Upon further review;

Discussion in 'Firearms' started by spam_can, Jul 13, 2007.

  1. spam_can

    spam_can New Member

    22
    0
    0
    Didn't want to hijack the other thread about our "friends" at the BATFE, but the phrase "Upon further review" reminds me of a friend who is still in the process of getting royally screwed by the ATF.

    Ever hear of Bill Akin? The Akin's Accelerator? That's a type of "bumpfire" device that Bill was given the go ahead (by ATF) to develop and market. Ran great, too. I know Bill, and have shot with him.

    Long story short, Bill sank a lot of money into R&D, tooling and production and sales, etc. Only to have the BATFE pull the rug right out from under him UPON FURTHER REVIEW.

    There's a pretty good explanation and video of one of the 10/22's being fired on Wikipedia. Sweet concept, and as said, done with ATF approval at first.

    Damned shame what THEY can do!
     
  2. pro2am

    pro2am New Member

    1,861
    0
    0
    I've seen video's of that and heard the story. Its a damn shame that BATFE is so screwed up that they give permission, then take it back like that. Seems its common.
     

  3. foshizzle

    foshizzle New Member

    1,283
    0
    0
    It was my understanding that it was never really approved. The pre-production sample they gave to the ATF for review broke during testing. The letter the ATF sent him stated that it appears not to violate the law, but it would be subject to review at a later date. Well, they later got a working copy that didn't fall apart.. .then it was determined to be a machine-gun.

    It wasn't a total surprise. I think the ATF decision is BS and that it's totally legal, but the mfg of that device isn't exactly in the clear either. He really should have got approval for a WORKING device... not approval for something that "in THEORY, wouldn't be a machine-gun"

    Here are all the letters.

    http://www.firefaster.com/documentation.html
     
  4. spam_can

    spam_can New Member

    22
    0
    0
    Hadn't read those before, thanks for the link;

    I'll have to stay with what I've heard in person, from the man himself, and a good friend of mine (who introduced me to Bill).

    Not good with "legalese", but have to wonder why the broken parts were reported on the SKS prototype when the 10/22 was the first to be approved.
    Don't have any links, but it wouldn't be the first time I've heard or read that those fun loving ATF boys have broken a firearm, or part thereof, then rebuilt it to do just what THEY want to see it do.

    Again, thanks for the link.