Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 46

Thread: auto trigger pull

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Not really OC, sorry. Serious question.

    Automatic weapons are considered weapons with more than one shot from auto trigger pull. Has anyone considered making a gun that has a different trigger mechanism instead of a trigger? (ie, push button?)

  2. #2
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Any device you can depress or otherwise actuate to fire a gun is by default the trigger. A button, a switch, whatever you need to hit for rounds to go off, that's the trigger. More than one round per actuation of the trigger, and it is a machine gun.

    If you want one easy motion with more than one round going off, and you want it cheaply and legally, then you want a Gatling type mechanism. Gatling type firearm systems are not considered machine guns, and are legal to own without any special paperwork in most states.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Like an M2? Yeah. M13X

  4. #4
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    why not a multi sear trigger?

    one slight pull is one round, pull a bit harder, second round... farther still, 3rd round.

    It is 3 different trigger pulls, from 3 different mechanisms...
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    L.A. County, California, USA
    Posts
    149

    Post imported post

    Then there is Bump Fire (uses recoil action to rapidly depress the trigger):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Va1T...eature=related



    Seems like full auto, but it is not. Just extremely rapid single-shot-per-trigger-pull action caused by the recoil.

    With practice (and watching You Tube videos), one can Bump Fire from other positions which have the possibility of increasing accuracy over the hip fire.

    I seem to recall seeing a video of someone using a similar technique with a semi-auto handgun (just trying to tie the thread back to open carry of handguns). Oh, found it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MydCuTfgt0k


    A technique that could come in handy under very specific circumstances. Not that it needs to be said on this forum, but there are those who read the forum and don't know - Verifying the safety of shooting at the target is critical. (What is behind the target if you miss???)

  6. #6
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    I pushed a button to fire the M61A1--at 6000 rounds a minute...
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  7. #7
    Regular Member Old Grump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Blue River, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    387

    Post imported post

    I had to flip a switch then push a button to fire my weapon but it wasn't a gun exactly. In fact it looked an awful lot like a Terrier Missile.

    I still look for the butterfly when I get to shoot somebody's Barret M82 and M99. It just doesn't feel right to shoot that round with a finger trigger. I don't know why they laugh at me.

    Morini CM84E has an electronic trigger I've always wanted to try but Hammerli and Pardini are the closest I have ever come to a Free Pistol. That one is way out of my league.

    I doubt the multiple notch sear would work, its still one pull no matter how many stages you have for it. One full pull of the trigger with multiple shots will have you and the BATF talking fines and forfeitures. This is the group that calls a part a machine gun and rigs up guns with shoe strings and weights to make it fire multiple shots so they can claim the defendant had a machine gun. Until sanity has come to the legal system and that alphabet agency has been relegated to the dustbin of history I don't think I would mess with my trigger very much.
    Roman Catholic, Life Member of American Legion, VFW, Wisconsin Libertarian party, Wi-FORCE, WGO, NRA, JPFO, GOA, SAF and CCRKBA

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    Gunslinger wrote:
    I pushed a button to fire the M61A1--at 6000 rounds a minute...
    the mighty Vulcan...nice.
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    If you used an electric drill motor to hit the trigger it would be considered a machine gun, with the button/trigger to turn on the motor considered the trigger.

  10. #10
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    ATF got me thinking...

    The irony of taking 1,000 rounds of ammo, immersing it in a tub of napalm, and lighting the fuse with a cigarette and some everclear.....

    Initial reaction would be lots of fire/smoke, with secondaries being the rounds cooking off...

    Methinks it'd do a LOT of damage... Especially if you were to use .50 or similar caliber rounds....

    At what point do rounds start to cook off?


    Kinda like an IRS agent dying from an infected paper cut... From a dollar bill....

    Funny in a twisted kinda way..... Poetic justice maybe?

    LOL
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  11. #11
    Campaign Veteran GLOCK21GB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    4,348

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    ATF got me thinking...

    The irony of taking 1,000 rounds of ammo, immersing it in a tub of napalm, and lighting the fuse with a cigarette and some everclear.....

    Initial reaction would be lots of fire/smoke, with secondaries being the rounds cooking off...

    Methinks it'd do a LOT of damage... Especially if you were to use .50 or similar caliber rounds....

    At what point do rounds start to cook off?


    Kinda like an IRS agent dying from an infected paper cut... From a dollar bill....

    Funny in a twisted kinda way..... Poetic justice maybe?

    LOL
    , I don't know if this forum is the correct place, for what you are talking about
    http://youtu.be/xWgVGu3OR4U AACFI, Wisconsin / Minnesota Carry Certified. Action Pistol & Advanced Action pistol concepts + Urban Carbine course. When the entitlement Zombies begin looting, pillaging, raping, burning & killing..remember HEAD SHOTS it's the only way to kill a Zombie. Stockpile food & water now.

    Please support your local,county, state & Federal Law enforcement agencies, right ???

  12. #12
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    why not a multi sear trigger?

    one slight pull is one round, pull a bit harder, second round... farther still, 3rd round.

    It is 3 different trigger pulls, from 3 different mechanisms...
    Machine Gun. A singlesteady trigger pull would result in 3 rounds fired.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    My point wasn't that the button would make it non auto, but that the pressing of a button would be faster (anyone who plays on an XBOX knows what I mean)

  14. #14
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    My point wasn't that the button would make it non auto, but that the pressing of a button would be faster (anyone who plays on an XBOX knows what I mean)
    If you have ever witnessed handgun competitions, you would see thatrate of fire of the weapon is not an issue. You can not miss fast enough to stop a threat. Speed of the weapon does not compensate for lack of skill by the shooter.

    It would be an ineffectivesolution to a non existent problem. It would also be cost prohibitive. Remington had precision rifles which fired electronically and which required special primers. The rifles were expensive as was the ammunition. The advantage of electronic firing was less moving parts to disturb the rifle (hammer, firing pin, etc) therefore a higher level of accuracy.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    Don't forget lock speed.

    All the moving mechanical linkage is limited to the speed of a mechanical wave (~15,000 fps in steel). An electronic action is limited by the speed of signal propagation, in the limit, the speed of light.



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Oh.

    What they going to do with guns that have no mechanics and gunpowder?

    Automatical Guns do not apply to any projectiles, correct? An automatic electronic rail gun wouldn't be banned?

  17. #17
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    Pace wrote:
    Oh.

    What they going to do with guns that have no mechanics and gunpowder?

    Automatical Guns do not apply to any projectiles, correct? An automatic electronic rail gun wouldn't be banned?
    If it does not meet the definition of a firearm, the ATF does not regulate it. Fully automatic rail guns are not regulated except that they are a "weapon" which is regulated by State and local Statutes/Code/Ordinances..


    The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….
    ” Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law — unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.
    [/quote]

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV
    Posts
    1,140

    Post imported post

    Cool, anyone selling one?

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    Pace wrote:
    Oh.

    What they going to do with guns that have no mechanics and gunpowder?

    Automatical Guns do not apply to any projectiles, correct? An automatic electronic rail gun wouldn't be banned?
    If it does not meet the definition of a firearm, the ATF does not regulate it. Fully automatic rail guns are not regulated except that they are a "weapon" which is regulated by State and local Statutes/Code/Ordinances..


    The term “firearm” is defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(3), to include “(A) any weapon (including a starter gun), which will, or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon….
    ” Based on Section 921(a)(3), air guns, because they use compressed air and not an explosive to expel a projectile, do not constitute firearms under Federal law — unless they are manufactured with the frames or receivers of an actual firearm. Accordingly, the domestic sale and possession of air guns is normally unregulated under the Federal firearms laws enforced by ATF.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    ParkHills, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    970

    Post imported post


  20. #20
    Regular Member Gunslinger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Free, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    3,855

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    ATF got me thinking...

    The irony of taking 1,000 rounds of ammo, immersing it in a tub of napalm, and lighting the fuse with a cigarette and some everclear.....

    Initial reaction would be lots of fire/smoke, with secondaries being the rounds cooking off...

    Methinks it'd do a LOT of damage... Especially if you were to use .50 or similar caliber rounds....

    At what point do rounds start to cook off?


    Kinda like an IRS agent dying from an infected paper cut... From a dollar bill....

    Funny in a twisted kinda way..... Poetic justice maybe?

    LOL
    Incendigel (napalm) is jellied gasoline. You'd have to push it into the jello, not immerse it. And if it's lit off, I wouldn't want to be anywhere in the neighborhood. Forget the rounds blowing up, the gel would blow all over the place when ignited and stick to anything it came into contact with while flaming. You wouldn't want to light any fuse, either. Unless it's about 500 feet long.
    "For any man who sheds his blood with me this day shall be my brother...And gentlemen now abed shall think themselves accursed, they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speaks who fought with us on Crispin's day." Henry V

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    107

    Post imported post

    You mean like the Winchester Chuck Conners carried in the "RifleMan"?

  22. #22
    Regular Member Interceptor_Knight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Green Bay, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,839

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    ATF got me thinking...

    The irony of taking 1,000 rounds of ammo, immersing it in a tub of napalm, and lighting the fuse with a cigarette and some everclear.....

    Initial reaction would be lots of fire/smoke, with secondaries being the rounds cooking off...

    Methinks it'd do a LOT of damage... Especially if you were to use .50 or similar caliber rounds....
    When cartridges ignite from heat, they become firecrackers and little more. The bullets would "fly" at a low velocity. The odds of serious injury are low. I certainly would not wish to get hit with any secondary schrapnel from any firecracker in the head, especially the face. The diameter of the "danger" area from flying napalm would be relatively small.

  23. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Interceptor_Knight wrote:
    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    ATF got me thinking...

    The irony of taking 1,000 rounds of ammo, immersing it in a tub of napalm, and lighting the fuse with a cigarette and some everclear.....

    Initial reaction would be lots of fire/smoke, with secondaries being the rounds cooking off...

    Methinks it'd do a LOT of damage... Especially if you were to use .50 or similar caliber rounds....
    When cartridges ignite from heat, they become firecrackers and little more. The bullets would "fly" at a low velocity. The odds of serious injury are low. I certainly would not wish to get hit with any secondary schrapnel from any firecracker in the head, especially the face. The diameter of the "danger" area from flying napalm would be relatively small.
    The Mythbusters threw a bunch of cartridges in a fire to see what would happen. Since nothing held the cartridge casing in place, when the round went off, half the energy went to sending the empty cartridge casing one way and the bullet the other way (at a much slower speed than if the bullet had left a relatively stationary cartridge casing).

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    across Death's Door on Washington Island, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,382

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Since nothing held the cartridge casing in place, when the round went off, half the energy went to sending the empty cartridge casing one way and the bullet the other way (at a much slower speed than if the bullet had left a relatively stationary cartridge casing).
    "Half the energy" is absolutely un-true.

    Momentum is conserved, but momentum is not energy. It is the product of the scalar mass and the velocity vector. "Half the energy" is un-true if only for the fraction lost as heat and noise.

  25. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Master Doug Huffman wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Since nothing held the cartridge casing in place, when the round went off, half the energy went to sending the empty cartridge casing one way and the bullet the other way (at a much slower speed than if the bullet had left a relatively stationary cartridge casing).
    "Half the energy" is absolutely un-true.

    Momentum is conserved, but momentum is not energy. It is the product of the scalar mass and the velocity vector. "Half the energy" is un-true if only for the fraction lost as heat and noise.
    This isn't a physics class, however if you want one, I'll break out my lesson plans from teaching the subject for 10 years and school your sorry butt that I am tired of hearing from. Excuse me for using a simplistic and unscientific explanation. I, unlike you, do not feel the need to make myself feel superior to others by showing off how much I know.

    Listen, I choose not to harass you for your condescending, arrogant, and overly pedantic posts. How about just ignoring me too.

    I hope that John and Mike pay attention to the crap that you constantly deal out. I wish they wouldn't tolerate it. I have been trying to ignore it, but every once in a while I will point out your antagonistic behavior.

    This is their site, and they get to regulate what goes on here. However, I strongly advise them to pay particular attention to how you treat others.

    Moving on.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •