Anybody own one? Anybody shot one? I have seen videos, but, well, that means nothing. If you have any experience with one, please share your thoughts, impressions, and conclusions. I am asking for both fact and opinion, but only from those with a basis to provide either.
I don't think they have started shipping them yet. Production did not start until late May so it may be a while before we have a chance to try one out. This does not eliminate the possibility that there may be some in circulation. Fostec Outdoors/Mossberg has one they call the "Echo Trigger" and you're not supposed to be able to out run it like you can the binary. At close to $500 for a trigger you need to have a huge desire to run through your ammo in short order. I plan on trying one or maybe both out as soon as I can. Looks like it will the middle of 2017 before we can get our hands on them. By then the ATF may switch gears and require form 4 for them.
I think some have them in production. http://franklin-armory.myshopify.com/products/binary-firing-system-gen-iii-trigger-pack video review http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/01/09/binary-firing-system-better-bumpfire/
Both the Fostech and the Franklin Armory binary triggers have major discussions at ar15.com. Lots of personal testing, modifications, what-ifs, etc. I doubt you'll find more information anywhere on the net. Original Franklin Armory thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/...ranklin_Armory___Update_testing_underway.html Updated Franklin Armory thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/...__Update_08_31_Triggers_are_shipping____.html Original Fostech thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/688703_Fostech_ECHO_Trigger__How_is_this_legal_.html Updated Fostech thread: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/702614_Fostech_Echo_Update_Vid___Informative.html
So Franklin Armory is actually posting. Cool. They say if the ATF approves a sear trip, Fostech will have an early lead. What is a sear trip and what sort of improvement does it make? I find this technology very fascinating. Brilliant people.
All I know is, I want one bad, and will be getting one soon unless awful reviews start surfacing to convince me otherwise.
Also, there's an issue with the Fostech sear (if I understand it correctly) that has to do with the "potential" (there's that word the ATF loves) for playing with the sear (timing) to initiate true automatic fire.
I know it sounds expensive but you have to compare that $500 to the cost of a transferable auto. The last M16 I saw for sale was $16,000. That was during the lowest part of the economic downturn. I doubt you can buy one for that now.
The price difference between a binary trigger and a transferable full auto can buy you a lot of ammo. And no government permission slip required.
Is the DOJ's announcement today putting these out of business? See page 21 https://www.justice.gov/file/1046006/download
https://www.ar15.com/forums/general...-looks-that-way--you-be-the-judge-/5-2107005/ Discussion related to this issue on AR15.com Franklin Armory chimes in on page 2 to argue that the new regulation does not affect their product. I think they are wrong . . .
I would appreciate hearing thoughtful comments from the members posting here. Anybody? Mrs_Esterhouse, do you think the new regulation encompasses binary triggers? Franklin Armory says no. I say yes.
The main key I see in it is... "Finally the Department proposes to clarify the definition of a "machinegun" includes a device that allows semiautomatic firearms to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semiautomatic firearm to which it is affixed so the trigger resets and continues firing without additional manipulation of the trigger by the shooter (commonly known as bump-stock-type-devices)." The above is from page 21 that has been specifically pointed to for discussion. A binary trigger does not harness the recoil energy and does require additional manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. It is a stretch on the code to even put fourth such a statement that it doesn't require additional manipulation of the trigger when the recoil only allows the trigger to reset. It takes an additional force by the shooter to push the recoiled rifle back out to again engage the trigger. I think it doesn't include the binary trigger with the text we have at hand. I also think when the final comes down it will be worded to also include the binary trigger. I also think there is a good ex post facto case to be had. I could put in a lot more "I thinks" but I was told thinking is dangerous since I'm not used to it.
I think that if the feds can play fast and loose with the statutory definition of "machine gun" to interpret it to apply to subconsciously pulling the trigger once per shot, but at a rate faster than your nerves and muscles would allow... ... it's only a short step to also say that releasing the trigger, even intentionally and deliberately, is not a separate action from pulling the trigger. ATF can say that a "single function" of the trigger is a conscious and individually-executed cycle of press (gun discharges) and release (gun doesn't discharge). Getting two shots out of one press-and-release trigger function is a machinegun, they'll say. But ATF would have to come up with a new notice of proposed rulemaking, changing (or just creating) the regulatory scheme regarding triggers. I don't think that the current proposal that has been kicked around for over a year and has generated hundreds of thousands of public comments really addresses this issue. It merely lays the groundwork for future proposed Rules and new administrative regulations.