Bump Fire Device by Slidefire Solutions.

[Diamond LawDawg]

What a hoooot!

Update: My son and I attended the FUN GUN SHOOT on Jun. 4th in SD,weather was fantastic,nice turn out, and the folks who ran it were GREAT! The Bump Fire Solution device mounted on my sons Colt LE 6940 in under 3 minutes and performed flawlessly..any amount of rounds you wanted to fire. Simply a FN blast. We fired over 1200 rds of Federal American Eagle value pack 223, PMC 223 and Fed. Nato 5.56 62gr green tip. We took some footage but I can't get it to load-up on here...Guys next to me were Class 2 FFL (they build,own and sell (rent at site) over 30 different full auto rifles. They were impressed with the fit and function of my Slide Fire as both my son and I blasted cars, fire extinguishers, 1lb explosive charges steel targets and what have you (out to over 200 yards) BUY IT. Enjoy the day

 

[Skans]

The Akins Accelerator neither pulled the trigger for you nor required any modification to the firearm. It permitted the entire action to float and reciprocate within the stock, bumping the action and the trigger against your finger. Your finger had to hit the trigger for every shot fired - thus it complied with the "one trigger pull, one shot" requirement.

BATFE ruled this device illegal, not because it had any authority or legal standing to do this at all. BATFE did what it did because the device WORKED! BATFE knew that it could litigate the makers of the device into the ground. So, Akins threw in the towel rather than challenge BATFE.

It is important that folks understand this. Because if this new device works, expect BATFE to outlaw it for no other reason than because most folks don't have a bottomless lawyer pit like BATFE has. If ANY DEVICE makes it easy to simulate full-auto fire from an aimed-shoulder position, there's a good chance BATFE takes action against it. Or that it pushes legislation to get congress to give it more discretion to outlaw such devices.

Remember, the DIAS was perfectly legal to make and own before 1982. Now if you own one made after 1982 BATFE says you own an illegal machinegun. Ask yourself: What changed?

 

[JohnKSa]

The Akins Accelerator neither pulled the trigger for you nor required any modification to the firearm. It permitted the entire action to float and reciprocate within the stock, bumping the action and the trigger against your finger. Your finger had to hit the trigger for every shot fired - thus it complied with the "one trigger pull, one shot" requirement.

The Akins pushed the trigger into the shooter's finger with every shot. That job must be done by the shooter to remain legal--if the shooter's not moving his trigger finger then he has to be moving something else to actuate the shot or he's shooting a machinegun. The Akins Accelerator is a recoil-operated device that uses spring-stored recoil energy to automatically fire the gun after the first shot as long as the shooter holds his finger stationary in position for the trigger to contact it.

What makes a true bump-fire device legal is that the SHOOTER provides the forward impetus that pulls the firearm forward and pushes the trigger into the stationary trigger. So the shooter is actuating the trigger for every shot by pulling the gun forward.

There is a clear difference between a bump-fire device and the Akins Accelerator. Here is the firing sequence for each with the important difference high-lighted.

Bump-fire device (legal).

1. Gun fires.
2. Gun recoils away from trigger finger allowing trigger to reset.
3. Shooter pulls gun (or action) forward thus actuating the trigger by pulling it against the stationary trigger finger.
4. Sequence repeats.

Akins Accelerator (not legal).

1. Gun fires.
2. Gun recoils away from trigger finger allowing trigger to reset.
3. Spring pushes action forward thus actuating the trigger by pulling it against the stationary trigger finger.
4. Sequence repeats.

The key difference is that the shooter has to do something for each shot (pull the gun back forward so that the trigger is actuated by contact with the trigger finger) with a bump-fire device or the gun stops firing. A gun that requires the shooter to actuate the trigger (via some action) for each shot is not a machinegun.

With the Akins Accelerator the shooter merely pulls the trigger and then holds his finger stationary and the gun keeps firing until empty or until the shooter moves his finger forward so that it can't contact the trigger--that's pretty much the definition of a machinegun.

The litmus test would be putting the gun in a vise and gradually tightening a trigger actuating device against the trigger. With the Akins device, when the trigger was finally pushed enough to fire the gun, the magazine would empty without any outside intervention whatsoever, thus proving that the shooter isn't doing anything to actuate the system for each shot other than holding the trigger down. (Definition of a machinegun.)

A bump-fire device equipped firearm would only fire once because, without the shooter, there would be nothing to return the trigger forward against the trigger actuating device, thus proving that the shooter is required to actuate the system for each shot.

The BATF screwup was in initially pronouncing it legal. If they had done their testing and research properly they would have ruled correctly the first time.

 

[emcon5]

It goes without saying one of these in California will get you sodomized in prison.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=414935

 

[Nike]

Ah the BATF

Better a convenience store than a GOVT agency.

 

[Volucris]

It's legal in states that matter. Cali can fall into the ocean for all I care. They don't believe in the Constitution.



Anyhow, the thing is just dumb. It's still going to result in poor accuracy. Fun? Probably. But you're just wasting ammo in full auto.

 

[Skans]

John, you make a good argument for why BATFE outlawed the Akins Accelerator. What Akins developed was different than anything else ever developed to simulate full-auto fire. It did not require any modification to the weapon or "jimmying" to get the gun to perform in a method that it wasn't intended. It met the technical description of one trigger pull / one shot. Nor was it some kind of device hooked up to the trigger (like a drill, etc.) that could be activated with the pull of a switch or trigger. The trigger had to be depressed to fire each shot.

True, your trigger finger stays stationary, and the entire gun-action reciprocates with the aid of a spring. I don't think current BATFE rules (at that point) really addressed (i.e. outlawed) what was developed. There really was nothing else that was close to being similar to the Akins Accelerator.

Here's exactly what the ATF Rule says:

The National Firearms Act defines "machinegun" as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger." 26 U.S.C. 5845(b). http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2004-5.html

"....Single function of of the trigger" is not the same as single function of the trigger finger. The Akins Accelerator did not create a gun that could be fired with the single function of the trigger itself.

Am I splitting hairs? Yes, I am. But, when it comes to what is and is not illegal, sometimes it comes down to splitting hairs.

 

[Diamond LawDawg]

It's a hoot

A friggin blast to fire..me..I'm a recently retired PO and have fired a fair amount of full automatic rifles and this thing is right up there with the FUN factor. Now,talking about what may or may not become ILLEGAL, I venture, was not the intention of the original thread starter sooo...... buy one,try one,see one or its not relevant to this thread But hell theres always a doomsayer amoung a group of happy people.

 

[JohnKSa]

It met the technical description of one trigger pull / one shot.

If you put a gun with an Akins device in a vise and gradually tighten something against the trigger, when the trigger is finally pushed enough to fire the gun, the magazine will empty without any further outside intervention whatsoever.

No amount of rhetoric, semantics, hairsplitting, or obfuscation can twist that that around to make it a device that requires one trigger pull for one shot. Clearly one trigger pull (the device was only tightened once) resulted in many shots and therefore the device is a machinegun.

"....Single function of of the trigger" is not the same as single function of the trigger finger. The Akins Accelerator did not create a gun that could be fired with the single function of the trigger itself.

The law has been consistently interpreted to mean that a gun requires some sort of shooter input for each shot or it's a machinegun. Setting up a situation where the trigger pulls itself by bumping against the shooter without requiring any other input from the shooter may confuse the situation a little but it doesn't alter the legality. A gun that pulls its own trigger for each successive shot after the first (until the shooter gets out of the way) is a machinegun.

A really simple way to see why that's true is if you mount a hinged device to the stock of an Akins equipped gun so that it can be swung to bear against the trigger then when you pull backwards on the hinged device the gun fires as long as you hold pressure on the hinged device. In effect, the Akins device turns the original trigger into a sear and does away with a traditional trigger by substituting the shooter's finger for the trigger. In the example above the hinged device becomes the trigger, returning the shooter's finger to its normal status and making it clear why the gun is a machinegun.

What Akins developed was different than anything else ever developed to simulate full-auto fire.

Two things.

1. It doesn't simulate full-auto fire, it achieves it as described above.
2. I doubt that Akins was the first person to try to skirt the regs by trying to redefine the function of the parts in the fire control group without renaming them appropriately. His device effectively changed the original trigger into a recoil-operated auto sear and the shooter's finger into the trigger but he didn't change the names to match. The BATF took awhile to catch on but it was inevitable.

The final BATF ruling on the Akins device was completely consistent with the way the NFA laws have been interpreted in the past. The travesty was that their initial ruling was in error and that error resulted in significant damage to Akins.

 

[Skans]

if the shooter's not moving his trigger finger then he has to be moving something else to actuate the shot or he's shooting a machinegun.

That is the position that BATFE has taken - true. But, that's not what the law says. In my opinion, neither the Akins Accelerator nor the new non-spring device should be illegal. I'm basing this on what the law actually says - not on BATFE's slanted position on this.

The law has been consistently interpreted to mean that a gun requires some sort of shooter input for each shot or it's a machinegun.

That is how BATFE interprets the law. Again, the law simply does not say that. Generally, when speaking of a criminal law, i.e. one that can get you fines and jail time for breaking it, the law must be exceedingly clear - not subject to interpretation, otherwise it is to be interpreted in the light most favorable to the accused. Tax laws and the IRS are different. But, machineguns laws are not.

In effect, the Akins device turns the original trigger into a sear and does away with a traditional trigger by substituting the shooter's finger for the trigger.

That's a stretch - the bottom line is that the trigger gets pressed by a finger for every shot. I acknowledge that the Akins Accelerator pushes the limits of the law. But, the law, as written, really does not outlaw the device. The law is silent as to triggers being turned into sears even when bumping up against a finger. The law never contemplated such a device, but it does expressly permit "bump-firing". Congress could re-write the law to prohibit bump-fire devices, or redefine bump-firing. It hasn't. BATFE stretches the interpretation of the law beyond what it states. This is simply prohibited where laws have freedom and property depriving penalties.

 

[Palmetto-Pride]

Man its pretty neat and I would love to have one, but wow is it over priced for what it is. We all know they could price it for half of what it cost now and they could still make a huge profit. In fact I bet if it was half the price they would have sold 4x as many and have that many more people using it and recommending it and selling even more. I am like a lot of people I would come off $150.00 for it, but no way would I ever pay $350.00+ for it.

 

[JohnKSa]

the trigger gets pressed by a finger for every shot.

Actually, that's not correct. The trigger presses ITSELF against the shooters finger. And that's the problem.

If the finger was doing the work (or the shooter was pulling the trigger forward into the finger) it would be legal. Since the gun is doing all the work and the shooter isn't moving it's not.

Your argument is based on this phrase: "by a single function of the trigger" and posits that because the trigger is functioned for each shot that the Akins device is legal. What you're missing is that the law is meaningless (it doesn't actually create any sort of a restriction) if it is legal to create a system whereby the gun functions the trigger by itself or can function the trigger by itself without animate input after the first shot. Clearly the Akins device falls into this category as do machineguns.

The position of the legal system in this country is that laws are not meaningless. So if there are two interpretations of the law and one makes the law meaningless that interpretation will not be employed. In other words, the courts will not accept an interpretation of the law that makes the law pointless and therefore your interpretation of the law will be considered invalid by the courts.

Laws are more than just a strict, literal, word-for-word interpretation of their text. When a case is tried, the intent of the law is considered, not just a literal word-for-word read of the text.

Yes, the law says "single function of the trigger" but the law isn't worded that way in order to ALLOW guns that somehow cleverly "function" their own triggers for each shot but rather to OUTLAW guns where the SHOOTER does NOT "function" the trigger for each shot.

The BATF's final ruling on the Akins device is consistent with the law. It is not based on an improper interpretation, an unreasonably narrow interpretation, nor a stretched interpretation of the law.

The law is silent as to triggers being turned into sears even when bumping up against a finger.

That's the point. The law is NOT silent on the topic. It is general enough to outlaw both conventional machineguns and less straightforward designs like the Akins device which may be internally different but function externally identically for all practical purposes.

Congress could re-write the law to prohibit bump-fire devices, or redefine bump-firing. It hasn't.

They don't need to. The current law is more than sufficient. It clearly allows bump-fire and clearly outlaws devices like the Akins system.

Look, I'm no fan of the BATF or the NFA. Both need to be done away with. But as of right now, they are reality and we have to learn to deal with that reality. Trying to push a personal interpretation of a court-tested 70 year old law that essentially makes the law meaningless isn't dealing with reality and it can only cause confusion.

The Akins device is NOT a bump-fire device because it functions like a machine gun. A bump-fire device does not function like a machine gun--there is a clear and critical difference between a bump-fire device and a machinegun. With a machinegun (or the Akins device) you pull the trigger and hold your finger still and the gun continues to fire without any other input from you. In a bump-fire device you have to pull the gun forward against your trigger finger for each shot, functioning the trigger for each shot.

Very simple, open and shut. The crime is that the BATF botched their initial ruling so badly.

Even if you can't see that, it should be obvious that by adding a very simple secondary trigger (see my comments about adding a hinged device in a previous post) that you can very easily convert an Akins equipped device into a machinegun that meets even the strictest possible definition of a machinegun. And by law, a device that is readily converted to a machinegun is also a machinegun.

 

[Ridge_Runner_5]

Let me save you $225.

Take your existing collapsible stock.
Remove the locking lever.
Get another buffer spring.
Cut off sayy, 2 or 2.5 inches of the spring.
Insert that between your buffer tube and your stock.

Rock out.

 

[Lloyd Smale]

lets see you make it work that easily and while your at it think up a good story for the batf.

 

[Palmetto-Pride]

Let me save you $225.

Take your existing collapsible stock.
Remove the locking lever.
Get another buffer spring.
Cut off sayy, 2 or 2.5 inches of the spring.
Insert that between your buffer tube and your stock.

Rock out.

I was thinking the same thing....

lets see you make it work that easily and while your at it think up a good story for the batf.

I don't see why this would be illegal because you would be modifying it to "BUMP FIRE" more easily. It shouldn't be any different in the eyes of the law than using the Slide Fire stock.......

 

[Skans]

John, to be clear I'm not trying to encourage anyone to make a device like the Akins Accelerator. My disappointment lies in the fact that Akins didn't have the funds to challenge BATFE's ruling.

But, even that wouldn't have settled the issue. It would have taken someone to openly defy BATFE's position boy operating the Akins Accelerator with the spring and then be arrested for this. Then you would have actual deprivation of freedom with criminal penalties, not someone who arguing over an economic interest in a device he made. Different standards would apply and for criminal penalties to be imposed the law itself, not just BATFE's interpretation of the law, would have to be scrutinized. In my opinion, in a criminal arena, BATFE would have a hard time showing how the device doesn't fall within the exception to machine gun. The trigger is being pressed each time by the shooter's finger.

Because you could very well be correct (and I could be completely wrong) in your theory of the AA, I am not recommending that anyone make themselves into a test case. I'm pretty certain that this will never happen. Completely dead issue.

But, mark this post - if someone comes up with a device that is technically "legal" but makes simulated full-auto fire accurate and easy, one way or another it will be made illegal. BATFE will continue pushing the limits of the law, and when it can't do that any longer, they will get Congress to change the laws.

 

[Diamond LawDawg]

I love mine

It burns ammo ,its accurate(in my hands)up to 100 yards..its fun..and if they wanna take it away from me,a retired policeman, they have my address and fingerprints on file...Good luck everyone and have fun cause life is WAY TOOO SHORT...NOW if they can make another variation for my 1927 T-5 Thompson hmmmmmm

 

[JohnKSa]

My disappointment lies in the fact that Akins didn't have the funds to challenge BATFE's ruling.

It would have been a waste of time and money to challenge it.

The Akins device is clearly a machinegun. Even if one doesn't accept the very convincing argument that it's a machinegun in its unmodified form, it clearly meets the definition of being readily converted to a machinegun (via the addition of a simple hinged device--secondary trigger) which, by law, makes it a machinegun.

But, mark this post - if someone comes up with a device that is technically "legal" but makes simulated full-auto fire accurate and easy, one way or another it will be made illegal.

The law is quite general and has been around many decades. It's not at all likely anyone's going to come up with a way to "technically" skirt the law and still effectively simulate full-auto fire. That makes the last part of the sentence meaningless because it won't be "made" illegal. It will already be illegal or it won't effectively simulate full-auto fire--i.e. it will be another bump-fire device or manually cranked weapon.

BATFE will continue pushing the limits of the law, and when it can't do that any longer, they will get Congress to change the laws.

While the BATF HAS certainly pushed the limits of firearms laws in the past and will undoubtedly do so again in the future, the Akins case is not an example of that kind of behavior.

The final BATF ruling was accurate and consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the NFA laws. As I've said before, the travesty was that they screwed up so badly with their initial ruling which cause serious damage to Akins. He followed procedure and they screwed up. But it ended up costing him, not them. That's wrong.

I don't see why this would be illegal because you would be modifying it to "BUMP FIRE" more easily. It shouldn't be any different in the eyes of the law than using the Slide Fire stock......

I believe you are correct. As far as I can see from the brief description given the resulting firearm would be legal.