"Trigger Pull" vs. "Trigger Action"

[Iramo94]

Hello Everyone.

The following question spawned out of the Over/Under shotgun thread found here. The point was raised there that a Mini-14 can fire 2 shots per pull if the second shot is set to go off on the trigger reset, thereby making 1 shot per "action."

Question: Can a sear have multiple teeth in it, like a cog in a clock? Can it then fire any number of rounds sequentially all from one "pull?" In my mind, each of those clicks would count as its own "action." (Example: gatling guns, one very long circular pull, but multiple actions) I'm thinking you could then make a rifle with a 3/4" and 6 pound pull. Cut three teeth onto the sear for one shot for each 1/4" and 2 pound increment. Voila', 3 round burst.

Would that be unregistered legal?

By the way, I'm sorry if this sub-forum is the wrong place for this thread. It seemed suitable...

Disclaimer: Dear ATF, this is not an attempt to "manufacture" a "machine gun." Nor is it an attempt to manufacture any other firearm for anything other than personal use. All examples and ideas presented here exist entirely in the realm of theory, and no illegal action is intended, nor will any illegal action follow this line of thought.

 

[AlexanderA]

Read this:

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2006-2.pdf

The NFA defines a machine gun as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." The above-cited ruling goes on to say that the legislative history of the NFA equated “single function of the trigger” with “single pull of the trigger.”

Your proposal is pretty clearly a machine gun.

 

[PTK]

Yeah, that'd be a machine gun. A single, strong pull (one action) being three shots, versus the pull/release Mini-14 being two actions (pull, release).

 

[Iramo94]

Ah, okay. Thanks for the clarification. Silly ATF, always getting in the way. :banghead:

 

[PTK]

When it comes to guns, it seems to be that if it's fun, you haven't seen it anywhere before, and it would save you the money of buying X, Y, Z, then it's probably illegal...

 

[GLOOB]

Are there not double barreled shotguns/rifles that break this rule?

Here's an idea. How about you put two triggers on the gun, so you can pull them alternating, really, really fast? Or maybe if you pulled both triggers, you'd get a 2 round burst?

Or heck, put 3 narrow triggers side-by-side, so you could pull them all with one pull, firing 3 shots!

 

[Iramo94]

PTK, ain't that the truth...

Edit: Gloob, you might have a point there...how about combine my idea with yours, make one trigger break at two pounds, the next a little heavier, and the next heavier still. Have three separate sears and hammers that all hit the same firing pin, and shoot through the same barrel. That would make a nice and tidy three round burst if you pulled slow enough.

 

[GLOOB]

I'm thinking a step further. To reduce the law to the flawed collections of imperfect language that it is. Take multiple triggers to an electronic circuit. When 1 trigger is pulled (with a needle, or something), you get one shot. When 2 triggers are pulled, you get 2 shots in rapid succession. Etc. Maybe you could fit 5 or 6 triggers, even. Per the most literal interpretation of the law that would appear to be legal, since you can shoot a double barreled shotgun with both barrels.

 

[ccsniper]

HOLD IT!! A mini 14 can be made to fire by pulling and releasing the trigger and it aint illegal? ATF (aka anti fun) must be sleeping on the job

 

[shotgunjoel]

HOLD IT!! A mini 14 can be made to fire by pulling and releasing the trigger and it aint illegal? ATF (aka anti fun) must be sleeping on the job

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

 

[ccsniper]

well, then... just wait, the ATF will find a way to call it a machine gun and ruin it for the rest of us

 

[PTK]

I used to think that, too, but that sort of thing has been around for YEARS. The BATFE doesn't care, they even sent out some letters to the effect of pull/release being two actions and thus perfectly legal.