This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute

[MightyMopar]

This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 900 Rounds Per Minute



Hey, it’s Monday, and I’m back with more on the AR-15, the hugely popular semi-automatic rifle that has been in the news ever since it was used by Adam Lanza in December to kill 26 people at Sandy Hook School. (Note: I have received several unconvincing emails claiming that Lanza did not, in fact, use the AR-15. Show me your evidence if you’ve got it, guys, because every single reputable source I’ve seen—including the Connecticut State Police—says that Lanza used an AR-15-style rifle in the attacks, brought two pistols into the school, and had a shotgun in the trunk of his car. Grainy YouTube videos do not count as “evidence.”)

Why are AR-15-style rifles so popular? As Cracked.com put it, “the AR-15 is kind of the gun-dweeb's version of Linux: All kinds of modifications can be made to it.” It’s relatively simple for an enthusiastic marksman to customize the rifle to his specifications—adding a scope and other optics, swapping in a new grip, or trigger, or barrel. These modifications are more or less benign. But there’s another change that’s more problematic: For a few hundred dollars, you can convert the semi-automatic AR-15 into a rifle that can simulate automatic fire. And it’s perfectly legal.

To understand how this works, you first need to know about a process called “bump firing.” When you bump fire a semi-automatic rifle, your non-shooting hand pulls the rifle forward until the trigger hits your rigid trigger finger, thus firing the rifle. Then, recoil sends the rifle bouncing back and forth against your rigid trigger finger, causing it to keep shooting at an accelerated rate, simulating automatic fire.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/01/07/slide_fire_this_simple_legal_add_on_lets_an_ar_15_fire_900_rounds_per_minute.html

Still is no threat to the government but what would this do in a crowded room?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

1. Previously debunked...and you participated in that thread

Some of this stuff is approaching "woo" at this point

[MightyMopar]

2. It's not debunked because you say it is, it fires as fast as machine gun!

Go over to Slate and tell them to take this article down because you "debunked" it whatever that means.

[ManiacJoe]

14. Some machine guns fire quickly, some fire slowly.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

31. A full automatic M-16s runs 600 rpm (instantaneous rate)

That cannot be maintained for long. Heating issues (its a light rifle) not to mention magazine changes.

The Slate guys rarely get tech stuff right, this is no different. Make it salacious to get page views...its how the media rolls

[ProgressiveProfessor]

28. Slate rarely gets technical things correct, and this story is no different

And I did send both the author and the editors emails pointing out their numerous errors.

You however knew better and posted their nonsense anyway,

[Paladin]

33. Well, What Do You Expect Of The Progressive Media, Mr. "Progressive"?

(Sarcasm alert for thise perpetually in need of it.)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

40. I expect accuracy from the media on technical matters. I am oft disappointed, regardless of

the source. It is clear that journalism is a bad joke and never has been a real profession

Slate is progressive? Really?

And its Dr or Professor...

[Paladin]

41. OK. From Now On, It's MR. Paladin, to you..... (nt)

[Xipe Totec]

3. Is it possible to build a jetpack using downward firing machine guns?

There’s a problem: Ammunition.

An AK-47 magazine holds 30 rounds. At ten per second, we’ll get a measly three seconds of acceleration. We can improve this with a larger magazine—but only up to a point.

It turns out there’s no advantage to carrying more than about 250 rounds of ammunition. The reason for this is a fundamental and central problem in rocket science: Fuel makes you heavier.

Each bullet weighs 8 grams, and the cartridge (the “whole bullet”) weighs over 16 grams. If we add more than about 250 rounds, the AK-47 is too heavy to take off.

http://what-if.xkcd.com/21/

900 rounds would weigh about 32 pounds.

How much ammo can a mass murderer carry in order to fire 900 rounds per minute? How long before he runs out of ammo?

[Scuba]

9. 900 rounds per minute equals 15 rounds per second. That better?

[Xipe Totec]

10. Not better, not worse. The same.

I can do time conversions too.

[Scuba]

11. So if the headline read "This Simple, Legal Add-On Lets an AR-15 Rifle Fire 15 Rounds er Second" ..

... then you wouldn't have replied?

[Xipe Totec]

13. The same; there is a limit to how much weight a mass murderer can carry arround.

The faster he spends his ammo, the faster we can move in and kill the motherfucker.

[Scuba]

15. And the less ammo he has, the fewer people he can kill. I like my logic lesson better than yours.

[Xipe Totec]

17. He can carry the same ammo, just shoot slower and aim better.

Look, I'm not for assault weapons; I'm against them.

Heck, I don't even own any guns. Not even a slingshot.

I just think this line of argument is unsound and leads nowhere.

[gollygee]

18. So he walks into a crowded gym during a pep assembly

and uses it all there very quickly. I don't get your logic here.

[Xipe Totec]

21. The logic is quite simple

The rate of fire, beyond a certain rate, is not relevant.

Sure, an automatic weapon is going to cause more damage than a single shot bolt action rifle. But there's a point beyond which simple physics comes into play and it does not matter how fast the gun can shoot; what matters is how many bullets you can physically carry with you.

A sniper is deadlier per round than an idiot with a machine gun.

[gollygee]

22. An idiot with a machine gun

and 32 pounds of ammunition can kill a crap load of people in one minute if they're in the middle of a big crowd. And these mass killers seem to be looking for huge big dramatic events like that.

[Xipe Totec]

24. You can do far more damage with ricin

And 32 pounds of ammo, properly administered, can kill a crap load more people than a random spraying of bullets, even in a crowded area.

That's all I'm saying, no more, no less; There is a point beyond which the pure rate of fire becomes irrelevant in terms of damage.

I want an assault weapons ban as much as you do (I think). I just don't believe this line of argument leads us there.

I honestly don't know what the answer is; I just know that this one does not convince me.

[EOTE]

51. And ricin is just as easily procurable as ammo. What a silly comparison.

If rate of fire matters so little, then there is no reason for semi-automatic weapons period. Get rid of them.

[Xipe Totec]

56. Ricin is not procurable; it is synthesizable

To those with the knowledge and ability.

Same goes for mercury fulminate, and many other explosive and poisonous substances.

The deadliest weapon in any arsenal, by far, is the human brain.

Rate of fire matters, if you are under siege, or if you have a logistical support line that can provide you with a practically inexhaustible supply of ammunition.

But for a single gunman, on the move, with limited time, and with a limited supply of ammo, time, accuracy, and weight are fundamental limitations.

As a trained chemist, the bonds that keep me from applying my knowledge for evil are morality and a fervent desire to live a long long life in peace.

[EOTE]

57. Any idiot can get a shit load of ammo.

And quite often they do. Most people with the knowledge to synthesize ricin would never use it to commit mass murder. Hence the reason why we have a fuck load of gun based murder and very, very little ricin based murder in this country. Makes sense, right?

[Xipe Totec]

63. See post #17 nt

[EOTE]

64. Once again, a very foolish argument.

If these methods of expending such incredible amounts of ammo so quickly are so useless, THEN BAN THEM. Isn't that easy? Some people will use these methods to kill LOTS of people really quickly, if it's so useless, they should be banned, right? Along with high capacity mags and many other things. The gun nuts keep telling us that these new methods of murder are so worthless, if that's the case, and they don't offer any benefits other than the ability to kill more people more quickly, get the fuck rid of them.

[rzemanfl]

4. More "Democraticgunsaround." n/t

[flamin lib]

5. It can be done with a simple rubberband.

Nobody in civilian life has any business with one of these.

Oh, it works on just about any semi auto rifle.

Edit to add: I've done it just to see if it was real and it is. Don't own one, borrowed it.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

6. At about a half a buck per round, that is a very expensive minute.

Sounds like a toy for the 1%, not the 99.

[stevenleser]

43. If you are going to be dead afterwards, the splurge probably doesnt matter. nt

[Xipe Totec]

44. That's the fundamental problem; there's little you can do to stop a kamikaze

If death is the only deterrent to mayhem, then we are at the mercy of any idiot who does not care if he dies or not.

I understand and support the need for restrictions on weapons.

But I also recognize that a determined, intelligent, individual who has lost the fear of death, can cause damage fear and grief far beyond our ability to comprehend.

That's the conundrum.

Whatever we can do to reduce the odds, I support. But I have no fantasies about this being a complete and absolute solution.

[stevenleser]

46. I disagree. Guns make them too easy is the issue. Without guns, someone trying to cause

mass death generally has to resort to bombs or chemical or biological weapons. All of these introduce a lot more complication and risk of discovery before the act is completed. The Israelis actually stop a high number of suicide bombings before they can hurt other people.

[Xipe Totec]

47. If you read my post you'll see we are in total agreement. nt

[cthulu2016]

7. Is bump-firing used in many murders?

[indepat]

8. If it's legal to pack a 900-rounds-per-minute assault weapon on one's hip, great comfort can be

gained for the fact that no holder of such weapon would ever use it for the purpose it was made for.

[Bill USA]

12. I gotta get one.... just my style!

then mommie and daddie wouldn't push ME around anymore! yeah, uh-huh.

[LAGC]

30. "From my cold, dead hands!!!"

[cthulu2016]

16. Has anyone fired 900 rounds in a minute using this technique?

[ManiacJoe]

20. The rate of fire cannot be maintained for the full minute

since the magazine holds only 20 or 30 rounds (2-3 seconds).

[RomneyLies]

32. No, but you can dump a 100 round mag in about seven seconds.

Switch magazines in about three seconds and dump another 100 round magazine.

Total time, 17 seconds.

It won't be terribly accurate, though, but with three 100 round magazines and some fire discipline, you could kill about 100 people in about a minute:

[rrneck]

19. If you're looking down the wrong end of one it doesn't matter. nt

[Red Mountain]

23. I don't know if the modification would work.....

and I'm not sure how many rounds you could expect to fire quickly before suffering a meltdown but there are 100 round drum magazines readily available....http://www.sportsmansguide.com/net/cb/100-rd-ar-15-drum-mag-black.aspx?a=650806

I'd hate to see what a terrorist or two could do at a crowded event with something like this.

[RomneyLies]

34. It's extremely effective.

If you exercise fire discipline and have practiced a lot, it's extremely accurate, too.

[sir pball]

58. Why does the USMC preach semi-only then?

Last I heard firsthand (around 2004) the M16s/4s issued to Marines were semi/3 round burst and that was only for oh-shit situations; even that setting was generally a waste of ammunition except for suppressive fire. Most other militaries are the same these days.

Not that I'd care a whit if the ATF banned these - it's one of the few instances where I'd agree the kind of people who want it probably shouldn't own it, or at least don't need it.

[RomneyLies]

59. You get far more contro with a slide stock and semi-automatic

You can easily control 2, 3 or 4 round bursts and put all shots on target with one.

Much more difficult on full automatic. If you are right handed, you are using oyur left hand to pull forward and are gaining incredible control.

[sir pball]

60. Huh

Never used one...I'd like to try it, once, on my AR to see how wild 20 rounds of 308 would be in a second and change...but Lothar Walther barrels ain't cheap!

[RomneyLies]

61. I'd never fire off 20 rounds in one go

2-4 round bursts, MAX.

[sir pball]

62. I did, once

Just to see how it would work out, 8x10 paper at 100 yards. First six or so were well inside an inch but after that it looked like I took a shotgun to the paper. And mounting board, there were three or four holes that far out. Barrel was literally sizzling. It did shoot just fine after that, I actually posted my record with that rifle later that day, but never again more than 5 even at a slowfire pace.

I'll pack 20s to the range for convenience; it's easier to bring a day's rounds in two or three mags rather than a box and reload - but for hunting I use 5s and wouldn't be out out in the least if I were legally limited to 10 or whatever.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

36. Those 100 round mags are not reliable. More likely to jam prior to any melt down

There is a reason the military limits them to 30 rounds, the standard magazine for that design

[ileus]

25. So what did the ATF say about the slide fire?

to me it's a hokey useless addon. I don't like putting that much heat into my barrels...

[RomneyLies]

35. 100% legal as the weapon is still semi-automatic

The trigger must still be pulled once for each round, you're just using the recoil, the slide stock, and the pulling action on the non-trigger hand to pull the trigger for each bullet fired at an extremely rapid rate.

[ileus]

39. I'd think with most cheap AR's this would just make a jam-o-matic.

All those stags, bushys, DPMSs would make for an unhappy day at the range with this device.

[SQUEE]

48. And a great tool for Darwin and Murphy

Semi autos are not engineered for these rates of fire, the possibility of an out of battery discharge and subsequent KB are exponentially increased.

[ileus]

52. A friend of mines DPMS went Kaboom this year.

Puked all it's gasses out the mag well, along with the contents of the mag. He couldn't get the bolt to move and sent it back, they replace the upper. LOL It had "catastrophic failure" as the explanation.

[NickB79]

26. Then write your legislators and the ATF about it

It is fully within the ATF's discretion, under existing laws, to revoke the permit to the manufacturer for this stock and shut them down.

Oddly enough, they temporarily permitted and then revoked the permit to build a very similar stock to another manufacturer a few years ago: http://www2.tbo.com/business/consumer/2007/dec/18/pasco-marksmans-invention-leads-him-ruin-ar-176333/

That manufacturer is now almost bankrupt.

[Paladin]

37. The ATF Has Been Without A Director For The Last Six Years.

Thanks to the gun militancy movement.

[RomneyLies]

38. The difference in the stocks is the one banned used a spring mechanism for the return action.

This stock requires you to pull forward with the non-trigger hand while the weapon recoils to insure you pull the trigger again for each shot.

[NickB79]

27. There's also the BMF Activator

http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories-bmf-activator-1.shtml

Worthless piece of shit that requires a 3rd arm to make work, but still....

[MightyMopar]

29. I mean to show National Firearms act is obsolete by new invention, ie: you can buy a machine gun

Not a good machine gun but one that breaks the rules and has great potential for harm in the exact right situation.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

42. Breaks what rules?

I mean to show National Firearms act is obsolete by new invention, ie: you can buy a machine gun
Not a good machine gun but one that breaks the rules and has great potential for harm in the exact right situation.

???

[Heimer]

45. It's legal because it's a waste of money.

A trained shooter doesn't have any need for the device and would wisley spend the $250 on ammunition.

This guy is decently fast.(quick search). There are many competitive shooters that are faster.

[uponit7771]

54. Subjective and not relevant...also can be used for suppression fire against police...

...I'd like the avg citizen to be way less armed than the police

[SQUEE]

55. I for one disagree, I don't trust the hired guns of the PTB

Police are the fist of the bankers and corporations.

look at which side of the barricades they are on at any OWS protest.

[krawhitham]

49. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes.

[Recursion]

53. Actually this would be horrible at doing that

You can't traverse or aim when you're doing this. There's a reason the death toll for this "technique" remains at 0.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

50. But, but, but...criminals don't obey laws, so we can't ban those modifications!

And if the criminals can't guy those modifications, they'll find other ways to kill people, like run them all over with cars and bang them with hammers and stuff.