Is this really legal?
- Thread starter SPUSCG
- Start date
- Status
aarondhgraham
New member
This is legal,,,
It's the BMF Activator.
It's legal because it only fires one round per trigger pull,,,
It will not make the rifle sustain automatic firing of the gun.
This is legal as well for the same reason,,,
One round per trigger pull.
I remember a looooong thread in this forum,,,
Or maybe it was in okshooters.com,,,
We talked about the string thing.
The general consensus was that the string would cause sustained fire,,,
Thereby making it illegal in the eyes of the BATFE.
But we're just internet lawyers,,,
What do we really know.
I would buy the BMF Activator for fun,,,
I would not put a string on my trigger.
JMHO - YMMV
Aarond
It's the BMF Activator.
It's legal because it only fires one round per trigger pull,,,
It will not make the rifle sustain automatic firing of the gun.
This is legal as well for the same reason,,,
One round per trigger pull.
I remember a looooong thread in this forum,,,
Or maybe it was in okshooters.com,,,
We talked about the string thing.
The general consensus was that the string would cause sustained fire,,,
Thereby making it illegal in the eyes of the BATFE.
But we're just internet lawyers,,,
What do we really know.
I would buy the BMF Activator for fun,,,
I would not put a string on my trigger.
JMHO - YMMV
Aarond
When it comes down to what BATFE claims is legal or illegal, they could care less what the law really says. Their "rulings" are inconsistent and overreaching.
Here are some examples:
Ruling on Open Bolt semi-autos - no easier to convert to full auto than AR-15's - bottom line they aren't machineguns. Ease of conversion has no relevance and is inconsistently applied.
Ruling on USAS-12 and Striker Street Sweeper - no different than Saiga 12's. Plus, they were domestically produced.
Ruling on post 82(?) DIAS - No, it's not a machinegun and by itself can't make any gun a machinegun.
Ruling on Akins Accelerator - A bump-fire device, 1 shot per trigger pull - ruled a machinegun....but everyone knows its not.
Here are some examples:
Ruling on Open Bolt semi-autos - no easier to convert to full auto than AR-15's - bottom line they aren't machineguns. Ease of conversion has no relevance and is inconsistently applied.
Ruling on USAS-12 and Striker Street Sweeper - no different than Saiga 12's. Plus, they were domestically produced.
Ruling on post 82(?) DIAS - No, it's not a machinegun and by itself can't make any gun a machinegun.
Ruling on Akins Accelerator - A bump-fire device, 1 shot per trigger pull - ruled a machinegun....but everyone knows its not.
Vt.birdhunter
New member
If you buy it, and they ban it....will they grandfather whats circulating or demand they be turned in?
The BATF pretty much does make it up as they go along.
Years ago I was a competitive paintball player and connected to a company that manufacturer aftermarket barrels for paintball guns. One of the most popular products was a barrel called The Concealer.
What this amounted to was a .68 caliber barrel with about 6 rows of evenly spaced porting running around the diameter of about the last 6-8 inches of the barrel. This porting was wrapped with some foam sheet and the whole mess was contained inside some PVC pipe. In essence it looked exactly like a Can on a very strange looking gun barrel. It did exactly squat for silencing a paintball gun but did tend to contain, and therefor conceal, the puff of CO2 vapor that a lot of the guns of the time used as a power source.
Most people bought them because they DID look like a silencer, and therefor "cool".
The problem arose when some brainiac decided to send one in to the BATF and demand a ruling as to whether the item could be considered a silencer. The problem with THAT is according to the BATF verbage on silencers pretty much anything can in someway be modified to be a silencer, and they are the ones that get to make that determination.
Keep in mind this thing was made out of two rings of delrin with o-rings which were press fit onto a .68 caliber barrel made of brass, and covered with a piece of pvc pipe. When removed you had 3 pieces of plastic junk. According to the BATF though, the barrel could be hack sawed apart and then "somehow" affixed to an actual firearm and then "probably" be capable of quieting the shot to some degree. No kidding. That pretty much describes the sum total of their argument to the company prez and he was ordered to cease and desist production or face fines and/or jail time.
Of the record the agent in charge said that had not the bonehead shoved it in their face and demanded an official ruling they would have never gave it a second look.
Years ago I was a competitive paintball player and connected to a company that manufacturer aftermarket barrels for paintball guns. One of the most popular products was a barrel called The Concealer.
What this amounted to was a .68 caliber barrel with about 6 rows of evenly spaced porting running around the diameter of about the last 6-8 inches of the barrel. This porting was wrapped with some foam sheet and the whole mess was contained inside some PVC pipe. In essence it looked exactly like a Can on a very strange looking gun barrel. It did exactly squat for silencing a paintball gun but did tend to contain, and therefor conceal, the puff of CO2 vapor that a lot of the guns of the time used as a power source.
Most people bought them because they DID look like a silencer, and therefor "cool".
The problem arose when some brainiac decided to send one in to the BATF and demand a ruling as to whether the item could be considered a silencer. The problem with THAT is according to the BATF verbage on silencers pretty much anything can in someway be modified to be a silencer, and they are the ones that get to make that determination.
Keep in mind this thing was made out of two rings of delrin with o-rings which were press fit onto a .68 caliber barrel made of brass, and covered with a piece of pvc pipe. When removed you had 3 pieces of plastic junk. According to the BATF though, the barrel could be hack sawed apart and then "somehow" affixed to an actual firearm and then "probably" be capable of quieting the shot to some degree. No kidding. That pretty much describes the sum total of their argument to the company prez and he was ordered to cease and desist production or face fines and/or jail time.
Of the record the agent in charge said that had not the bonehead shoved it in their face and demanded an official ruling they would have never gave it a second look.
Ridge_Runner_5
New member
wyobohunter
New member
Wut he sed
Does or has the military ever actually instructed the troops in the "proper" use/uses of full auto fire? Or is that left for the "specialized" boys?
Most of the people I know who were in the military have no idea as to the proper use, and usually the scaryier people Ive let shoot my guns, a have been "combat vets". Maybe they just "forgot"?
DiscoRacing
New member
INteresting ??
... when i was in...pretty much all I remember em saying was
...three rd bursts...dont spray
wyobohunter
New member
Of course they do... depending on your definition of the "proper" use/uses of full auto fire. Keep in mind that the modern M-16 isn't really "full auto" per se. It is 3 round burst and we were taught that even that was pretty silly to use unless you were faced with a Korean war type mass charge. Actual full auto fire (grazing/suppressive fire) is pretty much reserved for actual machine guns i.e. open bolt belt fed weapons... not rifles.
Toys and techniques that allow you to simulate full auto from a rifle/handgun have no real utility in my opinion; people just do it for kicks. You'll never see me do it. After spending several hours at the reloading bench I couldn't possibly bring myself to waste it all in just a few seconds.
Last edited:
There in lies the rub. Everyone seems to have a different idea as to what training is and or what they actually got.
What they think and tell you they can do, more often than not, is dramatically different, than what they will do, when you hand them the gun. From what Ive seen, it must have been mostly "suppressive" fire training.
Three round burst is a bean counter thing, and just an excuse for lack of training. Properly trained shooters dont need the gun to think or decide for them.
Wasted ammo is wasted ammo, regardless how many times you pull the trigger to waste it.
Some people can waste it all into a paper plate at 10 yards with one pull of the trigger, some like to bring down birds and aircraft trying. How you were "trained" might have something to do with that.
Vt.birdhunter
New member
Can this device be fired from prone or bi-pod at its' higher rate of fire?
wyobohunter
New member
Properly trained shooters supress with an actual machine gun and flank with rifles. Basic infantry fire and maneuver stuff... not "operator" stuff.
I've contributed to getting off topic and I'll cut it out
.It isnt "all" about the military. They have valid uses in other venues.
It seems perspective and experience may have a lot to do with perceived use too.
Then theres always the pure play and fun aspect of it all, which is basically what this is all about, but it seems to never fail, you always get those who want to pee in somebodys Cheerios because they dont like the idea somebody else might just have some fun.
wyobohunter
New member
Your Cheerios are safe.
Have fun
They will typically make you disassemble it and make you turn in some "key" part, letting you keep the rest. If they took the entire thing, they would be required to compensate you for it (legally). Actually, they are legally required to compensate you for anything they take as a result of some new ruling/law,etc. But, they don't. That's because there are no penalties when BATFE commits crimes, but if you do it, it'll cost you 10 years and $250,000.
That's your government hard at work with your tax dollars.
- Status