I love old Texans explaining how things are going to go down. Legendary poker champion Doyle Brunson took to Twitter on Friday, telling his 400,000-plus followers that he was the likely target of an armed robbery. He then tweeted how he would handle the situation.
Ragnar (or whoever knows) ...
Please explain to us the difference between a bump stock and a "real" full auto.
(Aside from the obvious fact that it would take a large number of rounds to bring down big game such as Rosie O'Donnell.)
The bump-stock attachment uses the rifle's recoil to help trigger additional fire.
Basically, the recoil pushes the rifle back, while your finger remains in place. Then, it kinda bounces off your shoulder and back into the trigger finger, causing the next round to be fired.
Full auto has the rounds fed in sidewise, fed in a controlled fashion from a belt or the like.
Full auto has the rounds fed in sidewise, fed in a controlled fashion
from a belt or the like.
Not necessarily. Could be magazine-fed. Full-auto uses some of the compressed gas from firing to actuate the triggering mechanism to fire the next round.
fleeb is correct - a bump stock uses the recoil from the weapon (along with properly holding the forestock) to "bump" against your finger while it's resting on the trigger. Nearly any semi-auto rifle can be made to bump fire, even without a special stock.
Here's an example of bump firing without a special stock:
It's very innacurate, but does hurl a lot of lead down range quickly.
As LS pointed out, fleeb was incorrect about full-autos feeding sideways.
While many machine guns do in fact feed this way usually via a belt and not a managazine, it's not a requirement for full-auto fire.
Where LS is wrong is about the use of extracting some the spent gases to operate the trigger mechanism. One, not all semi or full autos use gas, some are fully recoil operated.
Two there are extra pieces in the weapon that will hold the hammer back until the bolt has returned to battery and then releases the hammer again.
Some less advanced designs, like the Uzi or the Sten work a little different, but that's the general idea.
This means that the effort to ban bump stocks is going to make every wacko interested in learning how to bump fire without one.
Sounds like it takes a lot of skill, esp. with a pistol.
I suppose I should have said that the firearm is designed with the idea of automatically firing rounds when fully-automatic... the -how- behind that varies. I was thinking of the ones I worked with in the army.
Even the M16 rifles are semi-automatic, in that they're designed for bursts of automatic fire, but not full-out automatic. You still have to have a certain measure of skill, though, with fully-automatic, or you'll heat up the barrel enough to cause it to melt and possibly blow your face off if the bullet bounces off the warped barrel.
Or, so I recall.
And, yeah, I'd think that bump-stock approach would require a certain measure of practice to keep everything under countrol.
The M16A1 was as well. Maybe you used ther M16A2 which was a tri-burst instead of full-auto?
FTN. How can you spray-and-pray with only three rounds?
Yes, it was indeed an M16A2, with the tri-burst.