Bump stocks: Was there ever any **GOOD** use for a bump stock?

I am sure all the members of this forum understand that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with shooting ducks. It has to do with the right of the citizenry to resist oppressive governments. Other things being equal, as in non crazy people - but who decides that? - all law abiding citizens ought to be allowed to own anything they can afford from a tank, to a fighter airplane etc. etc. The government has its citizens way outgunned and that's a sure way to opression.
 
It has to do with the right of the citizenry to resist oppressive governments.
Click to expand...

There is actually a bit more to it than just resisting oppressive government. At the time, there were actual foreign military forces in North America (English, Spanish, and French), and there was also a threat from hostile natives.

Citizens were to be able to be armed (free from govt infringement) so that they could protect themselves, their homes, and their communities from ALL threats, both as individuals, and as organized militias.

There were also no standing police forces anywhere in the country until a few decades later...Not only were the citizens essentially on their own, they were expected to be.

The 2nd Amendment was meant to keep the govt's hands off the tools we needed to protect ourselves from ALL threats, including but not limited to that same government gone rogue.
 
According to an old friend who made a 30 year career of instructing machine gunners, the only *practical* use of full auto is for suppressive fire or as light artillery (in the case of a .50BMG Ma Deuce). Shooting full auto in the military on Uncle Sugar's dime was "fun" for a while but soon the idea of getting a woody at doing mag dumps loses its charm. Maybe being the son of a DI whose first words to me on the subject of guns was "It's not a toy" informed my attitude. I still cringe when I hear the words "range toy". Personally, as a civilian unlikely to ever be in a squad combat situation again I have no use for or interest in anything full auto. The sight of spent brass flying out at the rate of $15/second offends my Scottish sensibilities but, hey, it's *your* money. Far be it from me to tell you what you can or can't have.
 
Dreamsinger said:
According to an old friend who made a 30 year career of instructing machine gunners, the only *practical* use of full auto is for suppressive fire or as light artillery (in the case of a .50BMG Ma Deuce). Shooting full auto in the military on Uncle Sugar's dime was "fun" for a while but soon the idea of getting a woody at doing mag dumps loses its charm. Maybe being the son of a DI whose first words to me on the subject of guns was "It's not a toy" informed my attitude. I still cringe when I hear the words "range toy". Personally, as a civilian unlikely to ever be in a squad combat situation again I have no use for or interest in anything full auto. The sight of spent brass flying out at the rate of $15/second offends my Scottish sensibilities but, hey, it's *your* money. Far be it from me to tell you what you can or can't have.
Click to expand...
It would seem contrary to the military's thinking that "full auto" is not effective inasmuch as they still have full auto SAWs, machine guns, etc., issued to infantry units. One "old friend" is not an adequate sample to base anything on.

Nevertheless, bump stocks and other devices seem to be poor substitutes ("...have to hold it just right...") for true full auto.

In short, I would never waste my money on one.
 
"...that would "bounce fire"..." Any semi-auto will do that. If it took 5-6 seconds to empty the mag, you were doing it wrong.
Bump stocks were a way around restrictive regulations put in place by un-elected civil servants. So was the Actuator trigger thingy that made your firearm into a Gatling gun. As I recall it was also banned by regulations put in place by un-elected civil servants.
 
It would seem contrary to the military's thinking that "full auto" is not effective inasmuch as they still have full auto SAWs, machine guns, etc., issued to infantry units. One "old friend" is not an adequate sample to base anything on.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's all about application. Leadership discouraging soldiers from using full auto routinely reduces supply loads and cuts down on them engaging targets indiscriminately. This reduces fratricide and striking uninvolved third parties.

Trying to use a full auto machine gun to engage a single combatant running around on foot for example is seldom a good idea. Places where you can mass fires such as in a defense or engaging vehicles full auto is generally a good idea OTOH.

These ideas get spread because the vast majority of people who serve never make it past basic training for actual infantry combat training and never really learn how to properly employ full auto fire or machine guns. The vast majority also never make it past a single enlistment and get in to a leadership role and therefore never really learn how such things work. So you are really talking about single digit percentage points Soldiers and Marines who understand the proper role of automatic weapons.
 
We'd use them for a bit of fun on the farm range. 95% of our shooting on any given weekend would be rifles, pistols, and skeet. Then maybe 5% or less would be messing around with the bump-fire stock. It was generally a fun toy to introduce people to full auto fire, nothing more. Full auto makes people giggle. It's different, it's fun.

I'd never break them out when there alone to shoot. I'm usually at the range to work on stuff, and the bump-fire stock never factored into my thinking.

You don't need a bump fire stock though, we'd been "bump firing" using the old "thumb and belt loop" method for years before anyone created a custom accessory for it.

Cool gimmick for us, not much more. Nobody I know misses them. You can still make the gun bump-fire just fine from the hip and get the same "grin" factor.
 
I don’t think they have a *practical* use, but could be fun for some. But they were banned with zero evidence released they had ever been used in a crime such as Las Vegas. They were in the room, but no evidence released stating they had even been fired, which leads me to believe they had not.

All of this, although used as supposed justification, is irrelevant when it comes to a core human right as recognized in our Constitution. Just because something sounds or looks “scary” or is used in a crime, or only implied to be used in a crime, is absolutely no basis for infringing upon that right.

Rights of possession and use are not based on practical use, sporting use, or criminal use. They are inherent to every free citizen. But politicians love to leverage a publicity crisis to cripple our protected rights.
 
But they were banned with zero evidence released they had ever been used in a crime such as Las Vegas. They were in the room, but no evidence released stating they had even been fired, which leads me to believe they had not.
Click to expand...

You can believe what you want, based on a lack of evidence released, but do consider that 1) the govt is under no requirement to release every single minute detail of a case (to non involved parties), and 2) multiple different recordings of the sound of the firing were in the public domain, and to most of our ears, it had to be a bump firing if there were no actual full auto firearms present.

They were in the room, and it sure sounded like they were used. If you really want to know, I'm sure you could find out, via Freedom of Information laws, and get the actual evidence/lab reports of what was fired (and possibly how many times) used in the investigation. The Govt is under no obligation to state "6 rifles, #1 fired 47 times, #2 fired 217, #3 fired....etc."

I'm sure they have that information, and you could get it, but deciding the bump stocked rifles found at the scene weren't used, because the govt didn't REALEASE chapter and verse of which one did what is more than a bit of a stretch to me.
 
I don’t think they have a *practical* use, but could be fun for some. But they were banned with zero evidence released they had ever been used in a crime such as Las Vegas. They were in the room, but no evidence released stating they had even been fired, which leads me to believe they had not.
Click to expand...

Either that dude was amazingly and consistently good with a semi auto, had full auto, or used bump stocks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yI0TvX0eDRs

Few people have the skill to fire a semi-auto gun like full auto and to do so conistently without a bump stock. No full auto guns were reported. Considering the video and how many guns he had with bump stocks, I don't see any credible argument for the belief that they were not used.
 
I don’t think they have a *practical* use, but could be fun for some. But they were banned with zero evidence released they had ever been used in a crime such as Las Vegas. They were in the room, but no evidence released stating they had even been fired, which leads me to believe they had not.
Click to expand...

Read the Las Vegas Police Departments preliminary and final reports on the Las Vegas shooting. Law enforcement matched every fired cartridge case to the firearm that fired same. All, or nearly all, rounds were fired from bump stock equipped rifles.

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1_October_FIT_Report_01-18-2018_Footnoted.pdf

https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1-October-FIT-Criminal-Investigative-Report-FINAL_080318.pdf

Listen to the audio tape of the shooting.
 
"I don’t think they have a *practical* use, but could be fun for some."

I disagree. I think given the right capacity magazines and enough practice, someone can learn to be very proficient using a gun with a bump-fire stock. It just depends on the scenario and the skill of the person using the device.

I also think that a lot of people who claim bump-fire, binary triggers and even full-auto is "useless", haven't really ever attempted to hone their skills using any of these devices. I have an AC556 and in tri-burst, it's easy to stay on target with a little practice. And, in full-auto you can quickly learn not to do "mag-dumps" but controlled bursts and move to several targets quickly while doing this.

I find that just because someone with military training says something is "useless" because they were trained to only use it one way, does not necessarily make the thing useless for an individual who figures out how to use the device effectively.

Take for example the Barrow Gang. They very effectively used the Browning BAR for what they were doing. It's a heavy, full-auto, 20-round 30-06! I don't think the police or government agents thought those guns were useless and ineffective. There was a reason they restricted full-autos back in the 1930's, and it wasn't because they wasted ammo and made lots of noise.
 
Last edited:
I heard a story from a fellow/member shooter at our outdoor range, about another shooter/member who filmed himself shooting a AK-47 with a bump fire stock, while in the standing field position.

He posted the film on Youtube...that depicted him shooting over the 100 yard backstop berm and into the wooded hillside. Our safety committee saw the video and barred the perp for life.
 
Bump stocks: Was there ever any **GOOD** use for a bump stock?

Sure was - - pretty much the exact same use that tannerite brings to the table ;).


$$$ grin getters
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top