I saw a post earlier on another board that got me thinking. So, I thought back to somewhere I read that some odd type of AK fired once when the trigger is pulled, then again when the trigger is released.

So, I thought that since that is 2 functions it seems to be legal. So, I began trying to come up with a design in my head for a mechanism for an AR-15 to perform a similar function.

Well, I came up with one. There are 2 problems I can think of off the top of my head after trying to visualize in my head the function of the mechanism.

1) It would require an M16 Hammer. But, since it would be semi-auto. and utilize both latches, then the M16 Hammer would in fact not be used solely in a MG. But, I wonder what the ATF would think.

2) An AR-15 Hammer is missing the Auto Sear Latch which is what my design would use to lock the hammer back after firing. When, the trigger is released, the latch would be disengaged from the Auto Sear latch allowing the hammer to release. But, if an AR-15 hammer were used, there would be nothing to catch the hammer and lock it back. Therefore it would slam-fire a 2 round burst. I think this would be the part that would kill it legally.

3) I thought about making the mechanism and sending it to the Tech Branch for an opinion. But, I began thinking if they ruled it illegal, then they might throw me in Club Fed.

What is your opinion ?

I belive the ATF considers ANY M-16 parts in an AR-15 makes the AR-15 a firearm that has been converted to full-auto.

A big no-no.

Av.

The condition where a rifle fires once when the trigger is pulled, and once when it's released is a malfunction known as "doubling".

ATF does consider it to be full auto operation, but if it's not intentional, they'll allow you to replace or fix the disconnector engagement to correct the problem.

Doubling or tripling can be a common malfunction with worn fire control parts - and often occurs when someone tries an at-home trigger smoothing job and gets a little too eager with a whetstone.

A purpose-built doubling system would almost certainly be considered a machinegun conversion by the ATF.

dose not sound like it would posable.  I think the ATF would consider that a MG because it would fire more than one round with a complete trigger pull.  The trigger needs to reset before another round could be fired, so if it fired a round right after the trigger reset then I think it would be ok.

nevermind... looks like it would not be ok

[b]The term "machinegun" as used in this chapter means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.[/b] 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. The term also includes any weapon deemed by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as readily convertible to a machinegun under Chapter 53 (commencing with Section 5801) of Title 26 of the United States Code.

Wait…
If you made a rifle that did not have a trigger mechanism and would fire automatically as soon as you chambered the first round would it be a machinegun?  [b]‘by a single function of the trigger’[/b], in our little scenario there would be no trigger…

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! For a shitload of obvious reasons.  These debates are fruitless and do nothing but muster unwanted scrutiny.