 

[tarosean]

Im actually surprised they havent flat out banned everything in the NFA, and a lot more.

It's not like you hear/read about NFA items used in a lot of crimes.

 

[AK103K]

It's not like you hear/read about NFA items used in a lot of crimes.

Yet things like machine guns are now effectively banned. Its all just a matter of attrition now.

You usually hear there were only two cases, one of which was a cop, but I sometimes wonder.

I personally know of a boy who got in an argument with his neighbor, and then shot up his house with a Ruger AC 5.56 later on. He was arrested and did time for it, but I never see it brought up when people talk about this sort of thing. Makes you wonder how many more there actually were.

 

[tarosean]

Yet things like machine guns are now effectively banned.

Your state allows them, your wallet may not. I wouldn't view that as banned.

Just as I know I'll never own one of those fancy Italian supercars.
A) They cannot haul hay.
B) Way outta my pay grade.

 

[Comrade Mike]

Your state allows them, your wallet may not. I wouldn't view that as banned.

Just as I know I'll never own one of those fancy Italian supercars.
A) They cannot haul hay.
B) Way outta my pay grade.

Such is life..

Difference is the price of highly tuned sports cars isn't artificially inflated. Machine guns shouldn't be limited to those of us with deep enough pockets.

 

[Justin]

So I'm wondering, why aren't we seeing more and more proliferation of these devices.

Four reasons:
1.) They're expensive.
2.) They're of limited utility, most bump-fire devices require special and specific non-standard shooting techniques to work.
3.) Ammo supplies are constrained and expensive right now.
4.) Even regular full-auto fire gets kind of boring after you've dumped a few mags.

 

[tarosean]

Difference is the price of highly tuned sports cars isn't artificially inflated. Machine guns shouldn't be limited to those of us with deep enough pockets.

Unfortunately, there will never be anymore added. It's a closed book with declining numbers. Nothing artificial about limited supplies.

 

[AK103K]

Your state allows them, your wallet may not. I wouldn't view that as banned.

I know, Ive owned a couple. I also paid less for them than what most pay for a handgun these days too.

With the "ban" now in place, the only guns available to the general public, are those in the registry that are transferable to individuals. Those guns are not replaceable, and hence the loss by attrition. As they wear out and/or break, they are done, and there are no more. To me that is in fact a ban.

 

[Warp]

Your state allows them, your wallet may not. I wouldn't view that as banned.

They are effectively banned. Due to unconstitutional government controls.

 

[texasgun]

With ammo prices being where they are ... I highly doubt many people have any interest in fully-auto (bump-fire or not) modifications...

"hey look.... here goes $40... bangbangbangbangbangbangbang....."

 

[AK103K]

"hey look.... here goes $40... bangbangbangbangbangbangbang....."

Hey, thats way better therapy than "therapy", and cheaper to boot.

 

[Skribs]

Considering the price on older machine guns and the fact that new MGs don't even have the option of going into civilian's hands, they are effectively banned IMO. My issue with tax stamps is they become an annoyance to the rich and prohibition to the poor. I could go into a lot of discussion about how this translates into a caste or racist system, or how it relates to people in higher crime areas having less access to personal defense, but that's besides the point.

I'm a bit of a snob (you can probably tell by some of the threads I've started), and if full auto isn't generated by the trigger group, it's a substitute.

Personally, I think we need to start pushing back on the NFA. We're not just going to get a literal interpretation of the constitution this year, but we can push the incrementalism back towards our side.
-Re-open the MG registry
-Put requirements on the ATF to more quickly process requests for NFA approval
-Take suppressors off the NFA list

 

[Mike1234567]

I think I'd rather just install a hand-cranked device on the trigger guard. Loosen one thumb screw or release one clamp and it's off.

 

[Sam1911]

Here's the thing: If these drop-in trigger kits (moreso than the slidefire type stocks) really can be worked seamlessly by a practiced shooter, then there's really no reason left for the machine gun portion of the NFA to exist. If the distinction does become FUNCTIONALLY irrelevant, then it quickly can be shown to be LEGISLATIVELY irrelevant, too.

And that's what's so awesome about the developments of the last year or three, regarding BATFE decisions on some of these factors (like that SIG not-a-stock).

Prime stuff for legislative challenges that will win.

See this?

Buy parts off the shelf, assemble, and go shoot. Perfectly legal.

See this?

Buy parts off the shelf, assemble, and go shoot. $250,000 in fines and 10 years in federal prison if you're caught!

Both examples easy to find on ArmsList. Very common, and identical in all practical functions. One VERY illegal (without heavy federal government involvement) one quite perfectly lawful with nothing more than regular "GCA" rules.

Bring that before the federal courts and get the BATFE to explain why this dichotomy SHOULD be? One of the long-standing principles of good jurisprudence is that laws should not be arbitrary and capricious. There should not be vastly different legal consequences for exactly the same act.

Now how about this?
TacCon 3MR trigger. Drops into any AR-15 and lets you fire something around 400+ rounds per minute of "simulated" full-auto.

Buy it, drop it in, go shoot. Perfectly legal.

Or? A lightning link, DIAS, or M-16 receiver...

Make/buy one, drop it in, go shoot? $250,000 in fines and 10 years in federal prison if you're caught!

Again, if there are common (and quite popular) items on the market and approved as perfectly lawful by the BATFE, which do exactly (from all practical results) what the VERY BAD VERBOTEN! version of those parts and items would do, then the courts will be very hard pressed to uphold that a law creating an intense distinction (with huge legal repercussions) between them is valid.

This isn't the end of the NFA. But it is a VERY important lever in the toolbox we'll use to disassemble it.

 

[AK103K]

Personally, I think we need to start pushing back on the NFA. We're not just going to get a literal interpretation of the constitution this year, but we can push the incrementalism back towards our side.
-Re-open the MG registry
-Put requirements on the ATF to more quickly process requests for NFA approval
-Take suppressors off the NFA list

That would be a great start, but what do you think the odds are?

I think I'd rather just install a hand-cranked device on the trigger guard. Loosen one thumb screw or release one clamp and it's off.

Ive shot a couple of 10-22's with a BMF Activator mounted and 50 round tear drop mags. You can actually shoot them from the shoulder with some accuracy and control, but its really nothing more than a noise maker, albeit, a fun one.

All of the "simulators" Ive tried were basically just that, noise makers, if you could get them to even work on a steady basis. They were nothing like the real thing when it came to control and use, and at best are simply toys, and even use as a toy can often be questionable. Not that the real FA's arent toys to most who own them.

 

[AK103K]

Sam,

Unless something has changed, I believe the gun in your first pic, with the "SIG not a stock" is in fact in violation of the NFA, due to that vertical front grip. Is it not?

 

[MartinS]

I don't always believe the following, but in the mornings.....This country is about half our way, half not, at best. That's a whole lot of folks that don't want us to have ANY guns. Genuine full autos for everyman ain't happening, and any truly effective legal device that holds out this promise will be a Godsend to out enemies. "WE must close the semi-auto loophole!". Get real, stay armed, what we have we hold.

 

[Sam1911]

Unless something has changed, I believe the gun in your first pic, with the "SIG not a stock" is in fact in violation of the NFA, due to that vertical front grip. Is it not?

YUP! Good eyes. And that points out another of these absurdities we're pushing inexorably up to some big decisions: Replace that with an AFG and now explain what constitutes a legitimate practical difference of any sort? Get the perfect case before SCOTUS where a guy will spend 10 years in prison for one, but not the other. And?

 

[Sam1911]

...and at best are simply toys, and even use as a toy can often be questionable.

Have you tried the 3MR trigger or the (dang it...can't think of the other company)? Technology being what it is, it is almost inevitable that these things WILL work, and WILL be closer and closer to mechanical full-auto in function.

And that's my point. When there is zero "practical" difference why will the Court allow heavy-handed laws against one system but not the other?


...

And I think, honestly, we're pretty much "there." If you can run up to a position, take cover, and send aimed bursts down-range with a "3MR" - equipped AR, there's no practical difference between that and a registered M-16. The fact that the rate might be slightly different, or you might, maybe, get an occasional jam really doesn't make any difference at all that the law could hang up on.

And for the kicker, how long before Tac-Con builds their version for M1919 semi-auto builds? Now you've got a bipod or tripod-mounted belt-fed GPMG "bumpfiring" through a belt at a time. Explain to me how the law could possibly legitimately define a real-world difference between that and a registered MG?

This is how we'll win.

 

[wally]

Essentially when the shot is fired, if all one does is hold down the trigger, there will be only semi-auto fire. But then you have the fore-grip which would have a safety lever in it that once selected for fun time than allows the grip to float. The fore-grip then rests against a spring plunger that countervails the pressure from the recoil of the discharged shot.

I think the return spring will make it a no-go, but some guys have already made "bearing" sliding rail and have a youTube video of them firing it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRhqvJ3x-wg

Here is another version more like you envision with a vertical fore grip, "recoil rail"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Kq2t5kzMY