Tired of Bump Stock threads; but have some rate of fire question

[TomkinsSP]

IMHO banning bump fire stocks is like banning red sports cars. Bump fire stocks are silly, a skilled shooter can bump fire a semi auto without a silly plastic stock. The stock appeals to wannabees who also flock to red sports cars because they want to be AJ Foyt or Mario Andretti.

If more and more speeding tickets are written to drivers of red sports cars, and as a consequence red sports cars are banned (there being no NRSCA), irresponsible wannabes will just choose different colors, they won't get any smarter.

 

[TomkinsSP]

That's the can of worms the bump fire stocks have now not only opened but kicked over. We'll be extremely lucky if bump stocks are all that are banned.

This is a legal question (as I am not a lawyer) not a political question or statement...

But, since the NFA is just a law not a constitutional provision, AND since the SCOTUS said the 2dA guarantees citizens the right to MILITARY weapons, AND since the military fielded no SBRs or Automatic Carbines in 1939, AND since our military now uses 14.7" barreled carbines that have 3 shot burst cams...

Is it not the NFA that is anachronistic?

 

[Arik]

Rates of fire by troops in the field and the impact on logistics has a been a concern with generals for well over a hundred years. There were concerns of that nature when they started converting rifled muskets to use metallic cartridges, and there were concerns again when they started fielding bolt action repeating rifles. For example the M1903 has a magazine disconnect. It's there because the tactical doctrine required the rifle to be employed as a single fed single shot rifle, with the disconnect activated, keeping the 5 rounds in the internal box magazine in reserve for last ditch defensive efforts where the higher rate of fire was necessary.

The British SMLE, with it's larger capacity detachable box magazine and much smoother cock on closing action had a much higher effective rate of fire than the M1903, and in WWII didn't give up all that much to the semi-auto rifles that started to see use.

And the adoption of a semi-auto rifle was something that was debated for decades before it actually happened, due to concerns that it would just result in "wasted" ammunition.

The use of machine guns at the platoon and squad level however was very much a post WWI development. US Army tactical doctrine just prior to and during WWII was for the BAR gunners and machine gunners to pin the enemy in place, and suppress fire to allow our troops to maneuver, while the troops shooting the semi auto Garands actually did the work of breaking the enemy down.

Tactical doctrine really hasn't changed much since WWII - select fire capability has been added to increase a squads ability to suppress enemy fire, and the intermediate cartridges have been adopted to make this practical (from both a shooter and logistics standpoint), but the doctrine uses of full auto fire remain basically the same.

There's some support for the "wasted ammunition" concern when you consider an average of 50,000 rounds were fired for each confirmed kill in Vietnam. On the other hand, it's a lot harder to estimate how many US casualties were prevented due to the suppressive effects of all that "wasted" ammunition. I suspect had we still been using semi-auto only M14s we'd have had a lot more US casualties by the time it was all said and done.

----

When the concern was for sustained fire over along period of time, I was trained to fire six round bursts with the M60 since shorter bursts were more likely to cause a malfunction, and longer burst meant excessive ammo use and more frequent barrel changes. Similarly, short 3 round bursts were considered ideal for the M16A1, and a if the grunt were skilled, he could produce very consistent short bursts. In fact, more consistently than with an A2 where prematurely stopping a 3 round burst means the next burst may be only 1 or 2 rounds, given how the three shot burst function works. The 3 round burst "feature" of the A2 was essentially a mechanical solution for a training/skills/fire discipline deficiency. It was also a change that impaired the ability to put out maximum rates of fire in a "final protective fire" situation.

----

I don't think bump fire stocks should have been approved in the first place given that they simulate full auto fire to the point that the semi-auto versus full-auto becomes a distinction without a difference, and that threatens the status of semi-auto rifles in general.

Banning bump fire stocks however will make no difference.

As it stands a shooter can pull a fat rubber band out of a desk drawer, place it behind the trigger and around the mag well on any of my AR-15s and then use the rubber band to positively reset the trigger against his or her pressed finger and create the same full auto effect as a bump fire stock. All it costs is a rubber band, and all a mass shooter has to do is put the rubber band back in the desk before the police kicked in the door to avoid an added on weapons charge. It's really hard to ban rubber bands, but it's a lot easier to ban semi-auto rifles.

That's the can of worms the bump fire stocks have now not only opened but kicked over. We'll be extremely lucky if bump stocks are all that are banned.

It opens a HUGE can of worms because the wording of the current bill doesn't mention bup stocks or Slide Fires. It mentions ANY device OR part of a device that would allow faster than semi auto rate of fire, which isn't defined to begin with. How fast is semi auto? Which devices? A plain stick can be used so can a finger....

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[TomkinsSP]

It opens a HUGE can of worms because the wording of the current bill doesn't mention bup stocks or Slide Fires. It mentions ANY device OR part of a device that would allow faster than semi auto rate of fire, which isn't defined to begin with. How fast is semi auto? Which devices? A plain stick can be used so can a finger....

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Intentionally not specific?

 

[keith44spl]

I too have fired several select fire arms........(For business, make mine a semi-auto.)

This full-auto thing...
It's just another shooting discipline.
There's a fairly large auto range just a lit'l north of my summer camp, called Knob Creek.

I know it's not a cheap sport to participate in, kinda like horse racing.

A close friend of mine has a 'taxed' American 180,
it's a cheaper way to have a little rock & roll.

There's a whole world of fun to be had out there.

Sturgis 2014 Texas Blonde Girl shoots MACHINE GUN first time Teri LaFaye - YouTube

.

 

[keith44spl]

To me bump stock are totally worthless. They are obtained by the "wanna-be" machine gun shooters. They either can't afford the real full auto guns or can't pass the background check to legally own one. Nothing more than a toy which is used in the context of "Hold my beer and watch this!"

Hun?????????

I believe, if one are not a prohibited person under the GCA of '68
and got the two hundred bucks (plus the cost of the firearm) to get the paper work started for
a transferable specimen to be delivered to a class III dealer and
one can get the chief law enforcement officer in one's jurisdiction
to sign off on the form 4......with possession of the tax stamp and
registration in 6-9 months, maybe.

Check it out.


.
* I don't own or use bump-stocks.

 

[Arik]

To me bump stock are totally worthless. They are obtained by the "wanna-be" machine gun shooters. They either can't afford the real full auto guns or can't pass the background check to legally own one. Nothing more than a toy which is used in the context of "Hold my beer and watch this!"

The background check is the same for NFA as it is for none NFA. So if you can't pass that background check then you probably bought your semi auto rifle illegaly too!

The only difference in the background checks is for NFA you also supply finger prints and a picture.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Arik]

Intentionally not specific?

I'd suspect so although I have no way to actually prove that. But when they say things like "intentionally increases the rate of fire" ..... without having a standard definition of the rate of fire.... It's all so vague that it becomes a catch all

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[BB57]

It opens a HUGE can of worms because the wording of the current bill doesn't mention bup stocks or Slide Fires. It mentions ANY device OR part of a device that would allow faster than semi auto rate of fire, which isn't defined to begin with. How fast is semi auto? Which devices? A plain stick can be used so can a finger....

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

Exactly.

We've established above that a rubber band works just as well to positively reset the trigger against finger pressure, so putting one on a gun could be illegal. But what happens if I use a rubber band to hold a cleaning rod the fore end of an AR-15 - in the style of their early use in Vietnam? Is it the intended use of the rubber band on the gun, or is it simply the presence of the rubber band on the gun that would be illegal? I envision a lot of totally unnecessary and unintended prosecutions if this bill is passed.

This is a legal question (as I am not a lawyer) not a political question or statement...

But, since the NFA is just a law not a constitutional provision, AND since the SCOTUS said the 2dA guarantees citizens the right to MILITARY weapons, AND since the military fielded no SBRs or Automatic Carbines in 1939, AND since our military now uses 14.7" barreled carbines that have 3 shot burst cams...

Is it not the NFA that is anachronistic?

I think the NFA of 1934 is no longer relevant. It was itself a knew jerk reaction to gangsters and the weapons they used, and didn't ban them but rather imposed a very high (for the time, as $200 was a lot of money in 1934) tax on them. Now the major impediment is the wait for ATF to process the paperwork, which has grown to between 12 and 13 months. And it's an unnecessary burden on the public as NFA firearms and devices are just not used in crimes to any significant degree.

Short barrel rifles just don't show up in the crime statistics, and long guns over all are only about 1% of the firearms used in violent crimes in any given year. The ATF's ruling on pistol braces has also effectively nullified the provision as well as there are far more advantages to building a braced pistol than there are to building an SBR, given the restrictions many states place on SBRs that are not placed on handguns.

Suppressors are virtually unheard of in crimes, and despite what Hillary thinks, a suppressor would have made no difference in the Las Vegas shooting, given that what people were hearing were the cracks of the supersonic bullets, more so than the muzzle report from inside a hotel room 32 floors up and 400 yards away. A suppressor at best would have reduced the muzzle report from around 155 dB to 125 dB at the source, and would have reduced the report at the target area from about 100 dB to 70 dB.

Similarly, full auto weapons are also virtually never used in crimes. Unless I've missed one, there have been exactly 2 properly registered and legally owned full auto weapons used in crimes, and one of those was used by a police officer.

Short barrel shotguns do have a potential appeal as they are easy to use and when sawed off on both ends, they are easier to conceal. However, the ATF has ruled that the Mossberg Shockwave is not a firearm under the NFA, based on the over all length being 26 1/2", and based on 26" being the magic and arbitrary length below which the ATF feels a firearm is concealable. This also means that if you conceal one, it suddenly is an NFA firearm. It's a typical ATF response of the last several years, where it's based on a very narrow read of the law that quickly runs off the rails in practice. For example, in many states, placing a loaded firearm in a vehicle qualifies as "concealed".

In any case, between NFA weapons not showing up at crimes scenes and the ATF essentially nullifying the NFA intent through very narrow reading of the statute, the NFA is an anachronism.

Absent this most recent mass shooting, I suspect suppressors would have been removed this year, and I strongly suspect SBRs would have come off as well within a few years.

 

[BB57]

Intentionally not specific?

That's actually hard to say.

It's tempting to start thinking conspiracy, but the fact is that the folks who draft these laws are not experts - they are usually just staffers on the hill, sometimes assisted by lobbyists submitting draft language they'd like to see.

Statutes, when passed are sent down to the cognizant executive branch agency who then has to draft regulations that make the law both meaningful and enforceable.

When the process works well, executive branch employees who have an understanding of how the statute will mesh with the real world write the regulations in a manner than makes sense, and irons out any potential ambiguities that were in the statute.

However, over the years I've become increasingly less confident that the process works well. More often than not, given that most executive branch agencies have been flooded with the attorneys our universities keep churning out (well in excess of actual need, thus they go to work for the government) who are then in positions where they will draft these regulations with no actual knowledge or qualifications in the area the law addresses.

The only skill they do have is their ability to make narrow legal determinations. And when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem becomes a nail. The end result is that they'll pour over the statutory language to try to divine meaning and intent, and in the process they draft regulations that in fact are not very relevant, miss the over all intent of the law, and are difficult to enforce.

The draft regulations then go out for public comment, and unless the public comment is overwhelmingly negative, the proposed regs go into effect pretty much as written.

The proposed regulation changes that would have banned M855 ball ammunition as "armor piercing" would have been adopted, except for upwards of 90,0000 public comments that all more or less pointed out the flawed logic, over reach and general stupidity of the proposed regulatory change.

If this law passes, it'll go to ATF lawyers to draft the implementing regulations, and the it'll go out for public comment.

That subsequent public comment on the proposed regulations will be vital to ensuring this law doesn't over reach or become something that can (and will) be cover applied by law enforcement and prosecutors.

 

[BB57]

Let me put it this way, If there is a "conspiracy" it's not in terms of this particular bill, but rather in what came before it.

For example, an administration that is smart enough to understand that law abiding citizens are in fact not the problem, and that if you ban a firearm or device, criminals will just find another way.

With that in mind, one or more administrations could in fact take a very conservative approach to existing gun laws and be very permissive in approving firearms and devices - for example, the approval of the Mossberg Shockwave, bump fire stocks, binary re-setting triggers, pistol braces for AR-15 and AK-47 clones, etc).

Then the (those) administration(s) just has(have) to sit back and wait for the very, very low probability and low frequency, but statistically inevitable use of one of these legal firearms or devices - fully permissible under existing gun control laws - to be used in a crime like the Las Vegas shooting. At that point, the legal status of the firearms becomes the driving force in pursuing more restrictive gun control laws, using the crime to suggest that existing laws clearly are not adequate to protect the public.

It would have been more or less an approach of giving the pro-gun community enough rope to hang itself.

Whether that was the actual intention, or if the administration(s) just left the ATF attorneys to do their own thing because there was no intent in the administration to pursue stricter gun control is debatable. Remember, Reagan did far more damage to the pro-gun cause than any of his successors.

Regardless of intent, the above scenario is pretty much what has happened with the Las Vegas shooting - a person with a lot of guns and no prior criminal record, uses legal firearms to perpetrate the third largest mass killing in recent US history (number 3 after 9-11 and Oklahoma City). It's also the largest firearm related mass killing in US history if we ignore government sponsored mass killings like the Waco Siege, Wounded Knee, Sand Creek, etc.

Whether the government set the shooter up as a patsy is a much wilder form of conspiracy thinking.

 

[DanWales]

Perfect Scenario

You could not create a more perfect scenario for an automatic massacre than Las Vegas.

A 20 or 30 acre side of beef laid out perfectly broadside for basically a huge shotgun round. Good question is in the early moments how did he miss ?? I don't think you could get a bigger sitting duck. Kinda like pouring insect poison on a huge fire ant bed. How can you miss.

Now that there are I'm sure several hundred if not a thousand of these stocks that have been sold, when will they surface again. You think anyone is gonna burn'em I doubt it. This guy proved beyond a doubt given the right situation they are perfect. Hopefully they do not turn up in another arena like this one.

I've never been a great one for bans, they are out there now. I think a serious look needs to be taken at what real purpose do they serve. I think they were created to give the range commando's ( horrible term ) sorry .... get the feeling of automatic fire. 5.56 is pretty cheap now 75-100 bucks for 500 rds there's a lot of people that would pay that on a afternoon to show off. Thank god the number of show offs are fairly thin but we have some at our small range.

I have been a recreational shooter and reloader for 50 years. It's a shame what many have done with our privilege and the lives that have been ruined for ever.

Dan

 

[TomkinsSP]

It's a shame what many have done with our privilege and the lives that have been ruined for ever.

Dan

It is truly tragic that innocent people are murdered, or maimed by madmen. Be they in Nevada or Minnesota or Louisiana or New York or Virginia. Killed and maimed by guns, knives, cars or airplaines.

I am not making this personal, maybe it was a typo, but while driving, fishing or flying an airplane MAY be a privledge. Owning and using firearms is a constitutionally guaranteed RIGHT. Check it out, it came YEARS before the direct election of the executive, universal =€×+_% male sufferage, sufferage for all male citizens, federal guarantee of female sufferage, citizenship for native americans, equal protection for all citizens. Second only to free speech IIRC.

And this donkey dookey wasn't such a great shot (thankfully). A good rifleman could likley hit hundreds of paper plates at that distance (because a good rifleman would be shooting at paper plates not human beings) in five minutes with a Winchester 94 and a big ole box of loose .30-30s.

We live in dangerous times, we have seen what damage can be done with 19 boxcutters. We wasted a lot of money on DHS if all we needed to do was ban boxcutters.

 

[jsfricks]

Sometimes it not the equipment, it's the shooter.

[ame]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wv3hwBL4Ugw[/ame]

 

[ChattanoogaPhil]

The background check is the same for NFA as it is for none NFA. So if you can't pass that background check then you probably bought your semi auto rifle illegaly too!

The only difference in the background checks is for NFA you also supply finger prints and a picture.

I always wondered if they scanned the FP cards and checked against a database for a match before approval.

 

[Arik]

I always wondered if they scanned the FP cards and checked against a database for a match before approval.

I'm thinking they do. I believe the finger print and picture are just a form of double checking. Your name and SS# come back clean so you pass but just in case they run finger prints.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[Rustyt1953]

From the NFA registration site:

"Once NFA receives an applicant's fingerprint cards, NFA will submit the images to the FBI to determine if the applicant has a criminal record."

Fingerprint Card Requirements | NFA

 

[BigBoy99]

The background check is the same for NFA as it is for none NFA.

Not true!

For an NFA transfer, fingerprint cards are submitted and the FBI does a background check. (This is why the NFA Transfer process process takes a year to complete.) For a non-NFA transfer, neither fingerprint cards nor an FBI Background check are done. The NICS is just a records check, not a background check.

 

[Arik]

Not true!

For an NFA transfer, fingerprint cards are submitted and the FBI does a background check. (This is why the NFA Transfer process process takes a year to complete.) For a non-NFA transfer, neither fingerprint cards nor an FBI Background check are done. The NICS is just a records check, not a background check.

Yes but the background check is still the same. If you can legally buy a hipoint you can buy NFA.

Process takes a year to complete because there is a 100000x more applications than there are people to process it. Actual process takes only a few hours. They have warehouse full of paperwork and very few people actually doing the processing.

Finger prints don't take that long to do. As an immigrant I know. A decade ago when I filled for citizenship the beginning of the application to the swearing in took 6 months and that included fingerprints and interviews. Now think about how many people apply for citizenship daily and that swearing in is about 4 times a year.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[TomkinsSP]

Imagine how long a police burglary investigation would take if it really took a year to run a set of prints.