All they did was automate "fanning" to a degree not possible in human hands to test Kid Curry's claim that he could drop a silver dollar from shoulder height and fire five shots from a single action revolver before it hit the ground.

I don't see how their contraption could be constituted as illegal as it's completely impractical and impossible to replicate outside the framework of the experiment. Plus, they frequently work in close cooperation with law enforcement and I'm sure their bases were covered.

I saw the show, I think the gun they used in the contraption was cap and ball, if so it's not even a firearm so no violation there.  If not then I think they just messed up and never thought about it being a machinegun.


The supposed shooting expert they brought in was not even bright enough to understand that to fire that fast you fan the hammer with your 4 fingers in a row not with your palm.

They should have hired Bob Munden.

tag for vid

Quoted: They should have hired Bob Munden.

+1

I met him at the '95 Bianchi Cup. Great guy and very good with a single action revo.

Like they say at the beginning of the show: Don't try this at home - we're what you call experts.

Ok I have it down to 41mb.  I don't feel like signing up on google or youtube so if there is anyone with an account that wants to upload it let me know.

Nevermind I'm putting it up on tiny pic

VID LINK

Quoted: VID LINK

Hah... so they did make a machine gun.

Quoted: Did they just make a device for automatically firing a gun and show it functioning on TV IN CALIFORNIA?

Considering they used a muzzle loading firearm....I doubt it was a legal problem.  

The episode was a good effort for a bunch of amateurs. And apparently they aren't familiar with how easily the hands of these repro black powder revolvers break....

They should have just talked to Bob Munden. "Lightning Larry" is molases next to Bob.

its not covered by nfa

because its a muzzle loader.

they need to lawyer up.

even if they only used it on the black poweder pistols isnt it still considered conversion parts? it can be fitted to anyone of the weapons on site.

I like how their neighbors came out and gave them shit about the noise and gunfire.

I never thought what it would be like to have a business near the Myth busters shop.

They shot blanks except when actually trying to hit something.

A muzzle loading 6 shot machine gun!

Quoted: they need to lawyer up. even if they only used it on the black poweder pistols isnt it still considered conversion parts? it can be fitted to anyone of the weapons on site.

Exactly what I was thinking.  Did the thing have a S/N, and any other ATF required IDs?

Videos don't load too well on 56Kmodems @ 5.6kb/s.

Dave.

if they had known they were mfg a machinegun i think there would have been a disclaimer by the narrator. but there wasn't. i think they have no clue that they just broke the law under the NFA (which violates the 2nd amendment anyway :P )

Isn't there a reward for reporting the illegal manufacture and possesion of a fully automatic firearm?

1-800-ATF-GUNS   ATF Firearms Hotline

Quoted: I watched that episode this evening and didn't even think of it, but HELL YEAH! If it was the old .36 Colt Navy then they are probably OK.  I think even felons can own muzzleloaders and cap and ball pistols.  If it was the peacemaker then they were in violation of the law I'll bet. I think I may have noticed a shoestring as well.

Not in Illinois

It is a muzzle loader machine gun. I want one.

They must not have tried too hard to find an "expert"...that guy was LAMO.
I shoot with guys who are WAYYYYYYY faster and more accurate with a SAA.
BTW - Gatling guns are fun, and don't fall under NFA

Quoted: its not covered by nfa because its a muzzle loader.

what would happen if they replaced the cylinder with a bar holding the loads. its still a muzzle loader , and it has to have caps put on the nipples. have the revolver rotating mechanisim move the bar sideways. have the bar hold 20-30 loads.

would this be a machine gun? using the mythbusters rig of course.

if not I might plan on making one or at least writing a letter to the ATF-FTB.

Quoted: BTW - Gatling guns are fun, and don't fall under NFA

gattling guns fire only one round per click of the handle ,they are title 1 firearms, try ordering one through mail without an FFL. put an electric motor on one and you have a mini-gun ,which is a title 2 gun.

i guess nobody noticed adam is wearing an atf shirt during parts of that episode.

Looks like they made a machine pistol to me. 1 trigger pull = 6 shots = 10 years. It also looks like any revolver could work in that machine = intent = 10 years in the FPMITA pen. Common folk have been convicted on FAR FAR less.

-JTP

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I missed the episode...is there a video clip somewhere? I would be shocked if they didn't have some sort of exemption as much as they use firearms on their show.. BUT..  who knows... Their "day jobs" are prop builders for movies, and as such they are licensed to get away with LOTS more than us mere mortals when it comes to firearms. Please direct me to the Hollywood "prop builder" exception in the NFA.

Quoted: I thought many (most?) of the prop companies that use and provide guns for movies are 07/02 FFL's and can legally make full-auto stuff for their use.

Oooohh..........You guys are so unbelievable............






Get off your 'puter and go vote!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I missed the episode...is there a video clip somewhere? I would be shocked if they didn't have some sort of exemption as much as they use firearms on their show.. BUT..  who knows... Their "day jobs" are prop builders for movies, and as such they are licensed to get away with LOTS more than us mere mortals when it comes to firearms. Please direct me to the Hollywood "prop builder" exception in the NFA.   Quoted: I thought many (most?) of the prop companies that use and provide guns for movies are 07/02 FFL's and can legally make full-auto stuff for their use.

there has been quite a bit of conjecture over weather or not this is legal per the '68 and '86 laws. I'm in the camp that says no. I'm not sure that that that manny are FFL or do firearms renting . look at the credits at the end of a big gun movie ,you'll only fing a few names. how are they renting out post samples to a production company?

if nothing else I want in on the money.

I know the answer , why don't we write a letter to the ATF -FTB witha design the same as what they built .

at the same time write a letter to the mythbusters and ask if the filled thier form 2

No pics of the fags in action ?

Someone needs to draw up a harmonica type muzzleloader that runs automatic and bounce it off the tech branch.

Crew served just like those Japanese MG's that had the strip feed. Number 2 on team is feeding the second harmonica while the first fires.

Quoted: Quoted: its not covered by nfa because its a muzzle loader. what would happen if they replaced the cylinder with a bar holding the loads. its still a muzzle loader , and it has to have caps put on the nipples. have the revolver rotating mechanisim move the bar sideways. have the bar hold 20-30 loads. would this be a machine gun? using the mythbusters rig of course. if not I might plan on making one or at least writing a letter to the ATF-FTB.

its still a muzzle loader.

now if they installed one of those "conversion cylinders" its no longer a muzzle loader.

oh oh oh let's tattle on mytbusters.

WTF is with some of you?  Get pushed down on the playground a lot?




If everyone was joking or sarcasting (as my first sentence was) sorry.. such things don't translate well without the "sarcasm" tags or smilies or something!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: its not covered by nfa because its a muzzle loader. what would happen if they replaced the cylinder with a bar holding the loads. its still a muzzle loader , and it has to have caps put on the nipples. have the revolver rotating mechanisim move the bar sideways. have the bar hold 20-30 loads. would this be a machine gun? using the mythbusters rig of course. if not I might plan on making one or at least writing a letter to the ATF-FTB. its still a muzzle loader. now if they installed one of those "conversion cylinders" its no longer a muzzle loader.

why the cylinder from the muzzleloader is removable . and loose powder and ball is loaded into the front of the cylinder.

my idea is the same except the cylinder is flat as slides instead of turning. loose powder and ball is loaded in the front and a cap is put on the rear.

I need a good reason to believe why my idea is not a muzzleloader any more when it loads the same.

I thought the deal with muzzleloaders was that they just weren't considered "guns" according to Federal law.

HOWEVER, does the NFA specifically say "guns" or does it apply to "weapons" or "devices?"

In legal terms, for federal purposes, isn't a "gun" one thing and a "machine-gun" another completely different thing?  

For example, couldn't you have something that propels a projectile at a high velocity, but is not considered a "gun" according to federal law?  But take that same device, and have it expel more than one projectile per function of trigger or activation, and wouldn't it become a machine gun?  Even though it isn't a "gun?"

Aren't there actually many NFA items that aren't really guns, like "wallet" guns and "pen" guns?  Or am I completely talking out of my ass?  I thought the relevant NFA verbage was "weapon" and not "Gun."  

Quoted: I need a good reason to believe why my idea is not a muzzleloader any more when it loads the same.

I believe there were a couple of patents filed for devices similar to what you are talking about.

Quoted: I thought the deal with muzzleloaders was that they just weren't considered "guns" according to Federal law.

They aren't. You can buy one sans background check, order through the mail sans FFL license, and attatch a stock to them without creating an SBR.

HOWEVER, does the NFA specifically say "guns" or does it apply to "weapons" or "devices?" In legal terms, for federal purposes, isn't a "gun" one thing and a "machine-gun" another completely different thing?

I have always been taught that the ATF defined "machine gun" as any device that would fire more than one shot with a pull of a trigger.

For example, couldn't you have something that propels a projectile at a high velocity, but is not considered a "gun" according to federal law?

Air guns are exactly that. Merely firing a projectile does not place something under the BATFE's authority. If you look at the definitions for firearms in federal law, they all mention gunpowder (or some other explosive) propelling the projectile as part of the definition of a firearm.

But take that same device, and have it expel more than one projectile per function of trigger or activation, and wouldn't it become a machine gun?  Even though it isn't a "gun?"

Not if it doesn't use gunpowder:

Aren't there actually many NFA items that aren't really guns, like "wallet" guns and "pen" guns?  Or am I completely talking out of my ass?

Ass, I am afraid. Wallet guns, pen guns, zip guns, lighter guns, etc. all have one thing in common: They fire a modern cartridge. Anything that uses a modern cartridge bullet is going to be under the BATFE's authority.

Currently that does not include cap-and-ball ANYTHING.

I thought the relevant NFA verbage was "weapon" and not "Gun."

In every law that is passed, there is a section that defines the terms used in the law. Look for these definitions in the federal gun laws, and you will see what is and is not regulated:

"§ 5845 Definitions.
For the purpose of this chapter--
(a) Firearm. The term 'firearm' means
(1) a shotgun having a barrel or barrels of
less than 18 inches in length; (2) a
weapon made from a shotgun if such
weapon as modified has an overall length
of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels
of less than 18 inches in length; (3) a
rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than
16 inches in length; (4) a weapon made
from a rifle if such weapon as modified
has an overall length of less than 26
inches or a barrel or barrels of less than
16 inches in length; (5) any other weapon,
as defined in subsection (e); (6) a machinegun;
(7) any silencer (as defined in
section 921 of title 18, United States
Code); and (8) a destructive device. The
term 'firearm' shall not include an antique
firearm or any device (other than a machinegun
or destructive device) which,
although designed as a weapon, the Secretary
finds by reason of the date of its
manufacture, value, design, and other
characteristics is primarily a collector's
item and is not likely to be used as a
weapon.

(b) Machinegun. The term 'machinegun'
means 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. The term
shall also include the frame or receiver of
any such weapon, any part designed and
intended solely and exclusively, or combination
of parts designed and intended,
for use in converting a weapon into a
machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession
or under the control of a person.

(e) Any other weapon. The term 'any
other weapon' means any weapon or
device capable of being concealed on the
person from which a shot can be discharged
through the energy of an explosive,
a pistol or revolver having a barrel
with a smooth bore designed or redesigned
to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons
with combination shotgun and rifle
barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18
inches in length, from which only a single
discharge can be made from either barrel
without manual reloading, and shall include
any such weapon which may be
readily restored to fire. Such term shall
not include a pistol or a revolver having a
rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons
designed, made, or intended to be fired
from the shoulder and not capable of
firing fixed ammunition.

(g) Antique firearm. The term 'antique
firearm' means any firearm not
designed or redesigned for using rim fire
or conventional center fire ignition with
fixed ammunition and manufactured in or
before 1898 (including any matchlock,
flintlock, percussion cap, or similar type of
ignition system or replica thereof, whether
actually manufactured before or after the
year 1898) and also any firearm using
fixed ammunition manufactured in or before
1898, for which ammunition is no
longer manufactured in the United States
and is not readily available in the ordinary
channels of commercial trade.

Damn, someone should send a copy of the video to the ATF and ask for a ruling.

eta: Kidding.  Kind of.

This type of feed with a harmonica that has the nipple facing up to make it harder to make a cartridge firer.

Would it be NFA?

Quoted: This type of feed with a harmonica that has the nipple facing up to make it harder to make a cartridge firer. Would it be NFA?

If you are asking if the weapon pictured is covered by the NFA, yes. That is a machine gun because it can fire multiple shots with a single trigger pull.

If you are asking if a cap-and-ball harmonica type magazine (where each chamber had its own nipple, cap, and ball over the powder) would be an NFA weapon, no, because it does not fit the definition of a firearm.

Quoted: Quoted: I need a good reason to believe why my idea is not a muzzleloader any more when it loads the same. I believe there were a couple of patents filed for devices similar to what you are talking about.

patents can be gotten around

Quoted: patents can be gotten around

The patents I am talking about were filed in the 1800s...

Patent infringement would no longer be a concern.

Quoted: Quoted: This type of feed with a harmonica that has the nipple facing up to make it harder to make a cartridge firer. Would it be NFA? If you are asking if the weapon pictured is covered by the NFA, yes. That is a machine gun because it can fire multiple shots with a single trigger pull. If you are asking if a cap-and-ball harmonica type magazine (where each chamber had its own nipple, cap, and ball over the powder) would be an NFA weapon, no, because it does not fit the definition of a firearm.

that is exactly the kind I'm talking about .

if they don't like the hammer slapping device , build it into the gun and then it could only be used with the muzzleloader design. the same idea behind the semi stens and stuff where the full auto parts can't be used in the semi gun .

Quoted: Quoted: patents can be gotten around The patents I am talking about were filed in the 1800s... Patent infringement would no longer be a concern.

I like it even better.

who uses the nick jlbraunthr over there?