So, does anyone know what the ATF considers to be too much of an aid to rapid fire? I know that springs are pretty much a no-no. Are there any other devices that have been ruled to be Machine Guns?
I, like most people here (except the people who have a couple million in pre-86 stuff) hope that the '86 ban will be overturned soon. I personally think its going to happen, especially with this statistic: only 2 people have ever been murdered with an NFA registered MG, and one of those people was murdered by a police officer in '88 with a MAC-11. Kind of a solution without a problem. But until then...
I know that the rush of full-auto fire is quite expensive and doesn't really last very long, but for me that isn't the point. I don't like being denied a right by MY government, so I want to get around the ban like everyone else without risking prosecution. I know that a rubber band and some practice will get you full auto fire, but if it were really the same, no one would pay $15,000 for a Sendra M16...
So here is what I am thinking. The limits of the letter of the law IMO haven't been tested yet. The SSAR stock proves that. It technically cannot be be called a MG because the shooter's bio-metrics are the only thing creating the rapid rate of fire. If they could ban it they would have, they are the ATF...
If I can get a good idea of what in the past has been found to constitute a MG, I might be able to come up with something better than the SSAR that is still legal. At the least the Gatling Gun rule can go a long way for tripod mounted heavy MG's, but those are pretty impractical to most people and cost a small fortune to shoot.