Before I Go To The Drawing Board...

[ConstitutionCowboy]

What would be the legal ramifications to having a gun with, say, three triggers, side by each, where pulling the first trigger would fire one round, further depression of the gang of triggers would fire another round, and completing full travel on the gang of triggers would fire a third round? Only one round would fire per trigger. Any subsequent rounds could not be fired until the next sequential trigger is pulled, and the next sequential trigger could not be pulled until the gun is in full battery. Stopping the trigger pull at any point would cease the firing. Releasing the gang of triggers would reset all three. Essentially, you could fire only one round at a time, two at a time in rapid succession, or three at a time in rapid succession.

The gun would not be automatic. It would take three trigger pulls (all three triggers being pulled, one at a time, albeit in rapid succession) to fire the three rounds at any rate you so choose depending upon whether you pulled the triggers slowly, pausing between firings, or applied steady pressure to the triggers and each subsequent round would fire as soon as the gun returned to battery.

It would not be select fire, meaning all three rounds would not fire with only one trigger pull. The triggers could also be arranged so each one could be pulled individually and in any order.

What do you think?

Woody

 

[Ron James]

Do you really want to know, I think you've been drinking too much Red Bull. What would be the purpose of such a divice?
Three triggers would not give you any speed advantageover a plain old auto.

 

[VARifleman]

Each function of one trigger would mean one round was shot, so no, I don't think it would be a machine gun, but you never know what lies and BS the crazies in the ATF will cook up next.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

"Cocaine is a helluva drug."


;-)

 

[jrfoxx]

I agree with VARifleman. should be perfectly legal, as it's still only 1 round, per trigger pull. Sounds kinda like the old double barrell shotguns that had 2 triggers, one for each barrel, except you are adding a third trigger, and (I'm assuming here) only one barrel. Still only 1 shot, per pull, so you should be fine. even with the doubles, you could pull both triggers at once, and fire both barrels at once, but they were still legal, since each individual trigger was still only firing 1 shot. BTW, I dont recommend pulling both triggers on a 10ga at once. Not pleasant at all.

Now, as to the usefullness of the idea, I cant come up with one, but obviously you have, so I'd certainly be interested in hearing the thoery behind the idea.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Now, as to the usefullness of the idea, I cant come up with one, but obviously you have, so I'd certainly be interested in hearing the thoery behind the idea.

Sometimes it takes two or three rounds to stop an attacker.

Woody

 

[kingpin008]

So why not pull one trigger two or three times, like people have been doing for a few hundred years?

I mean, I guess I can see where you're going, but you have to admit it's a bit like re-inventing the wheel here. There's an established system that works perfectly fine, and you're trying to not only re-engineer it, but make it more complicated to use. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

That said, I'd love to see a mockup of such a contraption.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

The advantage would be the ability to have a multi-round "burst" same as you'd get from a select fire full auto without having to pay the price of buying one made before 1986. It would be useful and fun, too!

Woody

 

[jrfoxx]

Wasnt trying to knock your idea at all, so sorry if it at all came off that way, but I'm just wonder if it would relly be any better/faster/easier than just pulling a single trigger 3 times real fast. 3 triggers requires either 3 fingers (and most of us arent very used to using out other fingers for triggers), or requires moving the trigger finge across 3 trigeers, which will be slower than plling 1 trigger, 3 times. Are you thinking of having 3 barells where all 3 trigger can be pulled at once? that I can see as a "poor man's" "no paperwork" "burst". Maybe I'm just not getting it though. It happens.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

It would be three(four, or five maybe?) triggers side by side, maybe 1/8" between triggers. All three triggers could be moved simultaneously or singularly if you wished, and the first trigger would trip the sear at about 3/16" travel, the second at 3/8", and the third at about 9/16". I'd put about one pound of extra spring pressure for each successive trigger. One finger could cover all three triggers.

There would be one barrel, one magazine, but three triggers each capable of tripping the sear when its tripping travel has been reached. Of course, all three triggers would have the same overall travel, meaning the first trigger would have about 7/16" over travel, 1/4" for the second, and about 1/16" over travel for the third.

At the least, it'd be fun to build and test!

Woody

 

[230RN]

Sorry, but I see it as one continuous pull of a jointed trigger for three shots, not three pulls of a trigger for three shots. Would be the same thing as having a single trigger which was cammed and ratcheted to release the hammer, bolt, striker, whatever, three times in one long pull.

Still looks like one pull = three (or however many) shots.

And of course, remember the shoelace fiasco. Cf http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=163966

But, if you've got the cash to pay lawyers, have at it.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see your point, 230RN, but any one of the three triggers could be pulled independently on my "invention", firing only one round.

Woody

 

[TexasRifleman]

but any one of the three triggers could be pulled independently on my "invention", firing only one round

In the very strict description you gave in your first post, multiple triggers, I'd think you would be OK. The single trigger firing at various lengths of travel would not.

There was a device, approved by ATF, for the Mini 14 that would allow the rifle to fire once when the trigger was pulled, and once when it was released. ATF said the forward and backward motion constituted 2 distinct "trigger pulls". I doubt you'd be able to argue that 1/16 of an inch and then another 1/16" was "distinct".

You describe 3 separate triggers and the only thing that manipulates them is the shooters finger.

Unless ATF is willing to classify a finger (hey, they did it to a shoelace) as a machinegun I'm thinking you'd be OK.

Similar designs have been proposed but they had some higher level activating device, a button or lever or whatever. In those cases ATF has claimed a machinegun because this new device became the "trigger".

 

[kevindsingleton]

I'm trying to picture how you'd get your finger in between, for instance, triggers 1 and 2 in order to fire trigger 2 without first firing trigger 1. You're going to need significant spacing between the triggers (front to rear) to allow room for a finger to reach between. Otherwise, you'd always have to pull trigger 1 to get to trigger 2 (and 3), which might trip you up with the BATFE. It's possible they'd say, since you can't get to the other two triggers without going through the first, that it's one trigger pull for all three.

I like the idea, especially on an AR-type rifle, for a "poor man's three-round burst".

If the triggers are staggered, and closely spaced, you should engineer the mechanism so it can be reversed, for lefties. Otherwise, I'll hate you for all eternity!

 

[PLRinmypocket]

I remember someone suggesting this very thing about a year ago. (it might even have been this board)

It should be just as legal as the pull-to-fire, release-to-fire trigger mods which are legal according to the ATF. Or you can think of it like the continuous "trigger" of a Gatling gun where one partial rotation fires one round, and if you stop rotating the crank, the gun stops shooting. (Hand-crank Gatling guns are also legal according to the ATF)

if it truly is one shot for one trigger pull...then it is legal. (that is the way the law is written)

I would suggest you make it obvious that there are 3 triggers in the trigger guard. Put a little space between them and have them staggered some, so you have to pull the first trigger before your finger even touches the next trigger.


Kevindsingleton:
You would never try to pull only trigger 2, you would always pull trigger #1 first, then keep pulling until you hit #2 and then keep going until you hit #3. If you want to only shoot one round like a normal gun you just pull trigger #1, then release, then pull #1 again....

 

[deadin]

I would say that if your finger remains touching trigger #1 throughout the complete cycle it could be argued that "one pull" of trigger #1 discharged 3 shots and that's a no-no. Now if you have to take your finger off of #1 to get to #'s 2&3, you haven't gained anything over three quick pulls of a regular trigger. In fact, it would be more akward.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

You just invented a more complicated ducksfoot pistol...

 

[PLRinmypocket]

Deadin:

There is nothing in the law that says you have to release 1 trigger, before pulling another... You could do what you suggest with a double trigger shotgun, which is legal.

It's not illegal to make a gun that shoots fast. It's only illegal to make a gun that shoots more than once with one pull of the trigger (machinegun).

 

[scrat]

"Cocaine is a helluva drug."

hahahahaha


i dont think it would be a problem. like to have a shot gun like that. 2 barrels on top side by side. 1 on the bottom in center. maybe a little heavy though

 

[deadin]

There is nothing in the law that says you have to release 1 trigger, before pulling another... You could do what you suggest with a double trigger shotgun, which is legal.

I want to see how you would pull both triggers on a shotgun without taking your finger off of the first trigger in order to pull the second. Or are you thinking using two fingers? Three fingers? There's more to it than just "pulling the trigger". Getting them timed without an auto sear to assure the action is locked before the striker/hammer is released would be a challenge. AFAIK, auto-sears are also a no-no. (Double barrel shotguns don't count because both barrels can go off at the same time with no damage other than to the shooter.)

 

[CYANIDEGENOCIDE]

Unless you have a mechanism to disallow one trigger pull firing three times it sounds like a class 3 weapon. Think about the double barrel shotgun there are either 2 triggers which require 2 pulls (be it means of single finger or 2 fingers) or there is 1 trigger that can be pulled once for the first barrel but has to be released to fire the second barrel. Do what you want, but from the description this smacks of 3 round burst.

 

[dburkhead]

Legally, I don't see how this would be any different from a crank operated rifle, which I've both seen and fired (crank operated .308 was a lot of fun). So long as a separate movement of the hand/finger is required for each round (pull, one round. pull some more, another round, pull some more yet, another round) you should be okay. Attach a motor to a crank operated firearm or maybe rig up some spring-loaded device so that one "triggering" action releases a spring which then works all three triggers in sequence and you're in a whole other ballgame.

 

[deadin]

So long as a separate movement of the hand/finger is required for each round (pull, one round. pull some more, another round, pull some more yet, another round) you should be okay.

Pull,Pull,Pull? Don't we already have this? It almost sounds like a standard single trigger. Is it really worth the complication to avoid having to let up a little to reset the sear? As I said earlier, the sear has to reset before the firing mechanism releases for the next shot. The sear doesn't reset until the action is locked for the next shot. If it doesn't you will have slamfires, misfires, firing from an unlocked bolt, etc. All bad.

 

[Kentak]

I think it would be ruled, and probably without stretching the intent of the law, an automatic weapon. If a single pull of the mechanism fires multiple shots, it's going to be ruled that way, regardless of technical hoops to try skirting that definition.

So, don't spend a lot of money on the prototype.

K