posibile Non-NFA trigger. (rapid fire but not auto)

[Csspecs]

Is there a law that would stop me from making a multi triggered rifle?

Every time you pull one of the triggers the rifle fires one time. There would be three or more triggers that could be pulled faster than a single trigger, it would look like a trigger on a side by side shotgun but with three triggers instead of just two.

It would still fall under the one round for a single movement of the trigger. Right?

A cut and pasted picture.

[Barry in IN]

I would think it would be OK, but it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the BATFE decides.
The Contender 45/410 barrels were legal until they decided they were not....then decided they were.

I don't see how multiple triggers would be faster, though.

[Powderman]

So, how do you get your finger on triggers #2 and #3?

[Csspecs]

You place your finger on the front trigger. You then pull through each one until you have a stack of three triggers behind your finger.

Each trigger will fire the rifle one time. But you keep pulling back instead of bringing your finger back froward. Basically you would have a three shot fast semi-auto, close to three round burst. But you still have to pull the trigger three times. Thus its semi yet still works like a burst.

I think it would be much like the cranks that you can put on 10/22s.

[kozak6]

The thing about the BATFE is that they can reinterpret and reclassify whatever they want at any time for any reason, real or not.

It sounds mechanically complicated.

[Csspecs]

I'm going to do some more thinking on it. But how does one go about making a working sample for BATFE to look at?

I'm not a multi million dollar company. I'm just a guy with a half dozen small tools and an idea. Any idea how I can start on my project?

I was reading more laws and it seems like it would be non NFA so can I just do it?

[Chris Phelps]

Originally Posted by Csspecs

I was reading more laws and it seems like it would be non NFA so can I just do it?

Originally Posted by Barry in IN

it doesn't matter what I think. It matters what the BATFE decides.

If you make the firearm and then get arrested because it turns out to be an NFA item, what will your defense be... "The people at TFL told me I could." ?

Use your own judgement, and use it wisely. If I were in your shoes, I would contact BATFE before doing anything of the sort.

[JohnBrowning]

I've got a somewhat different idea. It has long seemed to me that you could have a semi auto with a hair trigger that pushed back into the ready to fire position with about 20 pounds of force. So essentialy, it would take the bump out of bumpfiring. Only problem is the ATF would probably call it a machinegun.

[Csspecs]

So the trigger would be forced back while your finger is pulling back? Gee that would fire fast and would not require much modifying.

I'm going to look into that.

[OneInTheChamber]

It would be cheaper to just get a real NFA full auto gun. To modify a gun like that is going to require a ton of development and machining. Plus the cost of gun, etc. I would just get the real thing

[JohnBrowning]

Sure, it might be cheaper if you were only going to make 1, but if somebody could figure out a better system than that hell fire garbage, it could certainly sell well.

[Hkmp5sd]

If the triggers are stacked on top of each other, it would be a machinegun. You are only pulling one trigger. After the first shot goes off, you continue pulling the trigger, which actuates the second "trigger", firing round two. Still pulling the first trigger, it now actuates the third "trigger".

If it is merely 3 seperate triggers, where you release the first one, moving the finger to the second one, firing round two, then moving to the third trigger for round three, it would be legal. One shot per trigger pull. It would be easier and result in faster shots to tinker with the length of the trigger pull and its reset distance on a single trigger and then rapidly cycling it.

It differs from the hand crank 10/22 in that the Ruger has a single trigger that is continuously actuated, allowed to reset and pulled again.

[Csspecs]

Each trigger would be a thin tab. They would be along side each other at the end of the trigger pull. You would still have trigger 1 & 2 behind your finger, but they would not be stacked one on top each other.

[gdm]

I wouldnt just do it...first submit a drawing and a letter to the ATFE technical branch,see what they say.then Id ask someone that is extremly knowledgable in smithing to see if its safe and how involved it will be before you put a bunch of time and money into it.dont want it going boom before it chambers the next round.sounds like a ton of machining and fitting.good luck, be safe.

[deadin]

I don't think you could get this idea to work on anything except, possibly, a straight blow-back, firing from open bolt type sub.
Realize that it isn't the trigger that fires the second and subsequent shots. It is the "auto-sear" that releases the firing pin or hammer AFTER the bolt has cycled and has relocked. If your "pull-through" on multiple triggers is faster then the cyclic rate, the gun wouldn't be ready and nothing would happen. You would need some sort of mechanism to keep the second ( and third) triggers from being pulled until the action is ready. This would probably be classified as an " delayed secondary auto-sear" or something.

Just an opinion... Maybe you could get something working and approved. Good luck

Dean

[MDW Guns]

I think to remember that there was a law that you can only have one trigger per barrel.

[Hkmp5sd]

I think to remember that there was a law that you can only have one trigger per barrel.

The Hellfire device for the Ruger 10/22 essentially adds a second trigger, placing one on both sides of the finger. The gun fires on both movements of the finger.