Here's what happened during the first round of tests...
Posted on 01/17/2008 10:45:33 AM PST by CrappieLuck
Thanks!
I saw this article the other day but it was very light on facts with no links and from WND so I had concerns about the truth of it then.
Turns out I was right to be skeptical.
It's a nut daily article.
"They mention the ATF switching to soft primers to get it to slam fire."
Position 3 was for full auto, not slam fire.
This is absolutely crazy.
I swear I’m not wondering how that can be replicated.
Actually, no it didn't. The first report on it was that it wouldn't fully engage in the Full auto position. It was only on subsequent abuse by the BATFE that they finally broke it the rest of the way and got it to go into a "wild fire" mode where the sear catch was completely broken off.
I have been following this one over on ARFCOM. The government is up to no good on this one.
This was literally a malfunction that was then blown out of proportion by the Feds.
You’re welcome.
Some of the old surplus Walther P-38s would empty a magazine when you slammed the bolt home. I’ve seen it happen with a couple of SKS specimens. Some cops and the BATF are just looking for trouble.
I had high hopes that the Bush administration would put an end to this crap, you can add that to my list of his failures, and the failure of “republican leaders” to address the issue.
WND’s crappy reporting posted and discussed here, too.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952931/posts
See the link in #16. The genius professor told the student not to use the unmarked position 3, because it might fire off 3 rnds. The student placed the switch in the unmarked position at the range, and it did fire off 3 rnds before jamming. The ATF found that position 3 would consistently fire of 20 rnd mags at full auto.
"It was only on subsequent abuse by the BATFE that they finally broke it the rest of the way and got it to go into a "wild fire" mode where the sear catch was completely broken off. ...The government is up to no good on this one."
Yeah, sure.
"This was literally a malfunction that was then blown out of proportion by the Feds."
Not according to the discussion between Olofson and the "student" when the gun was loaned out, or according to the gun's performance at the range, or the findings from the lab.
Read the whole thread over at ARFCOM.
Also, if we had something like the historical Second Amendment, this wouldn't be a big deal. It'd just be some tinkerer with a malfunctioning rifle.
(sarc)Thanks for sticking up for the government though. I'm sure they're happy to have people like you defending their unConstitutional actions.(/sarc)
It might have been shear luck, but I haven't been able to pin it down. File this one under "who knows?
Best AR advice is to insure NO M16 parts are installed in your semi-auto AR.
Intent to convert is much easier to convince someone if full-M16 parts are present-carrieror fire control parts.
God Bless
Eastern district of Wisconsin. It figures.
Even though this is a right wing news source with which we are all fond, it may be that there are additional parts to this story that we haven’t been told.
Yeah, some tinkerer that gave a malfunctioning rifle to a "student" to play with.
"Thanks for sticking up for the government though."
Truth matters.
"I'm sure they're happy to have people like you defending their unConstitutional actions."
Irrelevant. You claimed the gun was not a machine gun, that it simply malfunctioned, and the ATF manufactured evidence.
It might have been one I had as a kid. That's the reason I got rid of it. I can't remember the model number, it was tube fed and had those weird slots on the left side of the receiver directly behind the chamber.
Perhaps there is more to this story. It seemed to be a stretch that a judge would extend the use of a statute intended to ban a certain class of firearm to one not covered by the statute, owning to its unintentional and faulty behavior. On the other hand, I don’t think any guns should be banned for any reason, but that’s just me.
I agree. But in doing a google search, This story doesn’t appear anywhere in the non-firearms related media. The mention that the defendant is a Drill Sergeant also seems a little puzzling. Clearly, this weapon wasn’t a military weapon.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.