mcorioles

Bump Stocks Determined to Be Legal under the Obama Admin.

67 posts in this topic

20 minutes ago, JoyinMudville said:

I agree, or maybe they were focused on some other area of gun control or maybe they made the calculation that gun control was such a hot button issue for repubs that they should leave it alone in the hopes of finding common ground on other issues. Or, maybe they just dropped the ball.

regardless, i don't think you will find anyone in the obama administration, including obama and biden, who doesn't wish that they were able to do more on gun control

Agree.  I think given what is now known about them, the administration would have attempted to make them illegal.  I am not so sure what republicans would have done.  Just the fact that the Obama administration would have attempted to make them illegal probably would have meant republicans would have argued against it.  At least then, they would have owned it.  As it stands now, everyone dropped the ball on it.  Not that it would have prevented what happened either way.  The guy had enough money and no red flags so he probably could have gotten what he wanted for his plan no matter what anyone did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shouldn't such a big deal that both parties can't work on this and get it done ASAP since everyone agrees how whacked it is that bump stocks are even being sold legally.

Instead of arguing about who was asleep at the wheel or the what the NRA thinks, just get it done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The things have been around since well before the 1986 ban on new manufacture of automatic weapons for sale to independent people, (i.e., outside of police, security firms, etc. Oh, yeah they have them too.) The number of NFA weapons, available for purchase  almost tripled between announcing the ban and its implementation. There are plenty available if you want to own something this expensive. ATF will gladly take your application and fee. 

Quite frankly though, I'm surprised it had not happened before with these mechanical actuators and there are several more types than just this one.

People that take their shooting skills seriously disdain these things because they are a gimmick and indiscriminate. 

I wonder how many gang shootings attributed to automatic weapons were actually done with these.

 

Edited by Wild Eyed Southern Boy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

The things have been around since well before the 1986 ban on new manufacture of automatic weapons for sale to independent people, (i.e., outside of police, security firms, etc. Oh, yeah they have them too.) The number of NFA weapons, available for purchase  almost tripled between announcing the ban and its implementation. There are plenty available if you want to own something this expensive. ATF will gladly take your application and fee. 

Quite frankly though, I'm surprised it had not happened before with these mechanical actuators and there are several more types than just this one.

People that take their shooting skills seriously disdain these things because they are a gimmick and indiscriminate. 

I wonder how many gang shootings attributed to automatic weapons were actually done with these.

 

Yep ..... there really is no need for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:49 AM, DreadPirateRoberts said:

when are they making belt loops illegal

 

I was about to post that anybody can bump fire a semi. I still got another page and a half to read through before I make my "less effective/wasted ammo point. I hope you didn't cover that too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

6 hours ago, jonsensback said:

This shouldn't such a big deal that both parties can't work on this and get it done ASAP since everyone agrees how whacked it is that bump stocks are even being sold legally.

Instead of arguing about who was asleep at the wheel or the what the NRA thinks, just get it done.

  Your missing the point. It's all about the politics and who will get the credit/blame for the "bumpstock ban". First, this "gadget" makes a shooter less accurate. Same goes for a rifle that is on full auto (legit). All you end up doing is fighting muzzle rise. Also, it wastes ammo. I realized that in the corps. On full auto, the magazine would be empty in seconds. I think in the 80s, years after I was back to being civilian slime, it was modified to fire 3 round bursts with each trigger pull. There is a reason why the weapon carried by a person whos job is to kill as many enemy fighters as fast as possible was modified like that. And other than the first round or two, the rest go off target. When the Vegas nut saw the security guard come to his door on the cam , he fired through the door. Out of 200 rounds fired through the door, one hit him in the leg. Also, it lights up your position at night. So really, I don't care a wit whether they ban these or not. Other than being a play toy, all it is, to quote WESB, a toy that is too dangerous for kids.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, people have known how to bumpfire forever. Way before these do-dads were "invented".

Edited by mrdeltoid
My TBI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 1:03 PM, mcorioles said:

Promoted by Comparisons.org

 

Quote

According to the ATF’s June 2010 letter: “The stock has no automatically functioning mechanical parts or springs and performs no automatic mechanical function when installed. In order to use the device, the shooter must apply constant forward pressure with the non-shooting hands and constant rearward pressure with the shooting hand. Accordingly, we find that the ‘bump stock’ is a firearm part and is not regulated as a firearm under the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act.”

It sounds like the ATF concluded that they found that existing laws did not cover the device.  Were they supposed to create law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mrdeltoid said:

  Your missing the point. It's all about the politics and who will get the credit/blame for the "bumpstock ban". First, this "gadget" makes a shooter less accurate. Same goes for a rifle that is on full auto (legit). All you end up doing is fighting muzzle rise. Also, it wastes ammo. I realized that in the corps. On full auto, the magazine would be empty in seconds. I think in the 80s, years after I was back to being civilian slime, it was modified to fire 3 round bursts with each trigger pull. There is a reason why the weapon carried by a person whos job is to kill as many enemy fighters as fast as possible was modified like that. And other than the first round or two, the rest go off target. When the Vegas nut saw the security guard come to his door on the cam , he fired through the door. Out of 200 rounds fired through the door, one hit him in the leg. Also, it lights up your position at night. So really, I don't care a wit whether they ban these or not. Other than being a play toy, all it is, to quote WESB, a toy that is too dangerous for kids.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, people have known how to bumpfire forever. Way before these do-dads were "invented".

I've generally maintained that full auto in one of these crazed shooter situations isn't really much of a risk over single shots since the marksmanship decreases and lots of rounds are wasted not hitting people, but this particular event is kind of an interesting data point. The target area is so large, even at about 400 yards, that this stupid bump stocks probably weren't a problem to keep on target, especially when using a reflex-style sight like an EOTech. If you're shooting into a crowd of thousands from a high point, it may even be more effective than fast single firing that is better aimed. This is not generally tactically true, but there is no tactical application for non-psychopaths to shoot into a huge crowd of civilians at 400 yards from high ground.

A couple of things have changed since you were looking at this stuff back in the day. The Army is refitting their M4s (3 round burst) into M4A1s (full auto) because the US hasn't been fighting open-land warfare like we used to; the Marines had started going into M4s from their M16s and now are going to the M27 which is full auto. Pretty much all special operations forces have been carrying the M4A1 with full auto forever because it allows a carbine to be like a submachine gun for close quarters; we've expected a lot of our regular troops to do this duty often as well over the last 15 years. Full auto is a legitimate, effective application for that purpose. And when you need a well aimed rifle at 400 yards, you just use semi-auto mode.

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but my last ten years with a duty rifle were with the M4A1. We trained with full auto for limited applications, but it was there when we needed it on our rifles. Another thing to note here is that the muzzle rise you talk about isn't really significant on modern M16/M4 platforms; the muzzle breaks that are used now are really good at keeping them down. It's almost like shooting in a random circular motion when it moves. Those rifles have half a century of improvements behind them. I still haven't fired a Kalashnikov that doesn't rise straight up, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

 

I wonder how many gang shootings attributed to automatic weapons were actually done with these.

 

Probably not that many -- the magazine is empty before you know it, and gang types are not the "plan ahead with lots of magazines - usually it's one and done

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

 

A couple of things have changed since you were looking at this stuff back in the day. The Army is refitting their M4s (3 round burst) into M4A1s (full auto) because the US hasn't been fighting open-land warfare like we used to; the Marines had started going into M4s from their M16s and now are going to the M27 which is full auto. Pretty much all special operations forces have been carrying the M4A1 with full auto forever because it allows a carbine to be like a submachine gun for close quarters; we've expected a lot of our regular troops to do this duty often as well over the last 15 years. Full auto is a legitimate, effective application for that purpose. And when you need a well aimed rifle at 400 yards, you just use semi-auto mode.

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but my last ten years with a duty rifle were with the M4A1. We trained with full auto for limited applications, but it was there when we needed it on our rifles. Another thing to note here is that the muzzle rise you talk about isn't really significant on modern M16/M4 platforms; the muzzle breaks that are used now are really good at keeping them down. It's almost like shooting in a random circular motion when it moves. Those rifles have half a century of improvements behind them. I still haven't fired a Kalashnikov that doesn't rise straight up, though.

 

 

USMC or Spec ops group? -- and thanks for your service

It's urban warfare -- slap in a magazine and spray a room. Release, reload - spray the next room -- hence the change to full auto.

When I was in basic one Drill (psycho SOF, AB, Ranger, Combat Diver - that liked to do psyops on the microphone in the barracks at night) put the rifle (M-16) on his chin and proceeded to fire at the target -- there is almost no recoil.

Even with my M&P Tactical I can put 1000 rounds down range and not have a bruise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

3 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

I still haven't fired a Kalashnikov that doesn't rise straight up, though.

 

That's why your initial aim-point with an AK is between the feet. -- let physics do the rest

3 rounds - balls - chest, head

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, karlydee2 said:

Probably not that many -- the magazine is empty before you know it, and gang types are not the "plan ahead with lots of magazines - usually it's one and done

You hang around with them a lot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/5/2017 at 1:05 PM, ivanbalt said:

:lol:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/10/05/politics/paul-ryan-bump-stocks-gun-control/index.html

Obama is the worst.  On one hand trying to confiscate all weapons and on the other hand personally allowing bump stocks.

Good thing these brave Republicans are here to save the day.  At least until the NRA sets them straight.  :rolleyes:

The claim by ATF is they were legal. It would be on Congress to make them illegal but they chose not too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, bmorepunk said:

I've generally maintained that full auto in one of these crazed shooter situations isn't really much of a risk over single shots since the marksmanship decreases and lots of rounds are wasted not hitting people, but this particular event is kind of an interesting data point. The target area is so large, even at about 400 yards, that this stupid bump stocks probably weren't a problem to keep on target, especially when using a reflex-style sight like an EOTech. If you're shooting into a crowd of thousands from a high point, it may even be more effective than fast single firing that is better aimed. This is not generally tactically true, but there is no tactical application for non-psychopaths to shoot into a huge crowd of civilians at 400 yards from high ground.

A couple of things have changed since you were looking at this stuff back in the day. The Army is refitting their M4s (3 round burst) into M4A1s (full auto) because the US hasn't been fighting open-land warfare like we used to; the Marines had started going into M4s from their M16s and now are going to the M27 which is full auto. Pretty much all special operations forces have been carrying the M4A1 with full auto forever because it allows a carbine to be like a submachine gun for close quarters; we've expected a lot of our regular troops to do this duty often as well over the last 15 years. Full auto is a legitimate, effective application for that purpose. And when you need a well aimed rifle at 400 yards, you just use semi-auto mode.

I've been out of the game for a few years now, but my last ten years with a duty rifle were with the M4A1. We trained with full auto for limited applications, but it was there when we needed it on our rifles. Another thing to note here is that the muzzle rise you talk about isn't really significant on modern M16/M4 platforms; the muzzle breaks that are used now are really good at keeping them down. It's almost like shooting in a random circular motion when it moves. Those rifles have half a century of improvements behind them. I still haven't fired a Kalashnikov that doesn't rise straight up, though.

 

Thanks for the update. It's amazing how much warfare can change in 45 years. In bootcamp the DI's would talk about the huge change we were making from amphibious assault and such to jungle warfare as it appeared that was going to be the theatre for years to come. lol  Back then a firefight was said to last anywhere from like 45 seconds to maybe 2 minutes, save for the big ones which were the exception. I turned 18 the week before I went to boot camp. I was taken off guard at the techniques taught for ambush. From what you guys say and what I see on youtube, things have changed A LOT! I would say for the better. (minus females in combat......sorry). I'm just old school .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2017 at 10:19 PM, karlydee2 said:

Probably not that many -- the magazine is empty before you know it, and gang types are not the "plan ahead with lots of magazines - usually it's one and done

I've shot quite a few automatic weapons, I could see where you couldn't tell the difference without an experienced ear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Wild Eyed Southern Boy said:

I've shot quite a few automatic weapons, I could see where you couldn't tell the difference without an experienced ear.

According to the following video:

 

 

They fired 10 rounds in 1.39 seconds (with the bump-stock beating Jerry Miculek by a hair.

 

That = 430 rounds per minute which is about half what a full auto M-16 is rated (800 rpm)  -- I bet with a 30 round mag or more the bump-fire stock would get you near 600 rpm

At those RPM rates anything over about 200 rounds per minute and you are going to melt (Deform) your AR-15 barrel -- unless it is a special make

 

For comparison, the M-60 (which is a fully automatic weapon fed by linked ammo and fires ~600 RPM -- necessitating a barrel change every 200-400 rounds fired)

 

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At 420 rounds after 2 minutes the AR-15 caught on fire-- (just a bit )

And he changed mags out 14 times -- so it wasn't full auto for 2 minutes it was actually full auto for about 42 seconds

Edited by karlydee2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now