Franklin Armory BFSIII binary trigger

[BB57]

I bought one of these in part because I have an inexpensive to shoot 9mm AR-15 pistol (as well as a couple 9mm AR-15 carbines.

I also bought one because I can, and I'm not sure how much longer that will be the case.

Finally, I bought one because it looks like they finally have all the bugs worked out with their third version.

----

In any event, it's been a few years since I've shot anything with a happy switch and this is about as close as it gets without spending serious five digit money, plus paperwork, a long wait, and tax stamp. My expectations however were low.

I received it on Monday, installed it that afternoon in my AR-9 braced pistol, got busy and didn't get it out to the range until Thursday afternoon.

I had low expectations and anticipated problems with functioning, hammer follow, etc, especially installing it on a 9mm AR. Many reviewers have also reported a learning curve before shooters get good results, due to trying to use too short a trigger reset, etc.

I was however pleasantly surprised. I started off with a few single shots, then switched to binary more for a half dozen or so slow single shots on the pull and the release. Then I did a couple rapid pairs before doubling up on the pairs for four round "bursts".

The effect was very much like the good old days doing short bursts with an M16A1, just with two trigger movements rather than one. Then of course I had to try some longer bursts, just because, and the rate of fire was not far behind full auto in an M16A1.

I think prior experience decisively getting on and then off the trigger with the M16A1 and the M60 translated quite well to the binary trigger, ensuring a full release proper reset. Throw in the timing and repetition from double tapping semi-auto pistols, and it was not hard at all to produce a very high and even rate of fire - on the order of 600 rounds per minute, about 3/4ths the rate of an M16A1. But it really shines with short bursts of 2-4 rounds.

It's just as impractical as full auto in an M16 or M4 in most circumstances, but it also makes you smile.

I didn't have any issues with hammer follow (which would have required cycling the charging handle to re-cock the hammer) and only a single instance of coming up short on the reset (which just requires releasing and pulling the trigger again).

I like it enough that I'm now considering getting another one to install in a .223 lower for use with .22 LR.

Oddly enough the biggest challenge was getting accurate shots on the release. It took me awhile to be able to hit an 8" plate with both the pull and release, even when going slow.

 

[vonn]

Thanks for the report, I have been curious as to how well they work. Never really missed full auto but practiced double tapping until I got good hits. Was thinking hogs might be a good use for a binary.

 

[jack the toad]

Wonder how it compares to the fostech?

 

[iwanna]

I've had a binary trigger for a couple years now in my Colt A2 HB rifle. I like it! Fairly trouble-free. Fun. Fun. Fun.

 

[03hemi]

I love my Fostech II, you CAN'T outrun the bolt on that thing, I went with a #2buffer to prevent the occasional hiccup I really never had, but I figured I'd address it before it was aproblem. I also replaced my trigger spring with a lighter spring and dropped my pull weight almost in half on both stages (Trigger Depot, 3-gun spring) I can rip off a 30 rnd mag quicker than most full autos and very manageable with the sling I installed. It's too much fun to shoot. Here's mine, Springfield Armory Saint Pistol, 7.5" barrel, 556/223. At this point, I have about as much in upgrades as the original cost of the gun new.

 

[BB57]

Wonder how it compares to the fostech?

Here's what I learned in my research into which trigger to buy. Both the current Fostech Echo AR-II and Franklin Armory BFSIII triggers have their fans and strong followings.

----

I made a minor error in the description above. One that doesn't matter unless you are comparing the BFSIII to the Fostech Echo AR-II.

If you don't let the trigger go far enough forward to reset with the BFSIII, it will not fire when you pull the trigger again - just like a normal trigger. However, it will then fire again on the release.

If you do the same thing with the Echo AR-II binary trigger, it will not fire when you pull the trigger, but it also will not fire when you release it. Consequently, if you do not let the trigger go far enough forward, you have to pull the trigger, release the trigger and then pull it again to get the next shot.

What that means is that if you short the trigger return slightly you miss just one round fired with the BFSIII versus missing two rounds fired with the Echo 2. That's pretty much the major difference functionally speaking. Both the BFSIII and the Echo 2 have pretty good single trigger pulls - much better than military issue trigger and better than most factory triggers.

Installation wise, there are also some differences.

The BFSIII comes with a hammer, a trigger and disconnector assembly and a selector switch that are all installed like their regular AR-15 counterparts. The main difference is the trigger and seat assembly is pre-assembled and held together with a slave pin that is pushed out when you install the trigger pin. It's pretty simple and easily done by anyone who has ever installed an AR-15 trigger before.

The second generation Fostech Echo AR-II trigger installs with a trigger, sear and hammer assembly that just drops in and in pinned in place, along with a spring, a selector and a couple small parts.

All of three of the units discussed above have three position selector switches.

The newest Fostech trigger, the Echo Sport has separate hammer and trigger/disconnector assemblies. However, the Sport has a 2 position selector (safe and fire) an uses a separate switch in front of the trigger that moves side to side to switch between single and binary modes.

I'm not a big fan of having to stick my finger inside the trigger guard for anything other than actually shooting, and the lever drops down and creates the potential for something getting in between the switch and receiver and blocking the trigger. For me this meant the Echo Sport was a total non starter. It is however less expensive at around $220, compared to about $340-$350 for the Echo AR-II and about $350-$385 for the BFSIII.

All of the Fostech triggers use a lever inside the receiver behind the hammer that is activated by the bolt. The original Echo required a proprietary bolt carrier, while the Echo AR-II and Sport use a full auto bolt carrier. Unless you already have a full auto M16 style bolt carrier you'll need to buy one, and that'll add about $100 to the total cost. A bigger issue with the full auto bolt carrier requirement is the potential limitation using it with .22 LR conversion units.

That internal lever in the Fostech units also means you have to have everything properly positioned to put the upper receiver on the lower receiver. You have to cock the hammer, then press the internal lever forward, then push the hammer down and hold the trigger back to hold the hammer in place while you pivot the upper receiver down and pin it in place.

With the BFSIII you just put the upper on the lower as you would with a normal AR-15. Hammer up, hammer down, whatever, it doesn't matter.

All of the above mentioned triggers allow the release shot to be cancelled by just moving the selector switch to "safe".

----

For me, the three position selector lever, the quicker recovery if you short the trigger release, the normal AR-15 upper and lower receiver assembly procedure, and the ability to use regular semi-auto AR-15 style bolt carriers and .22 LR conversion units made the BFSIII the binary trigger of choice, even if it cost a bit more. Afterall, you don't buy one of these to save money.

That said, I didn't run across any complaints from Fostech Echo AR-II owners. While I wouldn't recommend the Echo Sport, when it comes to the BFSIII and Echo AR-II, I don't think it's a case of one being better than the other, just slightly different.

 

[BB57]

I love my Fostech II, you CAN'T outrun the bolt on that thing, I went with a #2buffer to prevent the occasional hiccup I really never had, but I figured I'd address it before it was aproblem. I also replaced my trigger spring with a lighter spring and dropped my pull weight almost in half on both stages (Trigger Depot, 3-gun spring) I can rip off a 30 rnd mag quicker than most full autos and very manageable with the sling I installed. It's too much fun to shoot. Here's mine, Springfield Armory Saint Pistol, 7.5" barrel, 556/223. At this point, I have about as much in upgrades as the original cost of the gun new.

I love the wood on that.

 

[03hemi]

Thanks BB57, I agree about the EchoIII. I wouldn't have that "Paddle" switch just to save $100 or so bucks.

Quote: "You have to cock the hammer, then press the internal lever forward, then push the hammer down and hold the trigger back to hold the hammer in place while you pivot the upper receiver down and pin it in place."
All info true, but you don't cock the hammer, hammer is forward, but you're correct, you have to pull back on the internal lever, then you can release it after you pull back on the trigger in binary mode, it'll hold it back for you and then the upper and lower will meet up and close. The hammer is never cocked when re-assembling though.
Good write up/explanation though.

The grips panels and fore panels are Cocobolo, the grip panels are mated to a CNC billet, anodized aluminum grip made by a young man and the name of his company is "Indignant Arms"

 

[Racer X]

Pisses me off these aren't legal in Washington State. Law says one round per trigger pull. Since firing on trigger release is counted with the preceeding pull, that's 2 rounds, one trigger pull. Not legal.

 

[BB57]

Pisses me off these aren't legal in Washington State. Law says one round per trigger pull. Since firing on trigger release is counted with the preceeding pull, that's 2 rounds, one trigger pull. Not legal.

It's a bit of a catch-22. On the one hand, shooters generally prefer a very generous interpretation of everything 2A related. On the other hand, most shooters are also people who want to minimize the role of the federal government and strongly support state's rights. Sometimes the two end up being in conflict.


There's an even bigger example in the form of proposed national concealed carry permits, or universal reciprocity for state issued concealed carry permits (like state issued driver's licenses).

To get either one would require either a federal standard, where no state is probably going to be totally happy (which is however usually a sign of a pretty reasonable compromise), or some minimum standard that a majority of states are in agreement with, leaving a minority of states that are not happy.

Neither approach is consistent with a rigid view of state's rights. Which is why we will never have strong support for either a federal concealed carry permit or universal reciprocity.

 

[daglockman]

I won't get one because of the cost of them, and the likelihood that they will follow the course of the bumpstock and folding pistol braces. They were and are determined to be legal by the ATF, then their own decision will be reversed and will be made illegal and you will get no compensation for them. I believe that this is being done to see how much the American people will put up with having taken away from them before pushing back. Binary triggers are great fun though. Just bring enough ammo with you, as you will want to keep blasting!!!!

 

[BB57]

I won't get one because of the cost of them, and the likelihood that they will follow the course of the bumpstock and folding pistol braces. They were and are determined to be legal by the ATF, then their own decision will be reversed and will be made illegal and you will get no compensation for them. I believe that this is being done to see how much the American people will put up with having taken away from them before pushing back. Binary triggers are great fun though. Just bring enough ammo with you, as you will want to keep blasting!!!!

I've posted before on the problem of federal agencies employing staff with little or no subject matter expertise - usually attorneys who can't find work as attorneys. It's been going on long enough that attorneys have risen to the top of civil service systems and are now replicating themselves by hiring attorneys rather than staff with subject matter knowledge. It's led to a major problem where regulations are written and interpreted using a "narrow read of the law" approach to determine congressional intent in statute.

That narrow read approach used to define a regulation based on a very old statute (1934) where there were few if any committee notes combined with a significant lack of knowledge about how firearms actually work is what resulted in the approval letter for bumpstocks.

The staff involved considered the bump stock itself separate from the receiver that it held, and did not consider the two as a complete system. The opinion was made that the trigger was pulled separately for each shot as the receiver reciprocated inside the stock. It ignored the common sense interpretation that the user just had to pull the trigger and then hold his/her finger back against the trigger without any further manipulation of the trigger.

That's where the ATF has walked back the previous opinion. In the revised regulation the ATF states:

“The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

The language that states "without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter" is where binary triggers were excluded from being considered as 'machine guns'.

That significant when you look at the charge ATF was given by the president:

"On February 20, 2018, President Trump issued a memorandum instructing the Attorney General 'to dedicate all available resources to… propose for notice and comment a rule banning all devices that turn legal weapons into machineguns.' ”

ATF looked at "all devices" including binary triggers and was not able to define binary trigger equipped firearms as machine guns under current statute, which means it will take a new law specifically banning binary triggers to make them illegal.

It's one thing to say that bump stocks have always been illegal under an existing statute, even one that was misinterpreted briefly by ATF, and then demand destruction or confiscation of the device.

It's something else to take a legally owned item such as a binary trigger that has been determined to be legal under existing statute, make it illegal under a new law, and then demand destruction or confiscation. It's not impossible but it's a much more difficult thing to do as it constitutes a "regulatory taking" where owners would have a right to compensation.

That same logic applies to semi-auto rifles in general. It'll be one hurdle to ban further manufacture and importation of them, it'll be a much higher, and much more expensive, hurdle to require confiscation or destruction of them.


-----

Folding pistol braces are a different issue. Here the problem was caused by the ATF determining OAL measurements with a folding pistol brace in the extended position rather than the folded position.

An OAL under 26" with a folding pistol brace in the folded position isn't a problem for a pistol. Where it becomes a problem is when the weapon has a vertical foregrip attached. A few manufacturers were building weapons where the OAL was over 26" with the folding pistol brace extended, and then adding a vertical foregrip because it was over 26" with the brace in the extended position.

ATF originally measured pistols with the brace extended to determine whether it fell under the 26" parameter used to determine whether it potentially fell under the AOW classification.

However, manufacturers started abusing that method by intentionally exceeding 26" in the extended position in order to avoid the AOW classification, and then add a vertical foregrip. That intentionally circumvented the AOW classification and the resulting tax stamp and registration requirements.

Consequently, ATF took the position that the brace is still just an accessory, and that if the length of the pistol without the brace (or with the brace folded) is under 26" *AND* it has a vertical foregrip, it must be registered as an "all other weapon".


In other words, folding pistol braces ares still legal for use on a pistol, and they are still being sold. As was always the case however, you cannot add a vertical foregrip to a pistol as doing so will make it an "AOW" subject to registration and tax stamp requirements under the NFA of 1934.

ATF Rescinds Prior Methods to Measure a Firearm’s Overall Length when Equipped with a Stabilizing Brace – Prince Law Offices Blog

 

[Dump1567]

I have the Franklin in my 9mm SBR AR. I've found I can't bring out enough mags when I go shooting. It's that fun.

I have the Fostech in my 5.56 SBR. Not as fun due to recoil.

It's all getting used to manipulating the trigger, but I think I prefer the Franklin.

 

[The_Truth]

Pisses me off these aren't legal in Washington State. Law says one round per trigger pull. Since firing on trigger release is counted with the preceeding pull, that's 2 rounds, one trigger pull. Not legal.

Trigger release is not the same as trigger pull. I'd say you're still g2g, especially since that's not a state specific definition, yet they are still legal.

 

[03hemi]

Some states specifically say the "binary trigger" is included in their bans.

 

[BB57]

Some states specifically say the "binary trigger" is included in their bans.

Currently, they are not legal in CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, and WA. In DE they can only be used in a pistol.

 

[03hemi]

Currently, they are not legal in CA, CT, DC, FL, HI, IA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, and WA. In DE they can only be used in a pistol.

None of the states I want to visit, coincidence? I think not.

 

[daglockman]

“The term ‘machine gun’ includes bump-stock devices, i.e., devices that allow a semiautomatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”

The language that states "without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter" is where binary triggers were excluded from being considered as 'machine guns'.


This is where I feel those with limited exposure to the bumpstock product are incorrect. It DOES require continued physical manipulation of the trigger, or it will not continue to fire. The trigger MUST be pulled everytime for the rifle to fire. If you remove your boogerhook from the bangswitch, it will go boom no more, and is dependent on the forward pressure on the rifle by your other hand to operate a bumpstock. It cannot be operated with one hand, whereas a binary trigger can. I personally feel that binary triggers are on borrowed time, like any device that increases your ability to elevate the rate of fire. This is just my opinion.