Why is my XD 9 going auto rapid fire ?????

[handgunfan101]

Purchased an XD 9 compact (actually traded an old p38 replica and 100.00) and it jammed a few times FTF so i changed to WWB and it worked fine. Yesterday while at the range i pulled the trigger and it rang our 4 shots.

bang slide comes back and every time it returns forward it shoots again. bang bang bang bang then it jams. I can feel the trigger click and each time it fires.

I reload the clip with 3 shots and it does the same thing. I talked to the gun shop and they have there smith looking at it today. What is wrong any ideas?

[Don P]

What is wrong any ideas?

Its broke Why not just wait and see what the smith tells you. Chances are Springfield would fix it for free.

[Daekar]

Good that you got it to a smith asap. I have heard around the net that the BATFE will actually try to attack you on the grounds that you have a machine gun for this kind of thing. We all know that information is worth what you pay for it sometimes, so take that with a grain of salt, but I'm glad you got it to the smith quickly. Not worth getting thrown in jail over it, even if it is by some unConstitutional agency out to screw people over.

[handgunfan101]

just got off of the phone with the store. I guess the SMITH fired it with the same resault. They called it slam fire. They pulled it apart and noticed that the seer is bad as well as the striker is pushed forward just enough to allow slam fire???

not sure as i have no idea about the parts above but they have a new one i can have to replace this unit. I asked if it was tampered with and they said they dont think so but it was sent in by a distributor that they will be giving a call to and receiving credit for.

The only thing that they can think of is that the distributor got this unit back and instead of returning it to SA they just sent it to another FFL.

[Jerry45]

Daekar
Senior Member

Join Date: March 28, 2011
Posts: 299 Good that you got it to a smith asap. I have heard around the net that the BATFE will actually try to attack you on the grounds that you have a machine gun for this kind of thing. We all know that information is worth what you pay for it sometimes, so take that with a grain of salt, but I'm glad you got it to the smith quickly. Not worth getting thrown in jail over it, even if it is by some unConstitutional agency out to screw people over.

Ask David Olofson if it should be take with a grain of salt.

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com


A drill instructor in the National Guard has been convicted in a Wisconsin federal court of illegally transferring a machine gun after a rifle he loaned to a student malfunctioned, setting off three shots before jamming.

The verdict of guilty on one count in the case against David Olofson was confirmed yesterday by the clerk's office in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.


It gets even worse...


AUSA Haanstad claimed the law does not exempt a malfunction. He claims that it states "any weapon that shoots more than once without manual reloading, per function of the trigger is a machinegun". To clarify when I was on the stand, I asked him "Are you saying if I take my Great Granddaddy's double barrel out and I pull one trigger and both barrels go off, its a machinegun?". He went back to the law (United States Code, Section 5845 (b)), and claims "any weapon that shoots..."



http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=810186

[handgunfan101]

even a malfunction? thats crazy how can they do that?

[Jerry45]

Simple! It’s called interpretation of the law. Like “shall not be infringed” means it’s ok to restrict, interfere, delay the purchase of and you can’t have that because it looks scary.

[Don P]

Give me a break with regards to post #6. What a bunch of fertilizer that is. Oh my god it must be true I read it on the INTERNET, it couldn't be wrong

[PawPaw]

Originally Posted by Don P

Give me a break with regards to post #6. What a bunch of fertilizer that is. Oh my god it must be true I read it on the INTERNET, it couldn't be wrong

Actually, Don, the Olofson case is well documented and easily available online. The poor guy went to prison because his rifle broke. It's been well covered in the traditional media.

[Sport45]

even a malfunction? thats crazy how can they do that?

The malfunction will be just as easy to sell as "the tragic boat accident".

[James K]

I have heard that there was a bit more to that case. It wasn't just wear or some accidental malfunction; the owner had worked on the gun deliberately trying to make it fire full auto.

Jim

[Jerry45]

Thank you Paw Paw.

Ignorance may be bliss, but Google can be one’s friend.

I followed this case from shortly after Mr. Olofson arrest. I can assure everyone the only fertilizer involved in the case was BATF&E and the judge.

For the naysayers and the I heard from a friend who's brother's girlfriend’s cousin’s brother-in-law told him crowd; the company that built the rifle had issued a recall because of rifles going full auto. It wasn’t caused by ware it was defective new parts. The recall was posted, by the company, on the internet and sent out to their distributers. BATF&E had the internet notification pulled (I saw it with my own eyes shortly, I mean within one day, of it being pulled). The defense attorney tried to get a copy introduced into evidence and the judge denied it. I did not glean this from internet scuttlebutt I saw and read it in the court documents.

[handgunfan101]

Good news / Bad news

Bad is i wont get a new gun until after the Holiday

Good news is that the owner called the distributor and the Manufacturer to report it. He was asked to send in pics which his smith did and it appears there was no tampering with the firearm to allow it to shoot and slam fire. The distributor sent out a new gun to my LGS to replace mine. The Manufacturer rep called the Store Owner and told him they apologize for the problem ***BUT*** said it was not their fault it may have been a send back to distributor problem and there was a mix up on their end.

I am being sent swag in the mail for my troubles. I was told by the store owner that was relaying a message from the Manufacturer and the Distributor that i am not in any sort of trouble. It was a MALFUNCTION DUE TO AN ASSEMBLY GLITCH. I reported it right after the malfunction happened to the place i purchased it (i was at their indoor range after the purchase) they followed all of the proper steps to report the malfunction. The firearm HAS TO BE DESTROYED via state and federal regulation it can not be repaired.

I have no idea why it cant but thats what i am being told. So all in all after reading the response about it being a crime i was pretty worried about jail

[Onward Allusion]

THIS is why I don't like fully tensioned striker firing mechanisms such as the XD's. From what you relayed it sounds like 2 of the 3 internal safety features failed.

[handgunfan101]

I think im going back to my 1911's not saying it cant happen with them just saying i have had better luck with them than the xd compact style guns. I am going to talk to the owner and see if he can or is willing to let me trade in and pay the difference towards a new 1911

[Jerry45]

Glad it worked out for you. Bummer about the wait.

Sorry about making you worry that wasn’t my intent.

[handgunfan101]

no worries my friend it just amazes me at how liability is doled out and seems to always find its way back to the honest guy. Obviously not in all cases but its my luck if somethings going to go bad i always fall in it waist deep.

[spaniel]

Glad it worked out for you, but never post anything about a firearm going full auto on the internet. Fix it or get it fixed and let that be the end of it. The anonymity here is not much of a barrier to anyone wanting to follow up on it.

[JohnKSa]

The poor guy went to prison because his rifle broke.

I read the entire thread over on arfcom where the "poor guy" told his own story. The characterization in the quote is completely and totally inaccurate. For what it's worth, he didn't even raise the "rifle broke" defense until after he tried his initial tactic (which he claimed to have used before in federal court, by the way) of trying to get the case thrown out because the feds didn't have jurisdiction. That's right, his initial strategy was to claim that what he had done to the rifle didn't matter because the feds didn't have jurisdiction to charge him.

And in case you missed the underlined section in the paragraph above, he admitted on arfcom that this wasn't the first time he'd been charged with breaking a federal crime.

Furthermore, strictly speaking, he wasn't nailed for HAVING a "broken" rifle that fired full auto, he was fired for TRANSFERRING a "broken" rifle that fired full auto.

The case is FAR more complicated than the way it's been popularly presented, and Olofson is far from an innocent victim who "went to prison because his rifle broke."

[Jerry45]

John, your first mistake is saying “he” did. He didn’t… his lawyer did. I got fired on a misdemeanor years ago because I was stupid enough to believe a lawyer knew when he was doing and I followed his advice.

The BATF&E made the case complicated. It was actually very simple. Olympic Arms sold some defective firearms. They admitted their mistake and sent out a recall. Mr. Olofson loaned the firearm to someone and it fired a three round burst. The judge would not allow his attorney to submit the letter of recall into evidence. BATF&E tested the firearm and it WOULD NOT go full auto. The rifle was sent back to the lab where they kept trying and kicking up the load until it finally doubled…. ONCE.

There should never have been a case. The manufacturer had admitted the firearm was defective from the factory and the BATF&E and the judge railroaded the man.

[JohnKSa]

He didn’t… his lawyer did.

Nope, HE did. We're talking about posts made by HIM on arfcom, telling about what HE intended to do and then about what HE did. And about what HE had done in his other federal trial.

It was clear that he felt he had things under control and that he was going to get the case thrown out. And this is KEY. NOT because the gun was defective and he was being railroaded, but rather because he was going to claim that the federal courts had no jurisdiction--just like he had in his previous federal trial.

Mr. Olofson loaned the firearm to someone and it fired a three round burst.

No, it wasn't nearly that simple. The gun had M16 parts installed in it, including a 3 position selector, and showed evidence that other internal parts had been modified--filed down.

The person that Olofson transferred the gun to testified that Olofson told him that the third position on the selector was for full-auto fire and also that Olofson told him not to use that position.

There was a lot of misinformation floating around on the web, but the bottom line is that Olofson intentionally modified the rifle by installing parts on it that were, at the very least, of questionable legality. One can argue all day about how the BATF handled the functional testing, but the bottom line is that the gun looked like a duck (3 position selector), Olofson told the person receiving the gun it was a duck (that the third position was for full-auto), the person who received the gun said it quacked like a duck (fired a three shot burst) and the BATF, admittedly with some effort was able to demonstrate that it did quack like a duck (got it to fire more than once with a single trigger pull).

I'm certainly not saying it's the best work the BATF ever did, but it is totally inaccurate to imply that Olofson got convicted for having a broken gun. There was a LOT more to it than that, and if you delve into the details of the case a little, it will become painfully apparent.

[Jerry45]

If what you say true Mr. Olofson told a completely different story on Glock Talk. If you follow the link I furnished it won’t be hard to figure out which poster he is.

We were told
1) the rifle came from the factory with the M-16 parts.
2) The company had a recall. Saw that with my own eyes on the net.
3) BATF&E had it pulled. It did disappear.
4)

Olofson had previously requested disclosure of the SGW letter
from the government on September 25 and December 10, 2007. The government
refused to turn over the SGW letter. Accordingly, Olofson filed a motion to compel
its disclosure, along with other documents not relevant here, on December 28, 2007.
At the final pretrial conference on January 3, 2008, the Court refrained from making
any decision regarding the SGW letter until it heard back from the government as
to whether a SGW letter actually existed.

On January 7, 2008, the morning of Olofson’s trial, the Court inquired
of the government as to the existence of a SGW letter. The government asserted that
a SGW letter exists, but that it did not believe that the SGW letter was discoverable
because, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), it
contained privileged tax return information and was therefore protected under 26
U.S.C. § 6103. Moreover, the government contended that in any event the SGW
letter was not exculpatory. Based upon the BATF’s representations, which were
made through the government that the SGW letter contained return information, the
Court denied Olofson’s motion to compel its disclosure. Olofson proceeded to trial
and was found guilty of transferring a machine gun by a jury on January 8, 2008.

[JohnKSa]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1407580.html

"The selector switch on the borrowed AR-15 had three positions:  one marked “fire,” one marked “safety,” and one that was unmarked.   Olofson and Kiernicki discussed the unmarked setting on July 13, 2006, which was the fourth time that Olofson loaned Kiernicki the weapon.   Olofson told Kiernicki that putting the selector switch in the unmarked position would enable the AR-15 to fire a three-round burst with a single pull of the trigger, but the gun would then jam."

While at a shooting range that same day, Kiernicki (for the first time since using the gun) switched the AR-15 to the unmarked position and pulled the trigger;  three or four rounds were discharged before the gun jammed.   Kiernicki fired the weapon in that fashion several times, and each time it jammed after a short burst of three or four rounds.   Police received a telephone complaint of automatic gunfire at the shooting range.   When officers arrived at the range, they confiscated the AR-15 from Kiernicki.   Kiernicki told the police that he had borrowed the gun from Olofson.   Several days later, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) interviewed Olofson while executing a search warrant at his home.   During that conversation, Olofson acknowledged loaning the AR-15 to Kiernicki.
...
The government's expert who test-fired the AR-15 stated that he exhausted a twenty-round magazine with one continuous depression of the trigger and emptied two additional twenty-round magazines in five-or ten-round bursts by intermittently depressing, holding, and releasing the trigger.   He also declared that the weapon was intended to fire in such fashions and that a “hammer-follow” malfunction was not the cause.

the rifle came from the factory with the M-16 parts.

That is not what Olofson alleged, nor is it what the letter indicated.

That evidence is a 1983 letter from the ATF to the manufacturer of the AR-15 in which the ATF advised the company that the installation of certain M-16 parts in AR-15 receivers may permit the weapon to fire automatically even though an automatic sear is not present.

The letter was, by all accounts, the BATF telling the manufacturer that if someone installed certain M-16 parts in their receivers that the weapons could fire automatically even without an autosear (as Olofson's weapon did).

The recall was to get rid of those receivers so that people couldn't convert them to fire full auto.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...63&postcount=8

http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...8&postcount=17

Olofson’s firearm fired automatically because, although it was a semiautomatic AR-15, it had M-16 fire control components. More specifically, the firearm had an M-16 trigger, hammer, disconnector, and selector. Olofson’s firearm was not manufactured with that configuration of M-16 fire control components. Tr. 120, 136-37.

Olofson was aware that those M-16 components were in his AR-15 and that it was those components that caused his firearm to fire automatically. E-mails and other documents on his computer showed that he had ordered M-16 parts. And he had a manual that described how to convert a semiautomatic AR-15 to an automatic M-16 by substituting the very M-16 parts that were in Olofson’s converted machinegun – that is, the hammer, the trigger, the disconnector, and the selector. Tr. 74-80. Olofson knew that his firearm fired automatically and, given this evidence, likely was the person who made the conversions that allowed it to do so.

http://www.pagunblog.com/2008/05/20/the-olofson-thing/

Olofson’s AR contained numerous M16 parts. As far as I know, some manufacturers in the 70s and 80s used some M16 parts in their AR-15s, like bolt carriers and hammers, until the ATF issued a ruling that the practice be stopped. Olofson’s AR had an M16 trigger, disconnector, selector, and hammer. As far as I know, there weren’t any manufacturers that used this many M16 parts in their ARs. The agent who examined the parts, correctly in my view, stated that this did not constitute a machine gun, but ATF has long held M16 parts in an AR to be a no no.

Here's the thread on arfcom. The OP (Bladerunner2347) is Olofson.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_6/507...id.html&page=1

Olofson repeatedly denies converting the gun, however, it was shown that he had purchased parts identical to those used in the conversion.

On page 11, a poster makes a very pertinent observation. Either Olofson or Kiernicki is "BSing bigtime". The poster marvels that Olofson is taking things so calmly given that the Kiernicki appears to be creating a huge amount of trouble for Olofson. Great point. If someone was essentially manufacturing evidence that could put you in federal prison, one would expect that you'd be at least slightly upset about it. Olofson just keeps going on and on about points of law he's going to raise and talking about jurisdiction, jury nullification, technicalities with the paperwork he's been served, etc... NOT at all the kind of response an innocent person unjustly accused would be expected to make.

Reading through the thread reveals that Olofson never claims that the M-16 parts came on the gun from the factory. He specifically indicated he had replaced the fire control parts but claimed that they were aftermarket AR-15 (DPMS) parts.

Here's a VERY interesting comment by Olofson. He's just posted that the testing showed the rifle was NOT a machinegun after he recieved the first set of test results. So he's overjoyed and celebrating his confirmed innocence, right? Nope. He's telling everyone that the BATF can test the rifle differently and get different results. Here's his quote--my emphasis added.

"If you can manage to read all of the report they fill in some of the blanks I had prior to today. Some of my DPMS parts in the fire control group have been replaced with M16 parts. Enough that the hammer follows the bolt and carrier down. It may not have fired full auto the first time they tested it, but we all know what has to be done to make it work, so they darn well could make it work by just changeing the way they test it. This tech was just not on the same page with them to start with."

So why would Olofson expect that the rifle will fire full-auto even after repeatedly stating that it wouldn't and after receiving word that the initial test showed it wouldn't? You be the judge.

Here's a comment from Olofson on page 23

"I only have semi stuff. I don't keep or use FA Stuff. That weapon had a DPMS Group in it last I checked, installed in 94."

Sounds good, right? Except that the sentencing memorandum indicates that they found records showing that Olofson had ordered M16 parts. He also had a manual showing how to convert an AR-15 to full-auto using exactly the M-16 parts that were installed in the rifle.

Another anomaly that's not relevant but speaks to Olofson's credibility (or lack thereof). Olofson claims to have sold only 7 guns in the past few years. Then on page 25 he admits to purchasing 6-12 AR-15 lowers at a time to build guns for people. Clearly he's not exactly careful about keeping his stories straight. I guess he figures that by ordering the receivers through an FFL and then transferring the built lowers (legally firearms) to people via an FFL, he's not actually selling firearms.

Ok, so what does it all mean?

1. Olofson demonstrates some credibility issues in his posts on the arfcom thread.

2. Olofson WAS given the benefit of the doubt and wasn't prosecuted for MANUFACTURING or POSSESSING a machinegun. He was prosecuted for TRANSFERRING a gun he knew (according to Kiernicki's sworn testimony) would fire more than a single round with one pull of the trigger.

3. Given Kiernicki's testimony, the BATF's actions were proper. We can either choose to believe Olofson (in which case Kiernicki intentionally and unjustly put Olofson in prison) or Kiernicki (in which case Olofson is where he belongs), but either way, the BATF is off the hook. They did what exactly what they should have done given the sworn testimony of Kiernicki.

4. MOST importantly, the gun in question was UNQUESTIONABLY modified from the original factory configuration, not just broken.

If we believe Kiernicki, Olofson installed M16 parts in the gun & filed on some of the remaining parts and told him that the 3rd position was for full-auto but that while it WOULD fire full-auto (short burst) in that position it would also jam.

Olofson is adamant, on arfcom, that the gun left him with an aftermarket parts set, installed while he owned it, and that it didn't have M16 parts when he last had possession. If we believe Olofson, someone else (probably Kiernicki) installed M16 parts in the gun & did some filing on the remaining parts.

EITHER way, SOMEBODY modified the gun. This was NOT simply a case of a semi-auto malfunctioning and someone getting railroaded for it. The gun had clearly had M16 parts installed and internal modifications performed.

Which all gets us back around to the original allegation that brought up the Olofson case on this thread.

We do NOT need to worry about being charged with having a full-auto because one of our semi-autos malfunctions.

We DO need to worry if we have a semi-auto that can be made to fire full-auto AND that has FA parts installed and other internal modifications performed.

[Jerry45]

John, thanks for the information. Seems I/we were lied to. Hey, what else is new? Now I have the rest of the story.

Would you mind me copying and pasting that to the Gun Control forum at Glock Talk?

[JohnKSa]

Not at all. It's all public domain.

I find it very questionable, if not downright incriminating, that Olofson's expert witness apparently tried to lead the court to believe that the rifle came from the maker with M-16 parts and that Olofson didn't modify it. The implication being that the M-16 parts found on the rifle came from the factory. If you look at some of the stuff Olofson posted on GT, you'll find these two comments by the expert witness among the trial-related data.

The fact is that Olofson, according to his arfcom posts, replaced the original factory parts at least twice, the last time with DPMS parts, according to his posts on arfcom. Clearly the M-16 parts found on the rifle later weren't from the factory. We have Olofson's posts as proof.

And that's even if we assume that the original parts were actually M-16 parts and there seems to be evidence that they weren't.

By the way, on page 91 of the arfcom thread, a couple of interesting points are raised by AZAtty480.

If Kiernicki put the parts in the gun to get it to fire full auto, he had ample opportunity to dispose of the gun and/or the parts before it was seized. The gun was not seized when the Berlin Police officer initially contacted him at the range after the report of full auto gunfire. Kiernicki was able to leave that location with the AR15. If he put those parts in the gun, he had time to get rid of the gun and/or remove the M16 parts and get rid of them. It was not until sometime later that the police re-contacted him and seized the Olympic Arms AR15. The Berlin Police Department contacted the ATF to report the incident. An ATF Agent requested that they impound the firearm. The Berlin Police did so. The argument could be made that if Kiernicki was the one who put the parts in the gun to make it fire automatically, that he had plenty of time to get rid of the gun or the M16 parts. By not doing so, one could argue that shows a lack of consciousness of guilt.

An excellent point. Kiernicki could have easily gotten rid of the evidence if he had wanted to. He didn't. It strongly suggests that he wasn't worried about being held responsible. Add that to the fact that he didn't appear to be particularly knowledgeable about the internals of AR-15s (we know that because he approached Olofson to have Olofson build him an AR-15 lower) AND the fact that Olofson was shown to have ordered M-16 parts like the ones in question and it makes it pretty implausible that Kiernicki was the one who doctored the rifle.

The defense chose not to defend the case by arguing or suggesting that the M16 parts were installed in the gun by Kiernicki or someone other than Olofson. They did not even argue that the prosecution failed to prove that Olofson put the parts in the gun prior to transferring it to Kiernicki.

Another excellent point. Given that the case revolved around these M-16 parts and the internal filework and the rifle had been out of Olofson's possession for "months", why not try to prove that someone else made the modifications? Remember, all the defense would have had to do was raise a reasonable doubt. The only logical conclusion is that they didn't try to raise a reasonable doubt because they didn't think they would be able to.

Think about that for a minute...

The defense clearly believed it was futile to try to create a reasonable doubt that Olofson might not have been the one who installed the M-16 parts in the gun and did the other internal mods.

Instead, they chose to focus on trying to convince the court that the gun was simply malfunctioning, a much weaker strategy, but apparently the strongest defense they felt they could muster given the circumstances of the case.