User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:26:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:44:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley: That's great news...I wonder what the change was. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. If the original design required anything "extra" to keep your weapon from firing out of battery, I'd bet they are making them remove it. I too would be very curious to see a before and after of the original design versus V2.0. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:44:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley: That's great news...I wonder what the change was. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. They noted a MSRP in a reply, ~$329. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:50:22 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
That's great news... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news... Mmmkay. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:51:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-M-A-WMD: Mmmkay. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-M-A-WMD: Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news... Mmmkay. How is it not? The concept was approved. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2015 11:57:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F:
If the original design required anything "extra" to keep your weapon from firing out of battery, I'd bet they are making them remove it. I too would be very curious to see a before and after of the original design versus V2.0. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F:
Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. If the original design required anything "extra" to keep your weapon from firing out of battery, I'd bet they are making them remove it. I too would be very curious to see a before and after of the original design versus V2.0. Interesting theory...expand on that. I'd think they'd need to ensure no out of battery discharge and that the ATF would want it there but I'm curious to hear why you think that's the case. If anything, I suspect that they required the manufacture to use a more permanent attaching method for the components that keep the hammer from dropping before the trigger is released. If said component could be easily removed by simply pushing a pin out, the trigger group could probably be converted to run full auto by simply taking a part out of the assembly. Wes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:01:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: I-M-A-WMD]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
How is it not? The concept was approved.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By I-M-A-WMD:
Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news... Mmmkay. How is it not? The concept was approved.
You lost me where it was approved, but a change was required. The phrasing doesn't meld so well IMO. Of course, now that the ATF is onboard with the engineering aspect, what could possibly go wrong? Color me skeptical. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:14:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mr_Smiley]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-M-A-WMD: You lost me where it was approved, but a change was required. The phrasing doesn't meld so well IMO. Of course, now that the ATF is onboard with the engineering aspect, what could possibly go wrong? Color me skeptical. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By I-M-A-WMD: Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By I-M-A-WMD: Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: SNIP That's great news... Mmmkay. How is it not? The concept was approved. You lost me where it was approved, but a change was required. The phrasing doesn't meld so well IMO. Of course, now that the ATF is onboard with the engineering aspect, what could possibly go wrong? Color me skeptical. It's farther then I thought it would go. IMO the concept being approved is great, just because Franklin Armory had to make a change (which they said is already done and ready to be sent out) doesn't mean that other companies can't use a different method to get the same result. The greater implications of the ATF approval that a trigger that fires from pull and from realease is a semi is huge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:22:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: I-M-A-WMD]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
The greater implications of the ATF approval that a trigger that fires from pull and from realease is a semi is huge. I'm not here to argue with you friend, but actually- it's old news. This is just another in a long train of "Can we? Can we?" until the answer is NO. ETA: We may not get the big ugly axe this go-round, but sooner or later- BAM! A reversal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 12:23:03 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: Interesting theory...expand on that. I'd think they'd need to ensure no out of battery discharge and that the ATF would want it there but I'm curious to hear why you think that's the case. If anything, I suspect that they required the manufacture to use a more permanent attaching method for the components that keep the hammer from dropping before the trigger is released. If said component could be easily removed by simply pushing a pin out, the trigger group could probably be converted to run full auto by simply taking a part out of the assembly. Wes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang: Originally Posted By RockHard13F: Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley: Originally Posted By Muad: Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. If the original design required anything "extra" to keep your weapon from firing out of battery, I'd bet they are making them remove it. I too would be very curious to see a before and after of the original design versus V2.0. Interesting theory...expand on that. I'd think they'd need to ensure no out of battery discharge and that the ATF would want it there but I'm curious to hear why you think that's the case. If anything, I suspect that they required the manufacture to use a more permanent attaching method for the components that keep the hammer from dropping before the trigger is released. If said component could be easily removed by simply pushing a pin out, the trigger group could probably be converted to run full auto by simply taking a part out of the assembly. Wes There have been certain weapons approved by ATF in the past and released as title 1 firearms that had "safety sears" installed to prevent out of battery detonation/firing. If a weapon has a sear which prevents it from firing out of battery, it greatly simplifies safely converting it to fully automatic fire- I have seen an SOT convert a title 1 weapon in a manner similar to what you describe (simply removing a pin or some other simple adjustment) and then registering the weapon as their own manufactured machine gun. Said weapons, which I shall not name, were never recalled or reclassified- rather their designs were quietly changed at a certain cutoff and production continued. There has been great speculation that as tens of thousands of such weapons were sold, ATF simply didn't want to have to track them all down- nor did they want people realizing what they had or why ATF wanted them. So that is my theory. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 3:25:57 AM EDT
[#11]
Well hopefully it'll be released soon.
If street price is ~$300 or less, I'll probably pick one up. Now we need BAD to make compatible selectors. 
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 4:03:43 AM EDT
[#12]
I wouldn't want something that fires on the release of a trigger. Just get the G3S
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr0rSaFgZE |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 9:32:09 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F: There have been certain weapons approved by ATF in the past and released as title 1 firearms that had "safety sears" installed to prevent out of battery detonation/firing. If a weapon has a sear which prevents it from firing out of battery, it greatly simplifies safely converting it to fully automatic fire- I have seen an SOT convert a title 1 weapon in a manner similar to what you describe (simply removing a pin or some other simple adjustment) and then registering the weapon as their own manufactured machine gun. Said weapons, which I shall not name, were never recalled or reclassified- rather their designs were quietly changed at a certain cutoff and production continued. There has been great speculation that as tens of thousands of such weapons were sold, ATF simply didn't want to have to track them all down- nor did they want people realizing what they had or why ATF wanted them. So that is my theory. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F: Originally Posted By Wangstang: Originally Posted By RockHard13F: SNIP Interesting theory...expand on that. I'd think they'd need to ensure no out of battery discharge and that the ATF would want it there but I'm curious to hear why you think that's the case. If anything, I suspect that they required the manufacture to use a more permanent attaching method for the components that keep the hammer from dropping before the trigger is released. If said component could be easily removed by simply pushing a pin out, the trigger group could probably be converted to run full auto by simply taking a part out of the assembly. Wes There have been certain weapons approved by ATF in the past and released as title 1 firearms that had "safety sears" installed to prevent out of battery detonation/firing. If a weapon has a sear which prevents it from firing out of battery, it greatly simplifies safely converting it to fully automatic fire- I have seen an SOT convert a title 1 weapon in a manner similar to what you describe (simply removing a pin or some other simple adjustment) and then registering the weapon as their own manufactured machine gun. Said weapons, which I shall not name, were never recalled or reclassified- rather their designs were quietly changed at a certain cutoff and production continued. There has been great speculation that as tens of thousands of such weapons were sold, ATF simply didn't want to have to track them all down- nor did they want people realizing what they had or why ATF wanted them. So that is my theory. Early PS90's were very easy to convert. Pretty much any design that holds the hammer back until the bolt closes is easy to convert. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 9:38:33 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Not sure. They noted a MSRP in a reply, ~$329. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. They noted a MSRP in a reply, ~$329. in like Flynn at $329 |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 10:53:36 AM EDT
[#15]
in for ATF determination. At the suggested srp of $330ish this would be a must have for me.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/13/2015 11:12:35 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mre1974:
in for ATF determination. At the suggested srp of $330ish this would be a must have for me. And I will be able to use the happy switch position on my spikes lower. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 2:21:46 AM EDT
[#17]
Updates?
|
|
|
|
HI, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2015 2:50:36 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wagonwheel1:
Training and muscle memory what it is, this sounds dangerous as all h*ll. Releasing a trigger to fire off a round ? What could go wrong ? If I want a fast trigger I'll get an S3G or similar. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2015 11:21:59 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Updates? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2015 8:16:10 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WaMag: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By WaMag: Originally Posted By Wangstang: Updates? |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/25/2015 9:48:10 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ControlledChaos999:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ControlledChaos999:
Originally Posted By WaMag:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Updates? I'm sure they will update this thread the minute they get word... Hopefully with good news. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 1:08:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4Tank: I'm sure they will update this thread the minute they get word... Hopefully with good news. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4Tank: Originally Posted By ControlledChaos999: Originally Posted By WaMag: Originally Posted By Wangstang: Updates? I'm sure they will update this thread the minute they get word... Hopefully with good news. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2015 7:27:46 PM EDT
[#23]
Im no ranger or seal or anything but why are so many people calling this dangerous and comparng it to the Gs3g? The s3g is a totally different concept and the trigger that the G man is gonna make isnt even like the franklin trigger either, only thing they share is they will both go to the third position. Lets keep this an apples to apples comparison
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 12:15:38 AM EDT
[#24]
How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con?
Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 9:06:14 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 50cal: How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 10:42:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Last I heard, they were still waiting on the ATF. This was as of last week. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By M4Tank:
Originally Posted By ControlledChaos999:
Originally Posted By WaMag:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Updates? I'm sure they will update this thread the minute they get word... Hopefully with good news. Last I heard, they were still waiting on the ATF. This was as of last week. When I talked to them a few weeks back, they stated they received a reply; from ATF, on the FIRST sample they submitted. They made some changes and submitted a second sample. They are basing the current timeline on the "quick" response of the first sample submission. So in other words, "Soon" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 1:07:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: m411b30]
[#27]
Not sure if this has been posted in this thread already, or not. But this has been approved in the past by ATF. Old news!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/28/2015 1:12:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Does franklin armory have a release date, im interested in this. have a lower waiting to accept it.
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:35:49 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: Originally Posted By 50cal: How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:39:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tohbii: Does franklin armory have a release date, im interested in this. have a lower waiting to accept it. The release date is whenever the BATFE decides to approve the trigger. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/2/2015 11:44:18 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xtreme762: Not sure if this has been posted in this thread already, or not. But this has been approved in the past by ATF. Old news!  https://youtu.be/aZfj6n_sN_8 https://youtu.be/OvmBqeuDzIM That is beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 5:58:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheOtherDave]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Roadblock:
The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Roadblock:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By 50cal:
How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. I've had a Taccon since th y came out, it's not really a bump fire trigger-it has what they call a positive reset function. Imagine a.gun with trigger slap, like one of the AKs that are painful l to shoot.... Now imagine that trigger slap had a spring loading so that it didn't hurt, just helped your finger forward to the reset position. That is what a Taccon trigge does. If you mash the trigger back, the spring isn't strong enough to overcome your finger pull on the trigger, but with a light pull it pushes it back to where you are ready to fire again, instead of having to manually palpitate your finger on the trigger, you only have to pull back, and with the right pressure and rhythm you end up mimicking full auto fire. I like my Taccon trigger, and will be very happy to try the Franklin trigger and hopefully the Gieselle if it is approved. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 6:03:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave: I've had a Taccon since th y came out, it's not really a bump fire trigger-it has what they call a positive reset function. Imagine a.gun with trigger slap, like one of the AKs that are painful l to shoot.... Now imagine that trigger slap had a spring loading so that it didn't hurt, just helped your finger forward to the reset position. That is what a Taccon trigge does. If you mash the trigger back, the spring isn't strong enough to overcome your finger pull on the trigger, but with a light pull it pushes it back to where you are ready to fire again, instead of having to manually palpitate your finger on the trigger, you only have to pull back, and with the right pressure and rhythm you end up mimicking full auto fire. I like my Taccon trigger, and will be very happy to try the Franklin trigger and hopefully the Gieselle if it is approved. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave: Originally Posted By Roadblock: Originally Posted By Muad: Originally Posted By 50cal: How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. I've had a Taccon since th y came out, it's not really a bump fire trigger-it has what they call a positive reset function. Imagine a.gun with trigger slap, like one of the AKs that are painful l to shoot.... Now imagine that trigger slap had a spring loading so that it didn't hurt, just helped your finger forward to the reset position. That is what a Taccon trigge does. If you mash the trigger back, the spring isn't strong enough to overcome your finger pull on the trigger, but with a light pull it pushes it back to where you are ready to fire again, instead of having to manually palpitate your finger on the trigger, you only have to pull back, and with the right pressure and rhythm you end up mimicking full auto fire. I like my Taccon trigger, and will be very happy to try the Franklin trigger and hopefully the Gieselle if it is approved. The Geissele was NOT approved. I believe Bill posted in the thread in GD about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/3/2015 6:36:31 PM EDT
[#34]
i want this trigger.
Waiting for ATF approval fucking sucks 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 12:46:00 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: The Geissele was NOT approved. I believe Bill posted in the thread in GD about it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad: Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: Originally Posted By Roadblock: Originally Posted By Muad: Originally Posted By 50cal: How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. I've had a Taccon since th y came out, it's not really a bump fire trigger-it has what they call a positive reset function. Imagine a.gun with trigger slap, like one of the AKs that are painful l to shoot.... Now imagine that trigger slap had a spring loading so that it didn't hurt, just helped your finger forward to the reset position. That is what a Taccon trigge does. If you mash the trigger back, the spring isn't strong enough to overcome your finger pull on the trigger, but with a light pull it pushes it back to where you are ready to fire again, instead of having to manually palpitate your finger on the trigger, you only have to pull back, and with the right pressure and rhythm you end up mimicking full auto fire. I like my Taccon trigger, and will be very happy to try the Franklin trigger and hopefully the Gieselle if it is approved. The Geissele was NOT approved. I believe Bill posted in the thread in GD about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 9:52:30 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
The Geissele was NOT approved. I believe Bill posted in the thread in GD about it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Originally Posted By Roadblock:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By 50cal:
How is the concept of this trigger system different than the TAC Con? Going to be firing a TAC Con trigger at a shoot this sunday, will be interesting to see the 2 compared. This unit is supposed to drop the hammer when you pull the trigger to the rear, and when you release it forward. The 3MR from Tac-con simply claims to allow you to increase RPM with their assisted reset. The Tac-con trigger is more of a bump fire system. Their assist helps bump the trigger but it still relies on the way you hold the trigger and the pressure you apply. Different users will get different results depending on finger size, how well they feather the trigger etc. The Franklin is one shot when you pull, one shot when you release in 3rd mode.Think about how fast YOU can manually dump a full 30 round mag. You basically double that speed. I've had a Taccon since th y came out, it's not really a bump fire trigger-it has what they call a positive reset function. Imagine a.gun with trigger slap, like one of the AKs that are painful l to shoot.... Now imagine that trigger slap had a spring loading so that it didn't hurt, just helped your finger forward to the reset position. That is what a Taccon trigge does. If you mash the trigger back, the spring isn't strong enough to overcome your finger pull on the trigger, but with a light pull it pushes it back to where you are ready to fire again, instead of having to manually palpitate your finger on the trigger, you only have to pull back, and with the right pressure and rhythm you end up mimicking full auto fire. I like my Taccon trigger, and will be very happy to try the Franklin trigger and hopefully the Gieselle if it is approved. The Geissele was NOT approved. I believe Bill posted in the thread in GD about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/4/2015 9:41:20 PM EDT
[#37]
Originally Posted By sagmill: They are not going to approve it so it looks like it will never see the market. Not much can be done about it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 1:27:43 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Muad:
Originally Posted By sagmill:
They are not going to approve it so it looks like it will never see the market. Not much can be done about it. Why |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 9:10:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Usually it's because they either are struggling with intellectual honesty, or are boxed in by earlier approvals or denials they have made.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2015 11:16:00 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheOtherDave:
Usually it's because they either are struggling with intellectual honesty, or are boxed in by earlier approvals or denials they have made. With the upcoming court cases its going to be hard to justify the no MG after 922o passed law with approvals for triggers that allow you to shoot at the same number of rounds per minute. I'll bet the Director of the ATF is wishing he had a time machine to go back and kill the bumpfire stock and the Taccon trigger. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/7/2015 4:47:36 AM EDT
[#41]
I would definately definately be interested in one of these FCGs, particulary for a 9mm build. For a 5.56 lower that might host a more accurate type upper I would be apt to prefer a really light clean trigger. I figure that I can hammer out 3-400 RPM at a target at close range if I needed too. IMO, that is enough for a rifle chambering.
But for a 9mm, or other pistol cal, which is weak, this trigger would help compensate for the poor effectiveness of handgun cartridges. A 9mm carbine suppressed shooitng 147 g w/ one of these triggers would be about as quite & lethal as a weapon as you could get, a poor man's suppressed SMG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 3:49:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Fuck the BATFE.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 3:51:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mr_Smiley]
[#43]
lol I was just thinking about this thread...
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 7:56:51 AM EDT
[#44]
We gotta keep bumping this thread so we all know when the trigger gets released. That way we can all bombard Franklin Armory for these triggers, and cause a 5yr. lead time on the part..
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 12:48:20 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xtreme762:
We gotta keep bumping this thread so we all know when the trigger gets released. That way we can all bombard Franklin Armory for these triggers, and cause a 5yr. lead time on the part.. You forgot the part of the story where the trigger sucks and people take it in the ass in the EE scrambling to sell them and recoup some of their money. It would be great if the story ended differently, but I am not holding my breath. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 6:20:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
You forgot the part of the story where the trigger sucks and people take it in the ass in the EE scrambling to sell them and recoup some of their money. It would be great if the story ended differently, but I am not holding my breath. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
Originally Posted By xtreme762:
We gotta keep bumping this thread so we all know when the trigger gets released. That way we can all bombard Franklin Armory for these triggers, and cause a 5yr. lead time on the part.. You forgot the part of the story where the trigger sucks and people take it in the ass in the EE scrambling to sell them and recoup some of their money. It would be great if the story ended differently, but I am not holding my breath. OR THE TRIGGER WILL BE AMAZING AND WOMEN WILL BE SUCKING MY DICK JUST SO THEY CAN DO MAG DUMPS ON MY BCM |
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 6:32:12 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tohbii:
OR THE TRIGGER WILL BE AMAZING AND WOMEN WILL BE SUCKING MY DICK JUST SO THEY CAN DO MAG DUMPS ON MY BCM Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tohbii:
Originally Posted By evlblkwpnz:
Originally Posted By xtreme762:
We gotta keep bumping this thread so we all know when the trigger gets released. That way we can all bombard Franklin Armory for these triggers, and cause a 5yr. lead time on the part.. You forgot the part of the story where the trigger sucks and people take it in the ass in the EE scrambling to sell them and recoup some of their money. It would be great if the story ended differently, but I am not holding my breath. OR THE TRIGGER WILL BE AMAZING AND WOMEN WILL BE SUCKING MY DICK JUST SO THEY CAN DO MAG DUMPS ON MY BCM and then you wake up from that dream and realize that still doesn't happen |
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 9:33:14 PM EDT
[#48]
So much for using good trigger control and follow-through.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2015 9:49:17 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CavScout8: So much for using good trigger control and follow-through. |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 4/11/2015 12:09:57 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F:
There have been certain weapons approved by ATF in the past and released as title 1 firearms that had "safety sears" installed to prevent out of battery detonation/firing. If a weapon has a sear which prevents it from firing out of battery, it greatly simplifies safely converting it to fully automatic fire- I have seen an SOT convert a title 1 weapon in a manner similar to what you describe (simply removing a pin or some other simple adjustment) and then registering the weapon as their own manufactured machine gun. Said weapons, which I shall not name, were never recalled or reclassified- rather their designs were quietly changed at a certain cutoff and production continued. There has been great speculation that as tens of thousands of such weapons were sold, ATF simply didn't want to have to track them all down- nor did they want people realizing what they had or why ATF wanted them. So that is my theory. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RockHard13F:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Originally Posted By RockHard13F:
Originally Posted By Mr_Smiley:
Originally Posted By Muad:
Update from Franklin on their facebook page: "Recently we received a response from the ATF regarding our Binary Firing System. The ATF Firearms Technology Branch thoroughly evaluated the trigger and affirmed that the concept of a "pull-release" design is congruent with a semiautomatic definition. However, the FTB staff have required that we make one change to the design. This change has already been made, and a sample will be shipped to the ATF-FTB in the very near future. We hope that the secondary review doesn't take another 90 days, but we look forward to informing everyone as we progress on this long awaited product." That's great news...I wonder what the change was. If the original design required anything "extra" to keep your weapon from firing out of battery, I'd bet they are making them remove it. I too would be very curious to see a before and after of the original design versus V2.0. Interesting theory...expand on that. I'd think they'd need to ensure no out of battery discharge and that the ATF would want it there but I'm curious to hear why you think that's the case. If anything, I suspect that they required the manufacture to use a more permanent attaching method for the components that keep the hammer from dropping before the trigger is released. If said component could be easily removed by simply pushing a pin out, the trigger group could probably be converted to run full auto by simply taking a part out of the assembly. Wes There have been certain weapons approved by ATF in the past and released as title 1 firearms that had "safety sears" installed to prevent out of battery detonation/firing. If a weapon has a sear which prevents it from firing out of battery, it greatly simplifies safely converting it to fully automatic fire- I have seen an SOT convert a title 1 weapon in a manner similar to what you describe (simply removing a pin or some other simple adjustment) and then registering the weapon as their own manufactured machine gun. Said weapons, which I shall not name, were never recalled or reclassified- rather their designs were quietly changed at a certain cutoff and production continued. There has been great speculation that as tens of thousands of such weapons were sold, ATF simply didn't want to have to track them all down- nor did they want people realizing what they had or why ATF wanted them. So that is my theory. Is it OK to mention the SKS ? |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
