The gen ii works great in an SBR as long as you tune the rifle. I found that 300 blackout is the most problematic but with tuning it will run fast too. With blackout a lightweight carrier and a carbine buffer solves the problem. As soon as I get a Fostech ECHO I'll tell you more on how it runs in my sbrs

If I were to put this in a PSA carbine, would I need to adjust anything other than maybe the buffer spring?

ALSO -- what would happen should somebody use this with a bump fire stock? Buzz saw?

It depends some people just change the spring and are good and others need more. The red sprinco spring seems to solve most problems with hammer follow on a normal buffer tube setup.  I don't think a bump fire stock will do anything but ruin your binary fun if you used it with the BFS

I ran a standard buffer, lw aim carrier and sprinco orange spring.

 

Lot's of guys are having pretty good success with standard parts. I also think the new trigger will be easier to run since they dropped the BUD.


Mix it with a bumpstock and you will need an aluminum carrier for any semblance of reliability.

 
If you're speaking about the Gen3, possible all you'd need is the stronger buffer spring (which they are supposedly going to include with the Gen3 BFS).


I plan to test the BFS with the standard carbine spring in my DDM4v11, and then move up to the SpringCo Red which ran 100% with the pre-production trigger I used in this video.


The Gen2 required some tuning with most rifles. Some rifles seemed to run fine without any tuning. It was on a case by case basis. However, in the event that tuning was required, running a LW carrier and SpringCo Red seemed to work well in most rifles (including mine).

Preventing hammer follow is the whole point of a trip. The BFS does not use one? Then, as said, that's a point for the ECHO. I, too, was dismayed at Fostech for "correcting" for poor geometry by scalloping the front lower of the rear carrier tube. That's not cool in my book. You mod the TRIGGER trip to fit the carrier.. not the other way around. What Fostech SHOULD have done was correct the issue by squaring off the top trip surface to match the squared up carrier edge... not scallop the carrier edge to match the sloped trip surface. This seems like a bubba fix, and I'm glad I canceled on my order.
Yet I don't like the BFS either, since it has no trip at all (IMHO, the ECHO has the idea right, with a mechanical trip to prevent hammer follow. Too bad they bubba'd it up). I'm not a fan of either, at this point.

My theory is that the ATF requested it be done that way. They may have thought it was too similar to a drop in auto sear and could be easily converted into one.

Quite possibly. Why Fostech has the "custom" carrier is quite strange. I was upset at first over issues using a piston carrier. Then I realized that it will be no big deal. A trip to the machine shop does NOT even seem to be needed. Ten minutes with a Dremel and you should be G2G. The scallops (ramps) do not seem to be anything precision.

Didn't I see somewhere in this thread that Franklin thinks that Fostech may not get ATF approval until Dec 2016? I am sure I saw that. What does everyone think or have to say about that? There are even some at Franklin that think the sear trip will never get final approval from the ATF. (too much like a RDIAS).

Me? I have no idea or comment, except I hope they DO get approval.  I would like to see what others think about this.

MUAD: YGM!

 
I think we all want to see the extra "sear" get approved, as that would enable others to have a "similar" design (since I'm pretty sure that's not a patented item). That could really open up some options for various other platforms, and as always competition is good for us the consumers.

I certainly hope so.

Can we get a the letter for the gen II ? I have to keep asking for it

Thank you for clearing this up FranklinArmory! So, I  DID remember you posting about this earlier.
To onealphay2k, why would you embarrass yourself with that particularly snarky post?
This is the one forum where I actually expect to be talking to adults like MUAD and FA, and Jaqufrost. Thanks guys for helping make this a great thread!

Why do you have to be like that bosundave?  Do you not have a sense of humor?  I am not embarrassed, I was not snarky, I was just using humor to point out what is very obvious to many here. I apologize if this hurt your feelings as that was not my intent.  Please feel free to speculate as much as you like.  I encourage you and your adult friends continue to dream up many wonderful scenarios and glorious possibilities. I would like to point out that the only one who can truly answer the questions regarding the Fostech Echo is Fostech, and they have been very silent and will probably continue so please carry on and don't let me ruin your fun.

Alright guys, lets keep on topic so we don't get this thread shutdown.

Fingers crossed they start shipping soon, as I'm itching to get more finger time with the Gen3.

/\ this



i'm just standing by to hear when these start shipping



 

         This trigger sounds awesome but I just want to confirm from you guys that have used the earlier versions that this will work okay on a 9mm AR?

I don't see why not. The trigger works in the Sig MPX 9mm which has even less in common with an AR15.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vlLsU7RcW8

 
There were several guys in the Gen2 BFS thread that were running the BFS successfully with their 9mm ARs.


Original thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/666636_New_three_position_trigger_from_Franklin_Armory___Update_testing_underway.html

     Thanks guys I will be in for one of these triggers as soon as they release them.  

It was very finicky. On the older gen ii you had to mod the bolt to get the hammer to fit in the channel. If you wanted no hammer follow you had to use a spacer that would not allow the bolt catch to operate. I was really not that impressed with the BFS gen ii on my 9mm. For me the BFS worked best on a 556 or a highly tuned 300 blackout. That said the gen iii has fixed the bolt problem by using a standard hammer. I wait to test the gen iii BFS and fostech ECHO on my ar9.

Any update on when this version will ship?

this,

i'm patient but curious.

I would greatly appreciate at least a approx date as we customers paid up front.

They noted on page three that it would be later this month: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/697945_Franklin_Armory_Gen_3_BFS_Released_.html&page=3#i7244676

 

Any thing us "cloners" can do to get standard issue switches to work?

-Any thing us guys with 7N6 ammo forts can do to fire these rounds off now with your trigger?

Any answer would be good

I would swap a Wolff XP hammer spring into the new trigger to run it with 7N6.



 

 
The Gen3 looks to use a standard, full-power hammer spring. Do standard AR FCGs ignite 7N6?


If so, the Gen3 BFS should work fine.

5.45 and 7.62x39 setups often times have issues with standard weight hammer springs.  I would put a Wolff XP spring in any lower I planned to run 5.45 or 7.62x39 in.



 

 
Good to know, thank you sir!


I've never dealt with either, so I was just checking.

I also recommend an enhanced firing pin (.010 longer) for setups that will shoot combloc ammunition.  If you have both an XP spring and an extended firing pin, you shouldn't have any issues with light strikes.

Exactly, who in this thread has an AutoCAD 3D modeler and specs on this trigger to second guess the design?  You can put up and Google Drive us the file if you aren't talking out your ass.

 

roger, i saw the original post on page 3, and I get that these are brand new, I am just wondering if there was any new update as its past the middle of the month.

I got a stripped lower that is really lonely and bugging me about when his companion is gonna get here is all...

 
Understood.


I'm anxious to get my finger back on one as well.


Franklin normally pulls through on their promises, so if they're saying end of the month for shipping to start, I'm believing that's when they'll start shipments.

Right...



I was turned off by the high price to begin with. This is the type of thing that has a coolness factor for about 2 range trips to show off to your buddies. When I saw the new design, I figured it would be like half the price because it seems so much simpler.



This would be cool to use a few times for fun but after that I just need a GOOD quality trigger for target and hunting, the Geissele do that.



Sooner or later someone will come out with one of these and it will be like $100 dollars, just like those cheap drop in's that came out not too long ago but works great!
 

I'd like to know if I place my order how long it would take?  Just curious how many pre orders you have ahead of me?

Very nice, I have my MPX, M&P 15-22, and Colt standing by. If it works I'm ordering two more.

Very cool. Thanks for the update

As long as certain patents are being held and enforced, I see your prediction as being highly unlikely. Even in it's semi auto mode, the Gen 3 has all the same characteristics of any of most of the  nigh end triggers in the $225-$265 price range. The only thing that has come down in price lately is the heinously overpriced Tac Con trigger. It used to $500 (for nothing better than a premium $250 trigger). Now they are $375. I can only seeing the grossly uninformed buying a Tac Con for even a penny more than $250. How is that company still in business? Are there THAT many gun owners who blindly waste $500 or $375 dollars? That thought scares me.

Even if Fostech  gets approval on their final design (looking NOT likely BTW) then I still dont see either company wanting to get in a price war. Both have years and years of R&D costs, legal fees, and investment in infrastructure to recoup.

All of the above facts PLUS the never ending stratospheric (RISING!) costs of NFA full auto guns AND the very real fact that the BFS trigger DOES come very close to a real full auto...all fuel the idea that we will never see a binary trigger come in a $100. In fact, I can't see the price coming down any time soon at all.

Remember Tac Con? They sold their triggers at a whopping $500...and those didnt work an iota better than many $225 triggers. I think they were horrible in semi auto too. Where the FA is excellent in semi auto. Some one correct me if I am wrong on any of my facts. I may be. I will edit my post to be 100% accurate if needed.

We did see bump fire stocks come down in price...a lot because:
1) There did not seem to be much of any patents on this.
2) Competition
3) You were stuck with a crappy stock if you wanted to move to "slide fire" at a moments notice
4) The average shooter could not control  shot placement well.
5) The whole GUN moves.
6) Super expensive to use because of cost of ammo since the stocks seem good ONLY for mag dumps or long bursts. (As opposed to the BFS which can be used only
   for double taps or just in it's semi auto mode)
7) Shooters realized it is a strict novelty item with ZERO practical application. Item would as a result rarely be used.
8) Shooting in semi auto sucks too.

A binary trigger used ONLY as a fast double tap item and not a mag dump item has real value to competition shooters. Its tactical applications are presently being hotly debated. I want to say that any  debate can end in .009 seconds by shifting the safety lever to ordinary semi auto. End of debate.Not really. But you get my point.

I know there are plenty shooter who intend to use the trigger tactically and others on the fence and many who say "never".
$475 for a trigger is a LOT of money for me. I dont care. I must HAVE one. Me and many others say the same thing.
When I train CQB with my AR, I exclusively use double taps. I would LOVE to have a binary trigger!

Dont hold your breath waiting for the Echo.

In light of what Franklin said (see above) you may be in for a longer wait than you anticipated. Anything can happen, including the sear trip NOT being approved. In which case the Fostech will have to revert back to its original design with out the sear trip. That design DID get approval, BTW.  I have no idea how favorably or unfavorably the original Fostech/Hawbaker design would compare to the BFS. At least there would be no "custom" bolt carrier involved.

Again we all thank you for your kind updates. Wish ALL companies would have this responsibility to maintain such a level of transparency.

7N6 requires a heavy hammer spring to ignite hard primers.  I emailed Franklin Armory about using heavy hammer springs.  They replied that they don't know they haven't tested it with a heavy hammer spring.
With a standard or mil-spec trigger, when the trigger is pulled the hammer is being pulled back slightly, further compressing the hammer spring. A heavy hammer spring therefore causes an extremely heavy trigger pull. The BFS GEN 3 appears to use the same hammer release geometry as a standard AR15 or mil-spec trigger.  If so, it appears the BFS GEN 3 will have the same horrendous trigger pull as a mil-spec trigger when a heavy spring is utilized.

 
I may have to buy the Wolf XP spring to test with the Gen3, just so I can get a pull weight measurement.

I rephrased my question to FA and received this email reply...Yes it does. I just confirmed with tech dept. A heavier hammer spring will increase trigger pull.

I'm going to wait for someone to come out with a binary trigger using better hammer release geometry.  I emailed Fostech but never received a reply.  

Good day all,
DG

I just wish they would be transparent with the gen ii ATF letter...hint hint FA