Spats McGee
Administrator
I know the BATFE can be inconsistent, but I still haven't figured how this isn't a machine gun.
The Standard Manufacturing S333 Thunderstruck - How do you feel about it?
- Thread starter Forte S+W
- Start date
'nuff said)Spats McGee said:
Well, that's why. The ATF is in charge of classifying firearms, but they're inconsistent when it comes to classification, ergo sometimes things which don't actually fit the descriptions of the classification they're designated as, and sometimes things which seemingly fit the description of a classification receive another.
Heck, sometimes if they really want something to be classified a certain way, they'll alter the definition of said classification just so they can squeeze it in. (See Bump Stocks.)
As near as I can figure, unless they anticipate or otherwise discover the potential for a firearm to be extremely deadly, they leave it alone.
Cheapshooter
New member
Again! Because you are pulling essentially two triggers, operating two seperate firing pins to fire two rounds.
Is a double barrel shotgun with two triggers that can be pulled at the same time a machinegun?
Last edited:
Shooting Illustrated reported, "the ATF does make an exception for "volley guns" and allows the manufacture and sale of firearms that fire more than one round with each pull of the trigger, provided that those rounds are fired from separate barrels."
It's not altogether different than a double-barrel shotgun or a derringer that fires both barrels. There are other volley guns like the nock-gun, duckfoot pistol, and organ guns, although most of those have only been produced prior to cartridges.
It's not altogether different than a double-barrel shotgun or a derringer that fires both barrels. There are other volley guns like the nock-gun, duckfoot pistol, and organ guns, although most of those have only been produced prior to cartridges.
mrcharlie3531
New member
Did this forum crash there're website?? The link is not responding.
TruthTellers
New member
It's a gun made for very close range self defense, nearly point blank ranges. It's not meant to be a target gun, it's not meant to be a plinking gun, it's not meant to be collectible or pretty or something you can't wait to show everyone at the range and feel superior because you own it, it's a gun that has the dirty job of putting bullets into somebody who is a threat to your life or liberty.
When using proper .22 Mag ammo meant for handguns, it is regarded as being as sufficient for self defnese as .38 is, but with less recoil. My issue with .22 Mag has been the consistent inconsistency of the ammunition to not have a failure to fire for one range session. Actually, now that I remember it, the first time I ever shot .22 Mag I had a FTF on the very first round. Talk about foreshadowing...
This Standard Manufacturing revolver is unique in the 2 shots per trigger pull and what I like about that is if there were to come a time where it had to be used defensively, even if one of the rounds didn't go off, the other one would with a near 100% probability. To me that makes up for the .22 Mag's lack of reliability.
The fact is that this gun is meant for people who are not experienced with guns and solely want something for protection. Something with low recoil, cheap ammo, and not full of safeties is a good choice.
If you don't want one, don't get one, but don't project your opinions onto others telling them what is a good idea or a bad idea for them. It's this exact type of gun snobbery that gets all of us painted as a bunch of gun toting buttholes.
When using proper .22 Mag ammo meant for handguns, it is regarded as being as sufficient for self defnese as .38 is, but with less recoil. My issue with .22 Mag has been the consistent inconsistency of the ammunition to not have a failure to fire for one range session. Actually, now that I remember it, the first time I ever shot .22 Mag I had a FTF on the very first round. Talk about foreshadowing...
This Standard Manufacturing revolver is unique in the 2 shots per trigger pull and what I like about that is if there were to come a time where it had to be used defensively, even if one of the rounds didn't go off, the other one would with a near 100% probability. To me that makes up for the .22 Mag's lack of reliability.
The fact is that this gun is meant for people who are not experienced with guns and solely want something for protection. Something with low recoil, cheap ammo, and not full of safeties is a good choice.
If you don't want one, don't get one, but don't project your opinions onto others telling them what is a good idea or a bad idea for them. It's this exact type of gun snobbery that gets all of us painted as a bunch of gun toting buttholes.
Cheapshooter
New member
Thanks. That makes even more sense than my speculation about using two fingers.
Regardless what anybody thinks of the Thunderstruck it is good to see people finding loopholes in the unconstitutional restrictions put on firearms by government bureaucrats!
23 lbs, we all probably know a few people who probably couldn't generate that much force to the trigger while remaining on-target.
I'm with the no-trigger guard / not interested crowd.
My guess is this will be the subject in several years when one of these is dropped and fires incidentally with serious injury / death as a result as there was no guard.
I'm with the no-trigger guard / not interested crowd.
My guess is this will be the subject in several years when one of these is dropped and fires incidentally with serious injury / death as a result as there was no guard.
Cheapshooter
New member
First, in no way is the Thunderstruck intended as a bullseye target gun. The model number 333 is in reference to the notion that most SD uses of a firearm are within 3 feet, with 3 rounds fired in 3 seconds. The 23 Lbs is quite stiff, but with using two fingers as designed it feels like a lot less. The two finger pull is a must, and as someone who has shot a Thunderstruck, not all that hard to keep on target.
That 23 Lb trigger along with a blade style trigger safety is what makes the Thunderstruck both cary, and drop safe.
If, and it's a big if, the gun would be dropped muzzle first, on some type of thin structure or object, that could possibly activate the trigger blade, it's still extremely unlikely the weight of the gun could exert enough force to fully depress the double trigger, and keep the safety blade depressed enough to fire.
Using a free fall energy calculator a 1 1/2 lb object dropped from 5 feet creates 7.5 ft lb of energy. Or in other words less than half the force needed to fully depress the trigger while it lands perfectly on the trigger safety blade, and maintains that perfect alignment long enough for full trigger travel.
Just can't happen!
Last edited:
The 23 pound trigger is twice as heavy as a double-action trigger that most people would regard as "heavy." Most people, if considering an 11-pound double-action trigger, are led to believe it will materially interfere with their ability to place shots on target and that they are better off with a 5 or 6 pound striker-action trigger which in their experience, "they shoot better."
A 23-pound trigger quite likely would be a strong deterrent against unintentional discharges. Since the rest of the "Thunderstruck" is rather "polarizing," perhaps more practically it calls to question whether a 5 or 6 pound trigger is really important for a defensive, personal-protection firearm. Maybe 11 pounds is a good thing, even if it doesn't flatter us with tight little groups on the bullseye.
A 23-pound trigger quite likely would be a strong deterrent against unintentional discharges. Since the rest of the "Thunderstruck" is rather "polarizing," perhaps more practically it calls to question whether a 5 or 6 pound trigger is really important for a defensive, personal-protection firearm. Maybe 11 pounds is a good thing, even if it doesn't flatter us with tight little groups on the bullseye.
Spats McGee
Administrator
I kept thinking that it's got one trigger with a dingus in the middle, rather than 2 triggers. I guess not?
Spats McGee
Administrator
Ah, that makes a lot more sense.
I would point out that one man's "loophole" is another man's "OBEYING THE LAW".
Ok, this is the answer why it can be made. The ATF allows the exception. That is their legal interpretation, their "in house" regulations of what is, (and how) and is not covered under the law. What is important to understand is that the ATF can change their regulations and enforcement while the language used in the LAW remains unchanged.
I don't have the internals to look at, so I can't be certain, but from the pictures it LOOKS like a single trigger with the second "trigger" being a "safety" on the trigger, somewhat like the one on the Glock, a mechanical release that must be activated in order for the trigger to be pulled and not connected with the actual firing mechanism.
IF this is the case, then then gun only has one trigger (connected to the rest of the firing mechanism, and separate barrels puts in the ATF's "volley fire" exception group.
If this is not the case, and that little "second trigger" can actually fire the gun, no matter how difficult it is to operate, then the gun has 2 triggers, and does not fall under the "more than one shot from a single trigger" rule.
I applaud the ingenuity of the concept, but I don't care for the execution of the design.