Double triggers

[BCannell]

Various laws in the United States say that a fully automatic weapon is one that fires more than one shot with one pull of the trigger. Yet it occurs to me that double-barreled shotguns can fire two shots at the same time by pulling on two separate triggers simultaneously. Suppose you had a handgun or rifle set up with two triggers, but instead of side by side they were one in front of the other. As the first is pulled, the second remains stationary. When the first trigger actuates and a shot is fired, it contacts the second trigger. By continuing to pull back, the first trigger keeps moving but does nothing. The second trigger, however, in an identical but completely separate process, fires the weapon again. In effect, you have a two-round burst without a fully automatic weapon. A single, smooth pull gives a double tap.

Would this be legal, being in the same vein as a double-barreled shotgun? Or would it be different because both shots are being fired from the same action mechanism?

[shaggy]

My guess is that it would be legal, but if you're planning on trying to make it, I'd suggest getting an advisory opinion from the Tech Branch at BATFE/NFA.

[Lowjack]

maybe someday we alll may realise that no matter how many ways this crooked government finds to limit, tax, and oppress us, until enough armed well armed citizens angrily convey the message that "We will NOT accept the trampling of our rights!", They will never stop abusing the power to do it.

A well regulated malitia nowadays makes one think of deranged psychopaths stalking through the wilderness with machineguns shooting at anything that moves. This is mainly due to government social conditioning efforts and countless links of guns and criminal violence incidents portrayed by the major media networks.
Sorry for the mini-rant. I'll try to keep my pre-slumber rambles to a minumum.

God I can see the Californian in those two paragraphs.

If its for sale in CA, that two trigger system that your talking about would probably be decaired an assault weapon and therefore be banned like every other gun that could pose a semi threat to anything bigger than a gopher.

[fal308]

If you have more than one trigger you would still be using one trigger pull to shoot one round of ammunition (double trigger on shotgun is two single shots, not two rounds from a single trigger pull).
Technically I am sure it could be designed and built. Though you would be going into a grey area as far as sears and other registerable parts (NFA) are concerned. Also if you designed a truly single-fire trigger system for each individual shot fired it would become rather large and unwieldly rather quickly. As to be unquestioningly legal it would have to have a separate trigger system and linkage for each trigger. Then hooking up each system to a single firing pin would be rather complicated. Not to mention the economic aspects of building and selling such a system.
In the 1700's and 1800's there were variations of what you want. They were called volley guns. These were generally crew-served by artillarymen. They were basically individual barrels joined to a common reciever with individual firing mechanisms. Similar to a modern modern MLRS (multiple rocket launcher).
As to handheld versions, pick up a copy of Firearms Curiosa by Lewis Winant. Near the end of the book there is a chapter on miscellaneous firearms designs. There are quite a few antique variations -harmonica guns, multi-barrel pistols, Puckle guns among others.

[too many choices!?]

It was two shots from a single trigger cylcle even with the second being contacted by the first(since the first trigger never reset is my guess).....If the mechanism was something like the tac trigger attatchment from those hellfire gadgets(fires on the forward and backward travel of the trigger) which adds a second trigger in front of the first it would have to be legal.....What if the trigger was a loop ? The trigger could release the sear either by moving forward or backwards......The disconnector would hold the hammer until the gun is closed into battery and as you release the rearward preassure to reset the trigger a subsequent forward push would immeditately fire the second round......thus the need for the loopy trigger. Since the action of the gun would be far faster than you could cycle the weapon it would not fire out of battery(sp)(especialy with the way guns are designed to jam if not in bolt forward condition on hammer release AR-15). If you don't believe me try to fire faster than your ar-15 can handle(you will know when the bolt is locked against the hammer) and see which gives up first......

I know that it jams if not in battery from experience with hellfire trigger attatchments that sheared the head off one of my firing pins .

PS in your example imagine the second trigger is just a button that is contacted on the full rearward travel and the first shot was released halfway along the cycle. That would be one trigger pull operating both shots with no reset on the trigger(ie one pull) :barf: I would be willing to bet money on that interpretation from the BATF......

[shaggy]

What if the trigger was a loop ? The trigger could release the sear either by moving forward or backwards......The disconnector would hold the hammer until the gun is closed into battery and as you release the rearward preassure to reset the trigger a subsequent forward push would immeditately fire the second round......thus the need for the loopy trigger.

If I'm understanding you correctly (pull the trigger fires one round, release the trigger fires another) I think BATF has issued an advisory opinion that those are legal. I'll have to look around and see if I can find a copy of that letter online - I do remember reading something to that effect. Come to think of it, I have a friend who has exactly that type of device on his Mini-14.

[Johnny Guest]

Friends, an academic question about the legality of an alternative design trigger is a different thing from an (off topic) comment suggesting an illegal modification.

I've edited out two posts. One made such a suggestion. The other, though counseling against it, included a quote.

Let's don't, huh?

Best,
Johnny

[shaggy]

Sorry Johnny, duly noted.

[abelew]

I dont mean to keep this thread going if its agains the staff's desires. But, after all, just pull the trigger faster. I have shot FA in the military with m-4, m16a2, and they weren't very accurate after the first shot left the barrel. Most of the time, the last 2 rounds were off the paper, unless you aimed for the crotch area. Id rather have 1 well placed round, then 2 poorly placed one. I just dont think that shooting 2 rounds per pull really justifies the potential legal snafu that could ensue

[seb5]

The device was called hellfire. They used to sale them at all of the big Tulsa gunshows. They were available for just about any semi auto rifle.

[MeekAndMild]

If I recall correctly there have been rumors of a custom gunmaker making a double barreled bolt action rifle for hazardous game. You had two shots before you cycled the bolts together. I don't recall if it had one or two tirggers but the word was it cost as much as a small house and just its engraving cost as much as a large car.

[CQBArms]

Not rumors but reality. Single triger double firing guns called "drillings" there are hundreds if not thousands of them in this world with a single and double set trigger.

Pull the rear trigger, the rifle sets for both barrels to go off with the pull of the first trigger.

Pull the first trigger by itself, first round goes off, switch to the second for the second shot.