PDA

View Full Version : My 3rd prototype water cooled Ruger 10/22 rifle



Bill Akins
10-02-2010, 05:10 AM
Here's the latest photos of my 3rd prototype machine gun dress up kit stock for the Ruger 10/22.

No modifications of any kind are done to the Ruger 10/22 receiver. It is still factory stock.

3rd prototype, (2nd water cooled prototype) that also quick changes to an air cooled model in just a few seconds. All that's left to do is to fabricate the sights like I did on the last 2nd prototype and fabricate the tripod mount attachment piece for fitting to a standard camera tripod, drill, tap and install the drain plug and hose, get all the aluminum anodized and attach a crank fire trigger attachment to the trigger guard so it can be crank fired like a Gatling. And then get my production line set up. I got several quotes from machine shops for quantities on the parts, and it was just too much. There are actually quite a few parts. And I don't want the hassle of having these made over seas, with shipping and not being able to be there to see and fix any production mistakes. So I have decided to set up my own production line to make these myself in small production lots. I do wish I was able to find a machine shop that could make all the parts for a reasonable price so I don't have to make ALL the parts myself, but with the average cost being between $60. to $90. per shop hour on the quotes we got, that doesn't seem possible. Still will be a little while before they are in production, but getting there little by little. All the end user will have to do is get their factory standard stainless steel tapered barrel end threaded to 1/2 x 28 tpi at a local machine shop. I can make the kit easily work with an .092 bull barrel too, by machining the faux receiver front plate a little differently for the bull barrel.

With 50 rd MWG mag in gun.
http://inlinethumb50.webshots.com/47793/2111168750099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

With 25 rd Tactical Innovations mag in gun
http://inlinethumb39.webshots.com/46246/2233304230099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Quick changed to an air cooled model. Pic taken before I drilled & tapped & added hex button screws to the top cover also before I rounded ejection port ends.

http://inlinethumb07.webshots.com/45446/2137882390099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Your Old Dog
10-02-2010, 07:50 AM
Clever idea. Looks like you got some time into it. Machine shops might be busy now because with the economy the way it is business is deciding to repair existing machinery rather then order new. Until things pick up, you might have a hard time finding prices you can afford. Good luck, thanks for the pics!

bborr01
10-02-2010, 01:42 PM
Nice job Bill.

Do you make your own crank for rapid fire?

I have one that I picked up probably 25 years ago. Made of plastic and it clamps to the trigger guard.

Four shots per revolution of the crank.

It came with a letter from BATF that said it is legal as long as it is not run by a motor or spring, etc. It must be hand cranked.

Good way to burn through a lot of 22's in my 10-22 Ruger.

Do you have any videos of it being fired?

Brian

Evan
10-02-2010, 03:54 PM
It came with a letter from BATF that said it is legal as long as it is not run by a motor or spring, etc. It must be hand cranked.


Better check the state law on that. It's illegal in Ca and in Minnesota.

From the Minnesota statutes:


(d) "Trigger activator" means a removable manual or power driven trigger activating device constructed and designed so that, when attached to a firearm, the rate at which the trigger may be pulled increases and the rate of fire of the firearm increases to that of a machine gun.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.67


That covers ANY type of actuator, hand cranked or otherwise. The penalty is $10,000 and up to five years in prison.

gary350
10-02-2010, 04:20 PM
There has been a lot of law suits related to hand cranks on guns.

There was a company that connected 2 ruger 10-22 rifles together with 1 crank and tripod. As you turn the crank each gun would fire 90 degrees apart on the crank. There is no safety, if someone accident bumps the crank someone might get shot and killed.

There was a company that made crank activators that attached to the trigger of just about any gun. You turn the crank it makes the gun shoot 4 times on one complete turn of the crank. There was no safety, again you accidently bump the crank someone might get shot and killed.

I use to sell the crank activators at gun shows 25 years ago. I had 34 of them left over, I got afraid to sell anymore of them so I trashed them all about 5 years ago.

Last thing I heard was both companies are now out of business.

Bill Akins
10-02-2010, 04:38 PM
Nice job Bill.

Do you make your own crank for rapid fire?

I have one that I picked up probably 25 years ago. Made of plastic and it clamps to the trigger guard.

Four shots per revolution of the crank.

It came with a letter from BATF that said it is legal as long as it is not run by a motor or spring, etc. It must be hand cranked.

Good way to burn through a lot of 22's in my 10-22 Ruger.

Do you have any videos of it being fired?

Brian

Thanks Brian. No I don't make my own crankfired trigger attachment. I use the BMF activator crankfire trigger activator and another brand also called the Gat trigger, BOTH OF WHICH ARE STILL MANUFACTURED AND SOLD. I think the BMF activator is the same one you described. I don't have any videos of this 3rd prototype being fired because I haven't made the mount attachment yet to mount it to a standard camera tripod. But you can see my 1st and 2nd prototypes firing on You Tube if on You Tube you type in "Worlds first water cooled Ruger 10/22"

.

Bill Akins
10-02-2010, 04:44 PM
Better check the state law on that. It's illegal in Ca and in Minnesota.

From the Minnesota statutes:



That covers ANY type of actuator, hand cranked or otherwise. The penalty is $10,000 and up to five years in prison.

Yes that is true. But that is only two states out of the whole country and since I live in Florida I don't have very much to worry about that. And when I finally get around to selling these dress up kits I can still sell them in Ca and Minnesota because I am not selling the crankfire trigger attachment which is made by another manufacturer. People in Ca and Minn can simply use normal style double triggers on each handle of my spade grips. That IS legal in those two states. A trigger for the left hand and a trigger for the right hand. You can get a pretty fast rate of fire going using right and left handed triggers together and those are not illegal in Ca and Minn because they are simply a separate trigger for the right hand and a separate trigger for the left hand. That is not an "actuator" trigger attachment, that is just an ambidextrious trigger for left and right hand shooting. The shooter still has to pull each trigger just as he normally would. It's just he has one for each hand so his left and right hand can share the load and stress of rapidly functioning a trigger for each hand. Neither Ca nor Minn have any laws precluding an ambidextrious left and right hand set of double triggers that are functioned as normal triggers.

Bill Akins
10-02-2010, 04:55 PM
There has been a lot of law suits related to hand cranks on guns.

There was a company that connected 2 ruger 10-22 rifles together with 1 crank and tripod. As you turn the crank each gun would fire 90 degrees apart on the crank. There is no safety, if someone accident bumps the crank someone might get shot and killed.

There was a company that made crank activators that attached to the trigger of just about any gun. You turn the crank it makes the gun shoot 4 times on one complete turn of the crank. There was no safety, again you accidently bump the crank someone might get shot and killed.

I use to sell the crank activators at gun shows 25 years ago. I had 34 of them left over, I got afraid to sell anymore of them so I trashed them all about 5 years ago.

Last thing I heard was both companies are now out of business.

I hate to say this, but you don't know what you are talking about and you obviously have no understanding of firearms or you would understand that the crankfire trigger attachments do not have to have a safety, BECAUSE THE FIREARM ITSELF HAS A SAFETY THAT YOU USE. IF YOU ENGAGE THE FIREARM'S SAFETY, IF YOU "BUMP" THE CRANK, IT STILL WILL NOT FIRE. SHEEEZ! For Pete's sake, please think. If you have a loaded firearm and you "bump" the trigger with your finger it will fire too won't it? But if you engage the safety built into the firearm if you "bump" the trigger it won't fire will it? Same is true with the crankfire activator. Attaching a crankfire activator onto your trigger guard does not disable the safety on your firearm.

There are at least three crankfire trigger activator manufacturers still manufacturing them. BMF activator, The all metal Gat trigger and another one that makes it from plastic also called just "The Gat trigger". So crankfire trigger attachments are very much still in business and still very legal in all but two states.


.

lazlo
10-02-2010, 05:32 PM
There are at least three crankfire trigger activator manufacturers still manufacturing them. BMF activator

Cabela's sells the BMF Activator for $19.99 Someone call the BATF! :D


http://www.cabelas.com/product/BMF-Activator/707343.uts?Ntk=AllProducts&searchPath=/catalog/search.cmd%3Fform_state%3DsearchForm%26N%3D0%26Ntk %3DAllProducts%26Ntt%3Dbmf%2Bactivator%26x%3D0%26y %3D0&Ntt=bmf+activator

http://images.cabelas.com/is/image/cabelas/s7_223017_999_01-1?rgn=0,0,1816,1442&scl=4.778947368421052&fmt=jpeg&id=03FmGCrHxAgzTnoqZ0HwFX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJPDoSSM18A

EddyCurr
10-03-2010, 12:44 AM
Appreciate the youtube link, lazlo.

I wondered how there could be any accuracy when that device was
operated. The video clears up the question.

.

Evan
10-03-2010, 01:01 AM
The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle. I have one and have always been surprised that it wasn't banned here on the grounds that it can be turned into a pistol with about 15 minutes work. The exposed action is clean as a whistle and the stock comes off with just one screw. Chop the barrel and add a grip and bingo! 11 shots with the standard flush magazine and up to 50 or more with the extended versions.

Bill Akins
10-03-2010, 03:11 AM
Appreciate the youtube link, lazlo.

I wondered how there could be any accuracy when that device was
operated. The video clears up the question.

.

The guy in the video wasn't firing accurately at all. But if he had a bipod he would have been much more accurate. My first two prototypes are attached to tripods and they are very accurate. The tripod gives you a degree of accuracy using the BMF activator you just can't get firing it offhand like the guy in the video was doing. Look at me firing my first water cooled prototype in this video link and you will see it doesn't move the gun at all when I crankfire it because it is very secure in the tripod......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFkGUC7Bo5U

JCHannum
10-03-2010, 07:54 AM
The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle. I have one and have always been surprised that it wasn't banned here on the grounds that it can be turned into a pistol with about 15 minutes work. The exposed action is clean as a whistle and the stock comes off with just one screw. Chop the barrel and add a grip and bingo! 11 shots with the standard flush magazine and up to 50 or more with the extended versions.

There are probably about 50,000 other firearms that you can do the same thing to. Should all of them be banned?

BTW, Ruger does make a pistol version of the 10-22.

http://www.ruger.com/products/22Charger/models.html

Evan
10-03-2010, 08:05 AM
There are probably about 50,000 other firearms that you can do the same thing to. Should all of them be banned?


I didn't say that, did I?

JCHannum
10-03-2010, 08:25 AM
I didn't say that, did I?

No, you just said you were surprised the 10-22 had not been banned because of the apparent ease with which it can be turned into a handgun. By extension, are you surprised any rifle that can be easily converted into a handgun is not banned?

That statement can apply to almost any rifle or shotgun made, many can be cut down without even dismantling them. It is against the law to convert any long gun into a handgun.

bborr01
10-03-2010, 09:46 AM
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the link to youtube.

Where was the machine gun shoot held at?

I attended one in Arizona a few years ago. ( more info at mgshooters.com )

Keep up the good work.

Brian

Evan
10-03-2010, 10:21 AM
That statement can apply to almost any rifle or shotgun made, many can be cut down without even dismantling them. It is against the law to convert any long gun into a handgun.


There are few small commonly available long guns that can be converted with the ease of the 10-22. Your link to the Ruger pistol version illustrates that. The key feature of the 10-22 is the total lack of protruding parts on the receiver that makes it possible to carry concealed without worrying about it catching on something. Of course it is illegal. There are a lot of people that don't give a damn about that.

garagemark
10-03-2010, 10:34 AM
Ther may be 50,000 other firearms with "quick modify" actions that could be converted to something more wicked, but one of the key factors in doing these conversions is the relative cost and availability of the pea shooters. Few people would take and chop/ cut/ rebuild a Browning BAR to a quick-fire rifle/ pistol. Simply too expensive.

10-22's are a dime a dozen. Hell if you screwed one up you wouldn't be out much. Just chop it into pieces, toss it in the rubish and go get another used one for less than a hundred bucks (what they cost around here).

Ammunition cost is also usually a limiting factor. That you can rip off 30 rounds in a couple of seconds makes shooting much more expensive... though quite a lot of fun! Anything over a .22 rimfire would be cost prohibitive for most of us.

lazlo
10-03-2010, 10:35 AM
Look at me firing my first water cooled prototype in this video link and you will see it doesn't move the gun at all when I crankfire it because it is very secure in the tripod......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFkGUC7Bo5U

That looks like a lot of fun Bill! A friend in the Austin Metalworking Club just finished one of the Lakeside Machine Browning 1917's (semi-auto, of course). A crankfire would be a nice touch :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnPmXJGHobU

JCHannum
10-03-2010, 01:37 PM
The key feature of the 10-22 is the total lack of protruding parts on the receiver that makes it possible to carry concealed without worrying about it catching on something.

Other than the 3/4" long charging handle, that is.

Evan
10-03-2010, 02:03 PM
Aren't hacksaws wonderful?

JCHannum
10-03-2010, 02:21 PM
Aren't hacksaws wonderful?

What a concept. You will now have an illegal handgun that is a minimum of a foot long, 3" high through the trigger guard, 2" thick and essentially inoperable.

The 10-22 is a neat little gun, and there are a host of accessories and modifications available for it. Bill Akin's kit is one such modification, and I wish him well.

Evan
10-03-2010, 04:20 PM
You will now have an illegal handgun that is a minimum of a foot long, 3" high through the trigger guard, 2" thick and essentially inoperable.


I won't have it but some brain dead punk that wants to hold up a liquor store might.

Bill Akins
10-03-2010, 08:23 PM
Hi Bill,

Thanks for the link to youtube.

Where was the machine gun shoot held at?

I attended one in Arizona a few years ago. ( more info at mgshooters.com )

Keep up the good work.

Brian

Hi Brian.

That MG shoot in the You Tube video was held in Manatee Fl. At the Manatee Sportsmans shooting club.

.

Bill Akins
10-03-2010, 08:30 PM
That looks like a lot of fun Bill! A friend in the Austin Metalworking Club just finished one of the Lakeside Machine Browning 1917's (semi-auto, of course). A crankfire would be a nice touch :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnPmXJGHobU

Thanks, glad you like it lazlo.
I know Eric Graetz the owner of Lakeside Machine. My table was set up right next to his when we were at knob creek in 2006. I wish he would get Emmett Brown to make a crank fire activator that would fit his mini 1919's & 1917's. Emmett makes crankfire activators for full size 1919's and 1917's. As it stands right now, there is no crank fire activator available for the Lakeside guns.
That's why I like using the 10/22 as the host firearm in my dress up kit. I can use a Gat or BMF crankfire activator on it.

Bill Akins
10-03-2010, 08:59 PM
Gee, I just posted to show my latest progress on my 3rd prototype water cooled/air cooled dress up kit for the Ruger 10/22.

Seems my thread got hijacked by Evan who wasn't interested in discussing my prototype build and in fact didn't mention one word about my prototype build, but instead hijacked my thread to discuss how he can't understand how the Ruger 10/22 wasn't banned simply because someone MIGHT illegally chop off its barrel, cut its stock and make a crude handgun out of it. Now I'm sure Evan wasn't meaning to be rude on purpose, but nonetheless a hijacking occurred and then continued to occur. :cool:

There are many many rifles that could be done with, and I guess we could make muffler pipes illegal because I COULD make an illegal sten sub gun out of one, or perhaps we should outlaw galvanized water pipes because with a galvanized pipe, a block of wood, a nail and a rubberband I COULD make an illegal short barreled 12 gauge shotgun out of one and perhaps the subject should be discussed a lot to bring it to the attention of the anti-gunners or maybe someone should call the BATFE to alert them to the fact that the Ruger COULD be made into a pistol, just like a Marlin Glenfield mag fed .22 COULD or the AR7 .22 COULD or a host of other rifles COULD be converted illegally into a handgun, and perhaps we should continue to talk this up about how a Ruger 10/22 COULD be easily converted to a pistol to bring it to the attention of the "authorities" so they can have another excuse to ban more of our guns, and perhaps we could discuss how a king could be a queen if he COULD just get a sex change, but then.......

that wasn't the subject of my thread before it was hijacked was it????? ;) ;) ;)

I'm not mad, just pointing out the obvious.


.

Evan
10-03-2010, 10:10 PM
Seems my thread got hijacked by Evan who wasn't interested in discussing my prototype build and in fact didn't mention one word about my prototype build, but instead hijacked my thread to discuss how he can't understand how the Ruger 10/22 wasn't banned simply because someone MIGHT illegally chop off its barrel, cut its stock and make a crude handgun out of it. Now I'm sure Evan wasn't meaning to be rude on purpose, but nonetheless a hijacking occurred and then continued to occur

I opened that post with:

"The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle." I merely commented on another way it could be modified which is what this thread is about. If you want to hand out some blame then talk to Jim who then proceeded to insinuate that I thought it should be banned, which I did not say or even suggest. Jim, as usual, was looking for a fight.

I haven't commented on your modification since it is entirely illegal here and serves no useful purpose. I am a former firearms safety instructor with the cadet branch of the Canadian Military and as such have a dim view of modified firearms. It isn't often that a modification actually results in an improvement in safety. There are exceptions with older weapons in particular but modern firearms are generally as safe as the person that handles them. Both myself and my wife are fully licenced in Canada for both long guns and handguns.

I wasn't going to say what I think of your modifications but it seems you have pushed the point.

BTW, there is a forum on this site that is intended for the discussion of firearms. I never bother anybody there nor will I.

wierdscience
10-03-2010, 10:50 PM
Neat job Bill,I like!

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 01:55 AM
Neat job Bill,I like!

Thanks Weirdscience. Glad you liked it.


.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 02:59 AM
I opened that post with:

"The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle." I merely commented on another way it could be modified which is what this thread is about. If you want to hand out some blame then talk to Jim who then proceeded to insinuate that I thought it should be banned, which I did not say or even suggest. Jim, as usual, was looking for a fight.

I haven't commented on your modification since it is entirely illegal here and serves no useful purpose. I am a former firearms safety instructor with the cadet branch of the Canadian Military and as such have a dim view of modified firearms. It isn't often that a modification actually results in an improvement in safety. There are exceptions with older weapons in particular but modern firearms are generally as safe as the person that handles them. Both myself and my wife are fully licenced in Canada for both long guns and handguns.

I wasn't going to say what I think of your modifications but it seems you have pushed the point.

BTW, there is a forum on this site that is intended for the discussion of firearms. I never bother anybody there nor will I.

Evan, you wrote above : "The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle." I merely commented on another way it could be modified which is what this thread is about.

No, this thread was not about other kinds of modifications to the Ruger 10/22, it was about MY dress up stock for the Ruger 10/22. Which is NOT a modification of the firearm at all, but is simply under the law of the U.S., another type of stock. Nothing in any way is modified regarding the standard factory Ruger receiver on the firearm. It can be taken directly from a standard factory Ruger stock, installed in my dress up stock, and then if desired it can be taken out of my dress up stock and put back into the factory Ruger stock. At no time is the Ruger receiver modified in any way. So this thread was NOT about modifying a Ruger 10/22, it was about a new type of stock.

Evan you wrote above: "I haven't commented on your modification since it is entirely illegal here and serves no useful purpose."

No Evan. Once again you claim I have modified a Ruger 10/22 rifle. I have not modified anything regarding the Ruger 10/22 rifle. All I have done is to make a different type of stock that houses the Ruger 10/22. It is perfectly legal in the U.S. to put an aftermarket stock on any kind of rifle we want, as long as the rifle and stock measure out to be at least 26 inches long. Perhaps the laws in Canada are different and perhaps you can't even own a semi auto Ruger 10/22 in Canada. But that is not the case in the U.S.

As to you stating that....it "serves no useful purpose", well that is just your opinion isn't it? I think it serves a useful purpose. Lots of other people like it and think it serves a useful purpose. It looks very nice, is a great conversation piece, and if you attach a crankfire trigger activator (that I do not manufacture but other companies do) to it so that you can crank fire it like a Gatling gun, then it serves a very useful purpose as a purposeful fun plinking gun at the range. The water cooled version of it also serves a very useful purpose in that it keeps the barrel from overheating and precludes any damage when it is rapidly crank fired like a Gatling gun.

Again, remember, I do not manufacture or sell the crank fire trigger activator, that is manufactured and sold by other companies. One can opt to attach one or not attach one to the Ruger 10/22's trigger guard so they can crankfire Gatling gun style whether the Ruger 10/22 is installed in my stock or not. Going further, just what comprises a "useful purpose"? If I want to paint a racing stripe down the side of my car, is that a useful purpose? It would be a useful purpose to me if I wanted to do it wouldn't it? And it would be entirely legal too. Just like my after market stock is legal in the U.S.
Does a brown suit jacket not serve a "useful" purpose just because you may only like a blue or black suit jacket?

Evan, you wrote: "I am a former firearms safety instructor with the cadet branch of the Canadian Military and as such have a dim view of modified firearms."

I am not impressed nor do I care what you job or exalted position was with the Canadian military. And I do not care what you have a "dim" view of.
But once again, you claim my dress up AFTERMARKET STOCK is a "modified firearm". I have already explained above that it is not. Once again, under U.S. law, it is nothing more than an aftermarket stock, just like any other after market stock. The fact that it looks different or allows the barrel to be water cooled is irrelevant. Evan, you stated that both you and your wife are fully licensed in Canada for both hand guns and long guns. Okay then, have you ever taken a rifle out of its stock and put it into a different one? It's just a STOCK! Just like you taking a rifle out of a wooden stock and putting it into another plastic or wooden stock.

Now that I have explained that to you, and hopefully now that you understand that it is just an aftermarket stock and not a modification of the firearm in any way, just what is your objection to my stock that makes you take a so called "dim" view of it? Could it be because it makes the rifle look like a machine gun even though it isn't and even though nothing about the Ruger barreled receiver has been modified in any way? Is that it? Does that offend your sensitive sensibilities somehow? Are you basing that you take a "dim" view of something simply because of the type of stock it is housed in?

Evan, you wrote: "It isn't often that a modification actually results in an improvement in safety."

Well even though my aftermarket stock is once again, NOT A MODIFICATION OF THE FIREARM, if you like improvements in safety Evan, then you should really like my stock. Here's why and I can't wait to hear what you have to say regarding the improvement of "safety" by using my stock after you read the below.

My stock is made to fit onto a tripod. So that it will look like my first water cooled and air cooled prototypes in the below pic.....
http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/45569/2736935930099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Now, can you seriously think that big tripod mounted rig would be used in a crime to rob a liquor store or be used in a drive by shooting or be used to commit a homicide or even be used in a domestic violence dispute? Well can you Evan? Lol. Soooo, even though my stock (it's just a stock) is NOT a modification of the firearm as you incorrectly and unscientifically assert, wouldn't you have to agree that it is an "improvement in safety" in that the firearm in my stock attached to a tripod is less likely to be used in a crime or a homicide? And going back to your statement that you think it "serves no useful purpose", wouldn't you also be forced to agree that not being likely to be used in a crime WOULD serve a "useful purpose"??? Well Evan? Are you going to deny that it is safer mounted onto a tripod and less likely to be used in a crime and are you going to deny that this is not an "improvement in safety"????

And if it "serves a useful purpose" and is an "improvement in safety" by virtue of being safer by not being readily able to be used in a crime or accidental shooting or domestic violence shooting, but also is legal in the U.S. and makes me and others happy to safely enjoy at the range, what about that makes you take a "dim view" of it Evan? Well Evan?

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 03:09 AM
I opened that post with:

"The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle." I merely commented on another way it could be modified which is what this thread is about. If you want to hand out some blame then talk to Jim who then proceeded to insinuate that I thought it should be banned, which I did not say or even suggest. Jim, as usual, was looking for a fight.

I haven't commented on your modification since it is entirely illegal here and serves no useful purpose. I am a former firearms safety instructor with the cadet branch of the Canadian Military and as such have a dim view of modified firearms. It isn't often that a modification actually results in an improvement in safety. There are exceptions with older weapons in particular but modern firearms are generally as safe as the person that handles them. Both myself and my wife are fully licenced in Canada for both long guns and handguns.

I wasn't going to say what I think of your modifications but it seems you have pushed the point.

BTW, there is a forum on this site that is intended for the discussion of firearms. I never bother anybody there nor will I.

Evan, you wrote above : "The 10-22 is a very nice little rifle." I merely commented on another way it could be modified which is what this thread is about.

No, this thread was not about other kinds of modifications to the Ruger 10/22, it was about MY dress up stock for the Ruger 10/22. Which is NOT a modification of the firearm at all, but is simply under the law of the U.S., another type of stock. Nothing in any way is modified regarding the standard factory Ruger receiver on the firearm. It can be taken directly from a standard factory Ruger stock, installed in my dress up stock, and then if desired it can be taken out of my dress up stock and put back into the factory Ruger stock. At no time is the Ruger receiver modified in any way. So this thread was NOT about modifying a Ruger 10/22, it was about a new type of stock. YOU hijacked my thread and made it about modifying Ruger 10/22 rifles.

Evan you wrote above: "I haven't commented on your modification since it is entirely illegal here and serves no useful purpose."

No Evan. Once again you claim I have modified a Ruger 10/22 rifle. I have not modified anything regarding the Ruger 10/22 rifle. All I have done is to make a different type of stock that houses the Ruger 10/22. It is perfectly legal in the U.S. to put an aftermarket stock on any kind of rifle we want, as long as the rifle and stock measure out to be at least 26 inches long. Perhaps the laws in Canada are different and perhaps you can't even own a semi auto Ruger 10/22 in Canada. But that is not the case in the U.S.

As to you stating that....it "serves no useful purpose", well that is just your opinion isn't it? I think it serves a useful purpose. Lots of other people like it and think it serves a useful purpose. It looks very nice, is a great conversation piece, and if you attach a crankfire trigger activator (that I do not manufacture but other companies do) to it so that you can crank fire it like a Gatling gun, then it serves a very useful purpose as a purposeful fun plinking gun at the range. The water cooled version of it also serves a very useful purpose in that it keeps the barrel from overheating and precludes any damage when it is rapidly crank fired like a Gatling gun.

Again, remember, I do not manufacture or sell the crank fire trigger activator, that is manufactured and sold by other companies. One can opt to attach one or not attach one to the Ruger 10/22's trigger guard so they can crankfire Gatling gun style whether the Ruger 10/22 is installed in my stock or not. Going further, just what comprises a "useful purpose"? If I want to paint a racing stripe down the side of my car, is that a useful purpose?

Evan, you wrote: "I am a former firearms safety instructor with the cadet branch of the Canadian Military and as such have a dim view of modified firearms."

I am not impressed nor do I care what your job or exalted position was with the Canadian military. And I do not care what you have a "dim" view of.
But once again, you claim my dress up AFTERMARKET STOCK is a "modified firearm". I have already explained above that it is not. Once again, under U.S. law, it is nothing more than an aftermarket stock, just like any other after market stock. The fact that it looks different or allows the barrel to be water cooled is irrelevant. Evan, you stated that both you and your wife are fully licensed in Canada for both hand guns and long guns. Okay then, have you ever taken a rifle out of its stock and put it into a different one? It's just a STOCK!

Now that I have explained that to you, and hopefully now that you understand that it is just an aftermarket stock and not a modification of the firearm in any way, just what is your objection to my stock that makes you take a so called "dim" view of it? Could it be because it makes the rifle look like a machine gun even though it isn't and even though nothing about the Ruger barreled receiver has been modified in any way? Is that it? Does that offend your sensibilities somehow? Are you basing that you take a "dim" view of something simply because of the type of stock it is housed in?

Evan, you wrote: "It isn't often that a modification actually results in an improvement in safety."

Well even though my aftermarket stock is once again, NOT A MODIFICATION OF THE FIREARM, if you like improvements in safety Evan, then you should really like my stock. Here's why and I can't wait to hear what you have to say regarding the improvement of "safety" by using my stock after you read the below.

My stock is made to fit onto a tripod. So that it will look like my first water cooled and air cooled prototypes in the below pic.....
http://inlinethumb02.webshots.com/45569/2736935930099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Now, can you seriously think or argue that big tripod mounted rig would be used in a crime to rob a liquor store or be used in a drive by shooting or be used to commit a homicide or even be used in a domestic violence dispute? Well can you Evan? Lol. Soooo, even though my stock (it's just a stock) is NOT a modification of the firearm as you incorrectly and unscientifically assert, wouldn't you have to agree that it is an "improvement in safety" in that the firearm in my stock attached to a tripod is less likely to be used in a crime or a homicide? And going back to your statement that you think it "serves no useful purpose", wouldn't you also be forced to agree that not being likely to be used in a crime WOULD serve a "useful purpose"??? Well Evan? Are you going to deny that it is safer mounted onto a tripod and less likely to be used in a crime and are you going to deny that this is not an "improvement in safety" even over it being in a factory stock more easily able to be used in a crime????

And if it "serves a useful purpose" and is an "improvement in safety" by virtue of being safer by not being readily able to be used in a crime or accidental shooting or domestic violence shooting, but also is legal in the U.S. and makes me and others happy to safely enjoy at the range, what about that makes you take a "dim view" of it Evan? Well Evan?

Refute that. I really want to read how you can. But I suspect you can't refute that clear logic and are unwilling to and will just avoid answering the above questions because it doesn't fit into your Elmer Fudd firearms world view.

You hijack my thread and then write excuses why you did and then write a bunch of non scientific incorrect stuff about my stock and talk about non improvements in safety and things having no useful purpose, you better be able to stand logical scrutiny and be man enough to admit when you are wrong.












.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 03:53 AM
Deleted because of accidental duplication.

Evan
10-04-2010, 05:51 AM
And if it "serves a useful purpose" and is an "improvement in safety" by virtue of being safer by not being readily able to be used in a crime or accidental shooting or domestic violence shooting, but also is legal in the U.S. and makes me and others happy to safely enjoy at the range, what about that makes you take a "dim view" of it Evan? Well Evan?


Why somebody might use it has nothing to do with safety. How the firearm is operated when in use does. A trigger actuator reduces safety beyond doubt. A housing for a firearm that permits it to be used while enclosed in that housing is indeed a modification of the firearm and is illegal in this country. This is a multinational forum and the target audience includes many countries other than the US.

Making "others happy" is not a justification for altering how a firearm may be operated. A full housing is NOT a stock. In fact, it makes the rifle into a concealed weapon regardless of what the housing looks like.



If I want to paint a racing stripe down the side of my car, is that a useful purpose?


Irrelevant to this discussion.


And I do not care what you have a "dim" view of.


Apparently you do.

Your housing reduces safety. Here is why.



The PROVE Procedure
Safety-checking firearms to keep you safe
by Dave Brown

The essence of safety should be simplicity and consistency. This means doing it right every time. Accidents happen when people become complacent and overlook important steps. My goal as a firearms instructor is to ensure this doesn't happen. Years of teaching safety have taught me two important points - in the real world, the simpler the procedure, the easier it is to make it a habit, and acronyms can help people retain information.

During the redesign of the Canadian Firearms Safety Course program in 1998, several alternatives were proposed for an acronym that could be universally used to safety check a firearm. I suggested the word PROVE, and this procedure is now incorporated into the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course.

In simple terms, the letters PROVE stand for Point, Remove, Observe, Verify and Examine. These are the steps that should be followed EVERY time a firearm changes hands.

1) Point the firearm in the safest available direction;
2) Remove all ammunition;
3) Observe the chamber;
4) Verify the feeding path;
5) Examine the bore for obstructions.

http://members.autobahn.mb.ca/~trainer/articles.html



It makes it impossible to do the last three items properly. That is clearly unsafe.

Check the site above. It is for police officers.

Krunch
10-04-2010, 06:19 AM
Of course it is illegal. There are a lot of people that don't give a damn about that.

Well. Better pass more laws, then! :D

JCHannum
10-04-2010, 08:27 AM
Bill, If I share any responsibility for hijacking your thread, I apologise. Sometimes threads here take other directions, it is just a part of the forum.

Your machine gun kits are very interesting and look well made and designed. I wish you success in your endeavor. There are may other kits on the market for the 10-22, however I am not aware of any of your design.

One of the more popular kits is the Archangel. This gives the 10-22 the appearance of the AR rifles and permits use of accessories for these guns. It is a plastic overmold and is completely legal here.

http://www.cabelas.com/fryprod-0/product--Archangel8482-1022-Standard-Rifle-System--727749.uts.shtml

I see no difference in the design of this kit than Bill's. It does not obstruct the chamber or barrel in any way to prevent inspection of the chamber or bore. As this photo of Bill's kit shows, the chamber and bore are also clearly accessible for inspection for any obstruction or a loaded round.

http://inlinethumb07.webshots.com/45446/2137882390099763970S600x600Q85.jpg

Bob D.
10-04-2010, 08:51 AM
[QUOTE=Evan]Why
A full housing is NOT a stock. In fact, it makes the rifle into a concealed weapon regardless of what the housing looks like.
----------------
How is this a concealed weapon? Does it look like anything other than a gun? If anything, it looks like a more powerful weapon! If someone built a gun into a briefcase, and it could be fired while the case was closed, that would be concealed. Or in a housing shaped like an umbrella, cane, crutch, etc. .....

As far as your Canadian safety rules, this housing does not alter the method of checking the bore for obstructions. One cannot check the bore from the breach end of a 10/22 in even in its factory stock.

The original poster has built a novel accessory, and it is metalworking.
It is legal where he resides and I'm sure a number of people here found it interesting.

Gun laws vary from country to country and in the US, from state to state. Just because this one may run afoul of your laws is no reason to be so strident in your opposition to it. And furthermore, your complaint about the trigger activator is irrelevant since he does not make it!

I'm sure that some of the gunsmithing articles in HSM show jobs that violate gun laws somewhere in the world. Does that mean the articles should not be published?

I think it's a nice bit of work and I hope he makes a few bucks from his inventiveness. I have no desire to own one personally, but I must say I find your comments less than helpful. And isn't the point of this board to help out each other?:)

Evan
10-04-2010, 09:06 AM
How is this a concealed weapon? Does it look like anything other than a gun? If anything, it looks like a more powerful weapon!

If I see somebody carrying that weapon in the housing I know that it isn't what it seems to be. The question then is "What is it?" Is it a non working model? Is it a working reduced size replica? Is it another kind of weapon concealed in a full housing?

That is a concealed weapon.


As far as your Canadian safety rules, this housing does not alter the method of checking the bore for obstructions. One cannot check the bore from the breach end of a 10/22 in even in its factory stock.


One can check the chamber which is a part of the safety process. Anything that impedes the safety process is unacceptable. Those are also NRA rules.


It is legal where he resides and I'm sure a number of people here found it interesting.


People find car accidents interesting too.

I didn't start this discussion. I made an off hand comment on the ease of modification of the 10-22. I didn't condemn the OPs device and kept my mouth shut until he pressed the issue. I detect a great deal of sensitivity among US residents when it comes to trying to defend the so called "right to bear arms". 95 percent of the firearms offenses committed in this country are committed with illegal firearms that are smuggled into Canada from the US.

squirrel
10-04-2010, 09:07 AM
Here is a youtube video that is really cool!!! I did not know the Ruger 10/22 was made as a fully automatic firearm prior to 1989

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqDe_QfOF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abTGAP7tG0Y

Bob D.
10-04-2010, 09:18 AM
Evan,

I didn't write chamber, I wrote bore. Bore is what you listed in your Rule #5. Perhaps you don't know the difference?

No need to tell me about NRA rules. I'm an Endowment level member.

The origin of illegal guns in Canada is not pertinent to this discussion. Why add that in?

MuellerNick
10-04-2010, 09:32 AM
Evan is a concealed troll!

BTW:
Nice work, Bill!


Nick

Bob D.
10-04-2010, 09:38 AM
Here is a youtube video that is really cool!!! I did not know the Ruger 10/22 was made as a fully automatic firearm prior to 1989



Ruger didn't make a full auto version. Other Class III manufacturers made the modifications to full auto and sold them. Only US law enforcement agencies and military can buy newly manufactured full autos these days, and they don't go in much for full auto .22LR , so the market for this item dried up.

gwilson
10-04-2010, 10:04 AM
Why bother??

Evan
10-04-2010, 11:06 AM
I didn't write chamber, I wrote bore. Bore is what you listed in your Rule #5. Perhaps you don't know the difference?

No need to tell me about NRA rules. I'm an Endowment level member.



Those rules are not my rules.

Last time I checked, the chamber is where a live round might be resting. Checking the bore is one way to check the chamber. You do understand what I mean don't you? If you do then why are you complaining?


The NRA is a fine organization. What I find amazing is how many members it has that embarass it.

RB211
10-04-2010, 11:19 AM
There is absolutely nothing illegal about this stock under US Federal Laws.

Canadian laws are completely non-relevant unless this product is to be sold in Canada.

As for the comment on the NRA's members, I have to say I know of no other large group of people that like to cut each others throats and be divided upon issues quite like the Firearm enthusiasts. Duck hunters could care less about sporting rifles, vice versa.

JCHannum
10-04-2010, 11:19 AM
How, exactly does Bill's kit prevent inspection of the bore and chamber? See my previous post with Bill's photo included. The chamber and bore are every bit as accessable for inspection as any 10-22.

Evan
10-04-2010, 11:45 AM
There is absolutely nothing illegal about this stock under US Federal Laws.


State laws are a different matter. There are a number of states that prohibit "disguising the true nature of the weapon in any way".

dp
10-04-2010, 11:47 AM
I think the whole concept of a dress up kit for a weapon is a bit childish and silly. But I think the same of rider mowers dolled up to look like John Deere tractors. G.I. Joe comes to mind. And I agree the trigger crank is unsafe. I don't know if the girlie gun (I have to admit to laughing when the shooter cranked it and the fake ammo belt remained stationary while the inner beast sputtered .22 LR rounds into the world) is unsafe or not because I haven't seen if access to the safety is obstructed, or if it is more difficult to clear a jam. The tripod at least keeps it aimed down range.

I like guns - I have a lot of them. None of them are toys nor treated like toys, and they're certainly not playthings to dress up like army guy weapons. That said, the workmanship in the OP's product is nice. The product probably has a market.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:50 AM
State laws are a different matter. There are a number of states that prohibit "disguising the true nature of the weapon in any way".

Pen guns come to mind as does a .38 cal solder sucker or 9mm flashlight. This gimmick looks like a Hollywood mockup of a real weapon which most could believe on sight to be just that because we all know that automatic weapons are not legal for most people.

RB211
10-04-2010, 11:55 AM
State laws are a different matter. There are a number of states that prohibit "disguising the true nature of the weapon in any way".

Most state laws choose their wording differently than "disguising the true nature of the weapon", as that would be hard to enforce, and open the door to litigation and interpretation of the law.

Most state laws will limit certain features that are not open to interpretation, such as no removable magazines that contain more than 10 rounds, no collapsible or folding stocks, barrel length, no threads on the end of the barrel for a flash hider, etc.

It would be very difficult to write a law that would ban or make illegal the use of this add-on stock, without throwing down a complete blanket of no after market stocks. That would put a lot of people and businesses out of work.

JCHannum
10-04-2010, 12:13 PM
Disguising the appearance of a firearm to make it appear to be something it is not, such as a cane, a camera or a flashlight, is illegal. Making it appear to be some other type of firearm is not.

In respect to the large number of accessories available for the 10-22, here is Cabelas' listing;

http://www.cabelas.com/10-22-accessories.shtml

They include the Archangel and other AR looking stocks, a dual barrel Gatling gun complete with crank firing as well a stock to simulate the British Enfield rifle. None of these are illegal in the US. There may be some exclusions in some states, not because of the modification, but because that entire class of firearm is illegal in that state.

dp
10-04-2010, 12:20 PM
Does everyone understand that the presence or absence of a law regarding a particular modification does not alter in any way the actual safety and public acceptance of a particular modification?

Bob D.
10-04-2010, 12:57 PM
Those rules are not my rules.

.


If they are not the rules you follow,why did you bring them up?

If Bill's design is unsafe, then he runs the risk of lawsuits. Anyone who feels it truly is unsafe will avoid it. Problem solved.

I find the opinion of foreigners on matters of internal US law and policy to be of absolutely no importance whatsoever.

Bill, you do fine work and I wish you success with your endeavors.:)

This concludes my participation in this discussion.

lazlo
10-04-2010, 01:35 PM
I agree the trigger crank is unsafe.

Why do you believe the trigger crank is unsafe?

Here's the Tactical Innovation's twin barrel that Jim mentioned. Looks like a lot of fun :)

http://www.youtube.com/v/szGoeqIFytQ


If they are not the rules you follow,why did you bring them up?

He's rather well-known for doing that.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 02:40 PM
Evan, you claim a stock that completely covers a firearm makes it a concealed weapon.

A full length Mannlicher stock with full length uppper handguard also completely covers a rifle except for its receiver action Evan. My stock completely covers the rifle except for its action. There is no difference unless you seriously want to argue that a full length Mannlicher stock makes for a concealed weapon. Lol.

Both the chamber and bore of the rifle can be just as easily inspected in my stock as they can be in a factory Ruger stock, contrary to what you stated.

Although I do not manufacture the crankfire trigger activator, if someone wants to install one on a Ruger 10/22 rifle, whether that rifle is in my stock or not, the crankfire activator does not in any way make the firearm more unsafe and in fact the crankfire activator BECOMES the trigger and the old factory trigger becomes nothing more than a sear under U.S. law. Because in U.S. law whatever the human has direct contact with that causes the firearm to fire, is what constitutes the trigger under U.S. law and the crankfire activator is now what the human would have direct contact with to cause the firearm to fire. Also the factory safety on the Ruger 10/22 is not obstructed in any way by the addition of my stock. So the Ruger is no more or less safe by the addition of a crankfire trigger activator and remember, I do not manufacture that trigger activator and you CAN use the Ruger in my stock WITHOUT adding a crankfire trigger activator.

As I knew you would, you completely overlooked the added safety factor of being tripod mounted would preclude it being used for almost any type of crime.

I have scientifically disproven all your objections and wrong assertions, but you still won't admit it. You can't. It is too disruptive to your comfortable world view that civilians should not have anything that even LOOKS like a machine gun.

That's because you simply don't like its looks. Why don't you just admit that's the real reason? And the reason you DON'T like its looks, is because you are of the school of Elmer Fudd type firearms are all that should be allowed to be owned and that civilians should not be allowed to have anything that even LOOKS like a machine gun because you would like for civilians to forget any knowledge about machine guns even existing and even though this stock does not make a machine gun, this stock reminds us that machine guns exist. And that is what you do not like.

You probably don't like replica models of machine guns either because they also remind the public of their real counterpart's existence. So no wonder you hate mine, because mine actually has a real firearm enclosed within the stock. (But I'm sure a fully enclosed Mannlicher stock is okay with you because that doesn't offend your narrow world view of what YOU think shooters and the public should SEE).


But you won't admit it because although you KNOW that simply the fact that it REMINDS you of a machine gun is the real and only reason for your objections. All your other objections and assertions have been scientifically disproven.

Bottom line, you just don't like its looks because you don't like anything that looks like a machine gun to be owned by the public or that sparks interest in machine guns to be owned by the public. That's the truth and everyone here knows it.



.

dp
10-04-2010, 03:05 PM
Why do you believe the trigger crank is unsafe?

For the same reason this trigger is unsafe:
http://possibleshop.com/pistol-pocket-derringer.html



Here's the Tactical Innovation's twin barrel that Jim mentioned. Looks like a lot of fun :)


There is nothing "Gatling" about that gun. It is a pair modified semi-auto rifles with a trigger crank. But it does look like fun although it has more in common with a garden hose than a Gatling gun - notice the spray?

squirrel
10-04-2010, 03:28 PM
I might just buy one, that gatling gun crank trigger set up looks like a blast!!!!! Hard part will be finding a place to shoot that thing, our local Range built by the DNR does not even like you doing double taps so that might get me kicked out.

gwilson
10-04-2010, 06:20 PM
Evan is many times better educated than most of the people on this forum,and deserves your respect. Of course,many guys operating at a much lower level can't see why he should be respected.

I am a shooter,and also shoot a real sub machine gun,and a BAR,and a tripod mount .30 cal. machine gun that a friend legally owns.

I sometimes make flintlock guns.

Like dp,I think the whole thing is silly. Are we children playing war?

jugs
10-04-2010, 08:08 PM
Evan, .....
You hijack my thread and then write excuses why you did and then write a bunch of non scientific incorrect stuff about my stock and talk about non improvements in safety and things having no useful purpose, It's what he does

you better be able to stand logical scrutiny and be man enough to admit when you are wrong. Don't hold your breath Evan can never be wrong

.


When Evan's being silly WE should NOT debate with him, it only drives him to more posts of anything that sounds sudo-scientific (32,000+ so far), I'm sure he has many skills but apologizing is not one .

john
:)

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 08:22 PM
Evan is many times better educated than most of the people on this forum,and deserves your respect. Of course,many guys operating at a much lower level can't see why he should be respected.

I am a shooter,and also shoot a real sub machine gun,and a BAR,and a tripod mount .30 cal. machine gun that a friend legally owns.

I sometimes make flintlock guns.

Like dp,I think the whole thing is silly. Are we children playing war?



I RESPECTFULLY disagree. Evan hijacked my thread by talking about modifying ruger 10/22's when my stock is NOT a modification of the Ruger 10/22 but is just an aftermarket stock. That wasn't very respectful on his part now was it? Then he made the unscientific and incorrect statements that my stock was "unsafe", "has no useful purpose" and was a "concealed weapon". That wasn't very respectful of him either was it?

Respect is something that has to be earned, it is not automatically given because of how many degrees someone has hanging on the wall. I have my share of degrees too. But that doesn't mean squat.
When someone makes incorrect and unscientific statements and accusations that I and many others KNOW to be scientifically incorrect, they do not get our academic respect when we know they are wrong. Further, you have no idea how "many times more educated" I or other people are on this forum. I am highly educated in the firearms field and hold patents in that field.

Evan hijacking my thread and accusing me of making "modifications" to a firearm, and making an illegal concealed weapon when neither are true is what is "operating at a much lower level". As is you making the accusation that anyone who disagrees with Evan's (and no doubt your) opinions, also is "operating at a much lower level".

See, you can irrationally stick up for your Elmer Fudd buddy's unscientific accusations and I can rationally and scientifically refute what you say. Now we could keep this up all day and accuse each other of not being respectful of the oh so much more educated one whether they deserve academic respect or not, but instead, let's keep this to scientific facts shall we? In fact let's list them.....

Scientific facts.

1. Evan accused my making this stock of "modifying a firearm".
Not true because my stock is just an aftermarket stock and no modification of any kind is done to the firearm itself. Under U.S. law
my stock is just that.....a stock and not a "modification of a firearm".
Under U.S. law the receiver or internal components of the firearm would have to be modified in order for the firearm to be "modified". Since the receiver of the Ruger 10/22 nor any of its internal components are NOT modified in ANY way by simply putting it into my stock, under U.S. law it is NOT a modified firearm. Now if Evan wants to think in his mind that it is a "modified firearm" that is unscientific and not supported under U.S. law. Since I live in the U.S. and would only make these for use in the U.S., whatever Evan's Canadian law might be is irrelevant to me.

2. Evan accused that it was "unsafe".
Not true if anything it is safer than a non tripod mounted gun.
(A.) By mounting it on a tripod is is quite evident that it is unlikely to be used in a crime.

(B.) Further, being on a tripod and not used for hunting makes it highly unlikely some hunter would lean it against a fence while climbing over and have it fall and accidentally discharge which often happens to hunters.

(C.) It is highly unlikely anyone would ever be accidentally shot with this on a tripod since the only time it is likely to be used is at a shooting range, where no one is allowed in front of the firing line or in front of gun barrels unless and until the range is called cold and all bolts are locked back and magazines removed for the range officer's inspection so that people can then go check their targets.

(D.) One does not HAVE to install a crankfire trigger activator on a Ruger 10/22's trigger guard in my stock if they don't want to. They can use the standard factory trigger if they want to. So how is THAT factory trigger unsafe?

(E.) If one DOES opt to install a crankfire trigger activator, remember, the firearm will not even be loaded, chambered and ready to fire until its muzzle is pointing downrange and unless someone is stupid enough to walk in front of the barrel when it is loaded and pointing downrange ready to fire, they will not get shot. Just like with any firearm.

(F.) The FACTORY safety button can still be utilized even if someone uses a crankfire trigger attachment.

3. Evan accused that it "has no useful purpose".

(A.) What is a "useful purpose"? Do golf clubs have a useful purpose? I don't play golf so since they have no "useful purpose" to me does that mean they don't have a "useful purpose" to someone else? After all (to quote you), "are we children" running around a field playing at hitting a little ball?
What possible "useful purpose" to the betterment of society is that? Lol.
How about a sports car that can go 150 or 200 miles an hour when the maximum speed limit even on the interstate is 75 miles an hour. What possible "useful purpose" could a car going that fast have? It isn't necessary is it? Yes, we should just ban everything that WE PERSONALLY don't think there is any useful purpose for shouldn't we? Lol.

(B.) Both Evan and you conveniently ignored my pointing out that since my stock would be mounted on a tripod, that ONE "useful purpose" of that would be to preclude it ever being used in a crime. Or would you like to argue that it would be the weapon of choice to hold up a liquor store? Lol.

(C.) Both Evan and you conveniently ignored my pointing out that since my stock would be mounted on a tripod, that ANOTHER "useful purpose" of that would be to preclude anyone being accidentally shot with it since it would only be loaded, chamber and fired when pointed downrange and a big bulky rig like that would be highly unlikely to be accidentally discharged in the wrong direction.

(4.) Evan accused me of making a "concealed weapon" by making my stock.

(A.) It is not a concealed weapon under U.S. law. My stock does no more than a full length Mannlicher rifle stock does when the Mannlicher stock covers the entire firearm except for its receiver action. My stock does EXACTLY the same thing.

Those are the scientific facts. It has nothing to do with you sticking up for your Elmer Fudd buddy when he is wrong simply because he is your buddy or simply because you happen to be another Elmer Fudd who feels exactly like he does. This has to do with factual science.

Neither you nor Evan have stood the test of scientific scrutiny. So don't expect academic respect if you or he cannot.

Your statement of "I think the whole thing is silly", is just your opinion isn't it? I happen to think golfing is silly. Should I accuse golfers of being "unsafe" in that their golf balls might hit someone in the head and maybe kill them? Should I accuse golfers of their game or equipment not having a "useful purpose"?

And finally concerning your last statement of "Are we children playing war?"

Well let's see. I guess we could outlaw the military channel so no one would have any interest in watching war on t.v. We could outlaw all movies and books that have war or any reference to war in them. We could outlaw all camo clothing so no one would make the connection of the clothing to war clothing. I guess we could ban all kitchen knives so no one would even think of using them in a "warlike" manner. Oh, that's right, England is already trying to do that. And I guess we could form a league of nations or a united nations to try and outlaw war itself. Ooops! Already did that one and we see how well that works out don't we?

Again, you stated: "Are we children playing war?"

Which is better, grown adults having a little harmless ("childish" your words) safe rapid plinking fun at the range with their stocks and or crankfire activators that look like machine guns, or actual real war where people get killed? So if you want to accuse me or anyone using my stock of being "childish playing at war", then fine. I also have a big 10 inch cigarette lighter that looks like a Browning 50 caliber machine gun. You and Evan probably wouldn't like that either because it is "unsafe" and might burn someone if they are STUPID enough to misuse it. Or because it has no "useful purpose" or because it is a "modified" lighter.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 08:31 PM
For the same reason this trigger is unsafe:
http://possibleshop.com/pistol-pocket-derringer.html



There is nothing "Gatling" about that gun. It is a pair modified semi-auto rifles with a trigger crank. But it does look like fun although it has more in common with a garden hose than a Gatling gun - notice the spray?

The thing about that single shot, hammer fired Derringer, is that its no trigger guard trigger is only unsafe when the hammer is cocked to the rear. And we all know that you don't cock the hammer until you are ready to shoot.

So please explain how is its trigger unsafe if the hammer is not cocked?

Regarding that "Gatling gun" you mentioned above, it is indeed marketed using the name "Gatling gun". And you are certainly correct that it has nothing to do with the internal mechanism of a Gatling other than it is fired by turning a crank handle which activates a bellcrank that actuates the two separate firearm's triggers sequentially (I know this twin stock well).

But guess what? Those two semi-auto rifles in it are NOT modified. They are UNMODIFIED factory standard and placed into that "Gatling" stock just like they can be placed into any other stock. Guess what else? They are both Ruger 10/22 UNMODIFIED rifles. Just like the UNMODIFIED single Ruger 10/22 rifle I use in my stock.

People continuing to say a rifle is "modified" simply because it has been put into another stock is incorrect legally and unscientific, at least in the U.S.
In order for a firearm to be "modified" under U.S. law, it must have modifications done on its receiver or its internal mechanism. Neither that "Gatling gun" twin Ruger STOCK, nor my single Ruger STOCK are firearms themselves. And the Ruger 10/22 firearms used in them are not "modified" in any way under U.S. law.

The problem I see in this thread is that people are calling something "modified" simply based on their uninformed opinion of what they THINK, and not based on U.S. law.


.


.

dp
10-04-2010, 08:44 PM
The thing about that single shot, hammer fired Derringer, is that it is only unsafe when the hammer is cocked to the rear. And we all know that you don't cock the hammer until you are ready to shoot. So how is it unsafe if the hammer is not cocked?

Maybe it would up my confidence if you provide a vid of you uncocking that 10/22.



Regarding that "Gatling gun" you mentioned above, it is indeed marketed using the name "Gatling gun". And you are certainly correct that it has nothing to do with the internal mechanism of a Gatling other than it is fired by turning a crank handle. But guess what? Those two semi-auto rifles in it are NOT modified. They are UNMODIFIED factory standard and placed into that "Gatling" stock just like they can be placed into any other stock. Guess what else? They are both Ruger 10/22 UNMODIFIED rifles. Just like the UNMODIFIED single Ruger 10/22 rifle I use in my stock.

They are obviously modified. If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons.


People continuing to say a rifle is "modified" simply because it has been put into another stock is....unscientific. In order for a firearm to be "modified" under U.S. law, it must have modifications done on its receiver or its internal mechanism. Neither that "Gatling gun" twin Ruger STOCK, nor my single Ruger STOCK, are neither one "modified" under U.S. law.


Drop the "unscientific" stuff. The law does not determine what is modified - only what is modified and still legal, or even legal before the law. They are modified, cosmetic or otherwise, it is obvious they are modified, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know they are modified.

You've been huckstering this thing all over the internet with the same banal arguments everywhere you go, and everywhere you go these same arguments arise. Repeating things over and over does not make them right, does not make them acceptable to society in general, and playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 08:52 PM
When Evan's being silly WE should NOT debate with him, it only drives him to more posts of anything that sounds sudo-scientific (32,000+ so far), I'm sure he has many skills but apologizing is not one .

john
:)

I hear you John. And agree with you. But Evan and those of his opinion are more than being silly. They are being incorrect, irrational and worst of all unscientific and stating their opinions as if they were scientific fact or law, neither of which are correct.

Then when you scientifically and legally refute them, they just ignore that and accuse you of not giving them the respect they think they deserve and accuse you of operating on a lower level like gwilson did. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Typical liberal tactics. Ignore the facts, divert the subject, then attempt to attack and marginalize and demonize your opponent while diverting from the original subject and ignoring all scientific and legal facts.

I give cordiality to any stranger I meet or to any person I post to. But respect is something else entirely that must be earned. Not freely given to someone just because they have a degree on the wall when they make unscientific and non legal based statements that they CLAIM are fact simply because they THINK they are.


.

Evan
10-04-2010, 09:17 PM
I find the opinion of foreigners on matters of internal US law and policy to be of absolutely no importance whatsoever.


I am a natural born US citizen and have the right to vote as well as having served as a volunteer in the US Army.


I give cordiality to any stranger I meet or to any person I post to. But respect is something else entirely that must be earned. Not freely given to someone just because they have a degree on the wall when they make unscientific and non legal based statements that they CLAIM are fact simply because they THINK they are.



I don't have a degree nor do I make unscientific claims. There is not one statement in this thread by me that is incorrect.

Question: Why didn't you post this where it belongs, in the gunsmithing forum? Based on your extremely offensive attitude I make the assumption that you are/were trolling for an argument. Is there any reason that I should think otherwise?

lazlo
10-04-2010, 09:18 PM
They are both Ruger 10/22 UNMODIFIED rifles. Just like the UNMODIFIED single Ruger 10/22 rifle I use in my stock.
They are obviously modified.

The kit is a CNC milled mounting bracket that holds two unmodified 10/22's back to back. The bolts are exposed, and operated just like usual.

This video, from the manufacturer, has a close-up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2yzcMPQZdU


I am a shooter,and also shoot a real sub machine gun,and a BAR,and a tripod mount .30 cal. machine gun that a friend legally owns.

I think the whole thing is silly. Are we children playing war?

Shooting full-auto military weapons is not playing war? :rolleyes: I love to shoot Class III weapons, but it's not often I have the opportunity, and when I do the ammo is expensive as Hell. So these .22 kits are an absolute blast.

But I'm curious, if the crank-operated 10/22's are so offensive to Evan, George and Dennis, what do you think of the crank-operated .22 Gatling guns that many here have made? Those are often constructed from .22 match barrels, or barrel liners. Is that modification offensive to you? Is that "children playing war"?

How about Lakeside Machine's kit version of the 1/2 scale .22 Browning 1919a Is that offensive?

http://www.lakesideguns.com/
http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/1919a4550.jpg

Anyone remember when Evan went nuts because Doc Nickel posted pictures of shortening the barrel on his .44?

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=25338


I think posting information describing activities that are a felony offense is quite a bit more objectionable than my posts of metal fabrication.

dp
10-04-2010, 09:19 PM
I hear you John. And agree with you. But Evan and those of his opinion are more than being silly. They are being incorrect, irrational and worst of all unscientific and stating their opinions as if they were scientific fact or law, neither of which are correct
.

Let me explain some science to you. Opinions are not subject to being right or wrong. They are an opinion. The are subject to approval or disapproval. There's nothing more. They are not right, they are not wrong. They just are. You either accept them or not. Doesn't change their nature.

It is my opinion that you hold people you disagree with in ill regard. Compare that opinion to this statement: You hold people you disagree with in ill regard. You can refute (not sure how) the second part, the statement, but you can do nothing with the opinion except accept or reject it. There is no right or wrong characteristic regarding it. It is mine, and you can have an opinion about it, but you cannot say mine is right or wrong. It doesn't belong to you.

Evan
10-04-2010, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by myself, but not in this thread.



I apologise for my comment. Perhaps I misunderstood your meaning.

Evan
10-04-2010, 09:40 PM
Anyone remember when Evan went nuts because Doc Nickel posted pictures of shortening the barrel on his .44?


Robert, you have exactly zero debating skill. You instantly move to the ad hominem attack and it goes downhill from there. You would last 1 second in a refereed debate. You don't know how to debate something without resorting to irrelevant, antisocial and offensive tactics. You have a long history of this type of interaction and not just with myself. You resort to insult and misdirection instead of addressing the issue. You constantly make references to something and try to make it appear that the person you are attacking was somehow responsible for the reference. A perfect example is your last post in the press fit bearing thread. You remind me of an attorney that will make a statement in court knowing full well that it will be struck from the record but following the old adage that "You can't unring a bell".

dp
10-04-2010, 09:43 PM
The kit is a CNC milled mounting bracket that holds two unmodified 10/22's back to back. The bolts are exposed, and operated just like usual.

Cool - let's play Spot the Modified Ruger!
The following two photos are Ruger 10/22 rifles. Can you spot the one that has been modified? Is it Ruger #1?

http://metalworkingathome.com/images/ruger1.png

or is it Ruger #2?

http://metalworkingathome.com/images/ruger2.png

You can use one lifeline - begin now...



Shooting full-auto military weapons is not playing war? :rolleyes:

I recently had the opportunity to shoot a .454 Casull. It was, literally, a blast. Did I imaging myself as a big game hunter? No. Did I fancy myself as being an hotshot iron fisted conqueror of large bore pistols? No. Was I just being me shooting the most powerful handgun I'd ever shot. Yep. And I hit the target, too. I liked it so much I'm going to buy one.



I love to shoot Class III weapons, but it's not often I have the opportunity, and when I do the ammo is expensive as Hell. So these .22 kits are an absolute blast.

Me too - I just don't get all army guy about it. Guns are fun to shoot. I like blowing stuff up, too. I don't fancy myself being a Navy Seal when I do.


But I'm curious, if the crank-operated 10/22's are so offensive to Evan, George and Dennis,

STOP

I don't find them offensive. I find them to be silly. I find the crank to be unsafe. Those are both opinions.


...what do you think of the crank-operated .22 Gatling guns that many here have made? Those are often constructed from .22 match barrels, or barrel liners. Is that modification offensive to you? Is that "children playing war"?

True replica Gatling guns, and I'd love to make one, are replicas of historic weapons. They are still weapons. They are not gun dolls dressed up in big gun clothes. They are big guns. War re-enactments are not silly - again, they are historically accurate within reason, and most frequently for educational entertainment. It is the difference between "Rescuing Private Ryan" and "Star Wars". Star Wars was adults playing space cadet games. That does not mean it wasn't entertaining.

Evan
10-04-2010, 09:47 PM
I also did not say that trigger cranks are offensive. They are unsafe.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 09:58 PM
Maybe it would up my confidence if you provide a vid of you uncocking that 10/22.



They are obviously modified. If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons.



Drop the "unscientific" stuff. The law does not determine what is modified - only what is modified and still legal, or even legal before the law. They are modified, cosmetic or otherwise, it is obvious they are modified, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know they are modified.

You've been huckstering this thing all over the internet with the same banal arguments everywhere you go, and everywhere you go these same arguments arise. Repeating things over and over does not make them right, does not make them acceptable to society in general, and playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion.



You wrote: "Maybe it would up my confidence if you provide a vid of you uncocking that 10/22."

Maybe it would up my confidence in you if you would provide a video showing us exactly how that Derringer is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked. It is obvious you can't because when the hammer on the Derringer is not cocked, it cannot fire can it? And we all know you do not cock a hammer until you are ready to purposefully fire and if it cannot fire if the hammer is not cocked, then again I ask you to please explain your statement of how can its trigger be unsafe if the hammer is not cocked?

You can't can you? And that is why you diverted the subject to asking me to show you an "uncocked" Ruger 10/22. Otherwise back up your non scientific assertion that the Derringer's trigger is somehow unsafe if the hammer is not cocked.

Your terminology is not even correct regarding "uncocking" a Ruger 10/22.
Since the Ruger 10/22 does not have an external hammer, you do not "uncock" it to make it safe. You draw the bolt to the rear and lock it into place with the bolt lock which removes the bolt completely from the breech end of the gun. There are many videos on You Tube showing how to operate, disassemble, lock the bolt back and anything else you would like to know or see regarding the Ruger 10/22.

Now let's get back to you explaining how that Derringer's no trigger guard trigger is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked.

You wrote: "They are obviously modified. If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons."

The law dictates what is a modification to a firearm. Not you.
Further, if you put an aftermarket stock that looks like an M16 stock onto a Ruger 10/22 then that would be the same thing as putting them in my stock because....."If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons". But that is irrelevant under the law.

You wrote: "Drop the "unscientific" stuff. The law does not determine what is modified - only what is modified and still legal, or even legal before the law. They are modified, cosmetic or otherwise, it is obvious they are modified, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know they are modified."

I have no intention to stop relying on science and the law. You are incorrect. SCIENTIFIC STANDARD is EXACTLY what DOES define what is a modified firearm under the law. U.S. law specifically states that a firearm is modified if its receiver and or internal components are modified. NOT if it's UNMODIFIED receiver is just put into a different LOOKING stock without its receiver or internal components being modified. What you THINK is modified is irrelevant under the law. Otherwise every rifle that was not in its original factory stock could be labeled as "modified" according to your illogic.

You wrote: "You've been huckstering this thing all over the internet with the same banal arguments everywhere you go, and everywhere you go these same arguments arise. Repeating things over and over does not make them right, does not make them acceptable to society in general, and playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion"

Ah, so because you cannot explain your statement of how the Derringer's trigger can be unsafe if the hammer is not cocked, and because your OPINION as to what is "modified" is irrelevant under the law, you now resort to personally attacking me by calling me a "huckster" and incorrectly stating I am arguing all over the internet with "banal arguments.

Lol. Again, typical liberal tactics. Ignore the subject matter if you cannot win the debate scientifically, then attempt to divert the subject and attempt to marginalize and demonize your debate opponent. Lol. That is exactly what you are attempting. But it isn't true and I think most people here know that.

And it is YOU and Evan who keep repeating over and over again that a firearm is "modified" just because you think it is, even though the law specifically states what comprises a modified firearm. And putting an unmodified receiver with unmodified internal receiver components into an aftermarket stock, is NOT a modification of the firearm under the law. No matter how much you argue that it is.

Otherwise show me where in the law it says a firearm is modified simply by it being installed into another stock. No don't tell me what you think, what you THINK doesn't matter. Show me the law that says it is "modified" if you put an unmodified internally Ruger 10/22 barreled receiver into an M16 looking Tapco stock, or indeed into ANY stock. Show me. You can't. All you can do is spout your OPINION, while I rely on science and the law.

What does your statement of "does not make them acceptable to society" have to do with the law? Whose version of "society"? Your version of "society"? Or my version of "society"??

I think we are now getting to the heart of the issue here. YOU and Evan do not think a rifle stock that even just LOOKS like a machine gun is acceptable to society. That's really what is at issue here that neither of you will purposefully admit to, but you accidentally slipped and did in your above quoted statement.

Well what you or Evan THINK is modified is irrelevant. What you or Evan THINK is "acceptable" to YOUR versions of society is irrelevant.

All that IS relevant is that my stock is legal under U.S. law and I will be able to sell them in the U.S.

You wrote: "playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion"

Really? Well someone should call Tapco and the company who makes a plastic MG42 machine gun look-a-like stock for the Ruger 10/22 and all those other aftermarket stock companies who make aftermarket stocks for the Ruger 10/22 and for other rifles whose aftermarket stocks look like machine guns and in reality are just a stock that is a "fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle". Quick someone call them and tell them in dp's "opinion" he thinks all their stocks are "juvenile" and they need to immediately stop manufacturing them and selling them !
Lol. No actually LOL while pounding my fist on the floor and holding my stomach from laughing!

But let's get back to you explaining how that Derringer's unguarded trigger is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked. See? All your diversion didn't work and I just brought us right back to the question in my last post to you. The ball is in your court. Oops! I just made a reference to tennis. My bad, I should realize that to some people tennis has no "useful purpose". Lol.



.

lazlo
10-04-2010, 10:01 PM
Cool - let's play Spot the Modified Ruger!
The following two photos are Ruger 10/22 rifles. Can you spot the one that has been modified? Is it Ruger #1?

or is it Ruger #2?

You mean that Tactical Innovations removed the stock? Really? :)


I recently had the opportunity to shoot a .454 Casull. It was, literally, a blast.

I have one. And a Ruger Redhawk. In the 90's, the .454 Casull was "the world's most powerful handgun", but nowadays it's a derringer compared to the .50 caliber revolvers, and ridiculous creations like the .600 Nitro Express. It's like the "world's hottest pepper sauce" -- you're long past any flavor, and once you get to pure capsaicin...


Me too - I just don't get all army guy about it. Guns are fun to shoot. I like blowing stuff up, too. I don't fancy myself being a Navy Seal when I do.

I think most shooters agree on both counts. That's why I don't understand George's response.


STOP

I don't find them offensive. I find them to be silly. I find the crank to be unsafe. Those are both opinions.

That's what I was reading by this comment. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize:


Does everyone understand that the presence or absence of a law regarding a particular modification does not alter in any way the actual safety and public acceptance of a particular modification?

lazlo
10-04-2010, 10:04 PM
Anyone remember when Evan went nuts because Doc Nickel posted pictures of shortening the barrel on his .44? (http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=25338)

Robert, you have exactly zero debating skill. You instantly move to the ad hominem attack and it goes downhill from there.

I didn't realize this was a debate. I thought it was a new member, showing off great machining on a neat gunsmithing project, and you sh!ting all over it.

But my point about your infamous rant in Doc Nickel's .44 thread is that you have a history of coming unglued about gunsmithing posts, so it's not unexpected.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 10:20 PM
There is not one statement in this thread by me that is incorrect.

Not true Evan and everyone here knows it. You wrote that my stock was "unsafe", had "no useful purpose" and was a "concealed weapon".

All of which are not true. I have proven both legally and scientifically how none of those statements by you are true.

1. How is it "unsafe" when it is on a tripod and pointing downrange and will not fire unless you function the trigger? How is it unsafe when the factory safety can still be applied even if you install a crankfire device on it? How is it unsafe when it is highly unlikely to be used in a crime being big and tripod attached?

2. How does it have "no useful purpose" just because that is your OPINION when other people like it and DO think it has a useful purpose? Ah! That's right, that's just your OPINION and not substantiated fact at all is it? Lol.

3 How is it a concealed weapon simply because it is in a full length stock exactly like a rifle would be in a full length Mannlicher stock? Same thing.
Show me where in the law does it say that a stock that covers substantially most of the firearm makes it a "concealed weapon"? Ah! That's right, you can't, so again, instead of that being substantiated fact, that is once again.....just your opinion. Lol again.

You have avoided answering any of those questions because their scientific FACTS and legal FACTS do not fit into your world view. So instead you just ignore them.

Oh, by the way, nice try to attempt to divert from these above points and attempt to demonize me as a troll hoping you can get a mod to do something to me under the rationalization of "he was just a troll" all because you can't legally or scientifically refute my above points which are the same points I have posted several posts back in this thread, that you have totally ignored responding to. Because you can't respond to them and be in accordance with the law or science. So instead you resort to personal attacks and now I am supposedly just a troll. What a joke. Lol. I keep asking for you to answer the above and previous questions, but instead since you know you can't do so logically, scientifically or legally, you instead along with dp stoop to personally attacking me. Now according to dp I am a "huckster" spouting my "banality". And now you label me as a troll. And Gwilson thinks you deserve mine and others respect! LOL, pounding my fist on the floor and holding my stomach again.

It is YOU Evan who is the troll who hijacked my thread about my stocks for you to talk about modifying Ruger 10/22's into illegal pistols.


.




.

JCHannum
10-04-2010, 10:20 PM
It really makes no difference whether the 10-22 is modified in some of your opinions or not, it is nothing more than a 10-22 action dressed up to give the appearance of a different type of firearm. This is perfectly legal in the US. As I mentioned previously, the resulting firearm might not be legal in some localities, but only because it makes it into a different class of weapon which is not legal in that locality.

The trigger cranks are also legal in the US, but also might not be in all localities. Check your state and local laws before purchasing. They in no way affect the safety of the firearm. If you feel it does, please inform us as to just how this is the case.

I have linked an advertisement from Cabelas showing their listings for these accessories and several others of a very similar nature for the 10-22. Cabelas is a mainstream retailer of firearms and sporting goods who sell nationally. believe me, if there were any reason these accessories presented any legal or safety problems, you can be assured they would not be selling them.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 10:27 PM
It really makes no difference whether the 10-22 is modified in some of your opinions or not, it is nothing more than a 10-22 action dressed up to give the appearance of a different type of firearm. This is perfectly legal in the US. As I mentioned previously, the resulting firearm might not be legal in some localities, but only because it makes it into a differnt class of weapon which is not legal in that locality.

The trigger cranks are also legal,in the US, but also might not be in all localities. Check your state and local laws. They in no way affect the safety of the firearm. If you feel it does, please inform us as to just how this is the case.

I have linked an advertisement from Cabelas showing their listings for these accessories and several others of a very similar nature for the 10-22. Cabelas is a mainstream retailer of firearms and sporting goods who sell nationally. believe me, if there were any reason these accessories presented any legal or safety problems, you can be assured they would not be selling them.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH SIR! Now THIS gentleman and the others like him in this thread gets my respect
They rely on the law and science, not an irrelevant opinion. My kind of engineers and or craftsmen.



.


.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 10:34 PM
The kit is a CNC milled mounting bracket that holds two unmodified 10/22's back to back. The bolts are exposed, and operated just like usual.

This video, from the manufacturer, has a close-up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2yzcMPQZdU



Shooting full-auto military weapons is not playing war? :rolleyes: I love to shoot Class III weapons, but it's not often I have the opportunity, and when I do the ammo is expensive as Hell. So these .22 kits are an absolute blast.

But I'm curious, if the crank-operated 10/22's are so offensive to Evan, George and Dennis, what do you think of the crank-operated .22 Gatling guns that many here have made? Those are often constructed from .22 match barrels, or barrel liners. Is that modification offensive to you? Is that "children playing war"?

How about Lakeside Machine's kit version of the 1/2 scale .22 Browning 1919a Is that offensive?

http://www.lakesideguns.com/
http://www.lakesideguns.com/title1/1919a4550.jpg

Anyone remember when Evan went nuts because Doc Nickel posted pictures of shortening the barrel on his .44?

http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/showthread.php?t=25338

EXACTLY. THANK YOU SIR. I especially liked your point about dp shooting full auto weapons is not playing war? As he characterized anyone using my stock would be doing.

.

Bill Pace
10-04-2010, 10:34 PM
I cant believe this nonsense!

How many prior posts have been made by those of us building/working on guns - of all types, and a new guy comes along showing one off, and he gets this crap.

So add me to the silliness - these were all shown here on finishing them, and were well received. Heres my German MG-42 (that was designed by one our own here) and the CCS designed "Ma Deuce" along with the 2 other CCS designs, the 1919 and 1917 Brownings. I fired them to confirm they would function, (after the modifications) and then sat them on a shelf. I take them down fairly often to show them off to admiring friends.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b301/pace1980/Machine%20gun%20replicas/IMG_0825.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b301/pace1980/Machine%20gun%20replicas/IMG_0649.jpg

dp
10-04-2010, 10:38 PM
You wrote: "Maybe it would up my confidence if you provide a vid of you uncocking that 10/22."

Maybe it would up my confidence in you if you would provide a video showing us exactly how that Derringer is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked. It is obvious you can't because when the hammer on the Derringer is not cocked, it cannot fire can it? And we all know you do not cock a hammer until you are ready to purposefully fire and if it cannot fire if the hammer is not cocked, then again I ask you to please explain your statement of how can its trigger be unsafe if the hammer is not cocked?

I said the trigger is unsafe. And you talk about the hammer. I never mentioned the hammer, but there is a reason Colt .45 owners let the hammer fall on an unloaded chamber when holstering the piece. I don't know enough about the Derringer hammer to know if it can set off a chambered round by striking it, but it was not the hammer I was talking about, in any event. I think you'd call your hammer introduction "a diversion".


You can't can you? And that is why you diverted the subject to asking me to show you an "uncocked" Ruger 10/22. Otherwise back up your non scientific assertion that the Derringer's trigger is somehow unsafe if the hammer is not cocked.

Lazlo asked me why, in my opinion, the crank was unsafe. I gave an example of a trigger that has no guard. The crank has no guard as you know, because you understand science. They are equivalent, and both unsafe when the weapon has a chambered round and in battery.


Your terminology is not even correct regarding "uncocking" a Ruger 10/22.

Hmm - another diversion. The old inappropriate language parry.


Since the Ruger 10/22 does not have an external hammer, you do not "uncock" it to make it safe. You draw the bolt to the rear and lock it into place with the bolt lock which removes the bolt completely from the breech end of the gun. There are many videos on You Tube showing how to operate, disassemble, lock the bolt back and anything else you would like to know or see regarding the Ruger 10/22.

The bolt is not unsafe. Another diversion. It is the crank that is unsafe. And you can, in fact safe a Ruger in a number of ways, and you have selected on that is the least safe. The weapon is still loaded (presumed until proven unloaded), and can be put in battery in a blink with a dangling trigger crank hanging out the side.


Now let's get back to you explaining how that Derringer's no trigger guard trigger is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked.

No, let's not, because that requires dragging in the hammer which I was not talking about. But let me tell you about another weapon I consider unsafe and which I own. I have a Glock 20 10mm and there is no way to know if the gun is safe until you look in the chamber. No external hammer - I loved that about my Colt Combat Commander - visual, safeable weapon.


You wrote: "They are obviously modified. If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons."

The law dictates what is a modification to a firearm. Not you.

You can believe that, but that is not scientific. The law only defines what is lawful, not what is modified. If you chrome a gun it is modified. If you scroll it, it is modified. These are cosmetic. If you create a hair trigger it is a modification. If you put a muzzle brake in it you have modified it.


Further, if you put an aftermarket stock that looks like an M16 stock onto a Ruger 10/22 then that would be the same thing as putting them in my stock because....."If a person were not aware, it would not likely be possible to identify them at 5 paces as factory Ruger weapons". But that is irrelevant under the law.

Nobody cares. An M16 stock is not going to make anyone think the weapon is anything but a real weapon. Put it all in a cardboard tube with the trigger hanging out the bottom and you have a legal weapon in a box. Call it a dress-up stock if you wish. It is now a concealed weapon.


You wrote: "Drop the "unscientific" stuff. The law does not determine what is modified - only what is modified and still legal, or even legal before the law. They are modified, cosmetic or otherwise, it is obvious they are modified, and it does not take a rocket scientist to know they are modified."

I have no intention to stop relying on science and the law. You are incorrect. SCIENTIFIC STANDARD is EXACTLY what DOES define what is a modified firearm under the law. U.S. law specifically states that a firearm is modified if its receiver and or internal components are modified. NOT if it's UNMODIFIED receiver is just put into a different LOOKING stock without its receiver or internal components being modified. What you THINK is modified is irrelevant under the law. Otherwise every rifle that was not in its original factory stock could be labeled as "modified" according to your illogic.

See my photo contest in this thread. Don't play - you won't win.


You wrote: "You've been huckstering this thing all over the internet with the same banal arguments everywhere you go, and everywhere you go these same arguments arise. Repeating things over and over does not make them right, does not make them acceptable to society in general, and playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion"

Ah, so because you cannot explain your statement of how the Derringer's trigger can be unsafe if the hammer is not cocked, and because your OPINION as to what is "modified" is irrelevant under the law, you now resort to personally attacking me by calling me a "huckster" and incorrectly stating I am arguing all over the internet with "banal arguments.

I don't owe anyone an explanation regarding the Derringer hammer. That is your notion. I'm of the opinion that the unguarded trigger on the Derringer is unsafe and can, under NORMAL use, cause an unintended discharge.


Lol. Again, typical liberal tactics. Ignore the subject matter if you cannot win the debate scientifically, then attempt to divert the subject and attempt to marginalize and demonize your debate opponent. Lol. That is exactly what you are attempting. But it isn't true and I think most people here know that.

Ok - now you're being an asshat. Everyone here knows very I'm an ultra conservative. I'm talking to an idiot.


And it is YOU and Evan who keep repeating over and over again that a firearm is "modified" just because you think it is, even though the law specifically states what comprises a modified firearm. And putting an unmodified receiver with unmodified internal receiver components into an aftermarket stock, is NOT a modification of the firearm under the law. No matter how much you argue that it is.

And you are convinced that anything goes and "modified" does not apply unless the law says so. That is sophomoric.


Otherwise show me where in the law it says a firearm is modified simply by it being installed into another stock. No don't tell me what you think, what you THINK doesn't matter. Show me the law that says it is "modified" if you put an unmodified internally Ruger 10/22 barreled receiver into an M16 looking Tapco stock, or indeed into ANY stock. Show me. You can't. All you can do is spout your OPINION, while I rely on science and the law.

The law has nothing to do with it. You are hopelessly putting too fine a point on the importance of the letter of the law. In the definition of the word "modify" in any dictionary you can find, it never mentions what the law says. Anything you do to change a thing causes a modification.


What does your statement of "does not make them acceptable to society" have to do with the law? Whose version of "society"? Your version of "society"? Or my version of "society"??

The law ultimately reflects the will of the people (the current administration not withstanding). If the populace finds your glamour guns to be a form of concealment the law will ultimately reflect that.


I think we are now getting to the heart of the issue here. YOU and Evan do not think a rifle stock that even just LOOKS like a machine gun is acceptable to society. That's really what is at issue here that neither of you will purposefully admit to, but you accidentally slipped and did in your above quoted statement.

It is a reach for you to continue to call the thing a stock. That is not what the citizenry will call it. They might call it doll clothes for little guns (my favorite) or an attempt to hide the purpose of the weapon or even its existence. What we know is if they don't like it they will write to their congressman and we know how you like the letter of the law.

con'td next post

dp
10-04-2010, 10:41 PM
Continued...



Well what you or Evan THINK is modified is irrelevant. What you or Evan THINK is "acceptable" to YOUR versions of society is irrelevant.

Pot meets kettle. I presume you think your version is relevant, then?


All that IS relevant is that my stock is legal under U.S. law and I will be able to sell them in the U.S.

I never suggested you shouldn't. I even think you did a hell of a job making it.


You wrote: "playing army guy with a fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle is juvenile in my opinion"

Really? Well someone should call Tapco and the company who makes a plastic MG42 machine gun look-a-like stock for the Ruger 10/22 and all those other aftermarket stock companies who make aftermarket stocks for the Ruger 10/22 and for other rifles whose aftermarket stocks look like machine guns and in reality are just a stock that is a "fake housing around a working semi-automatic rifle". Quick someone call them and tell them in dp's "opinion" he thinks all their stocks are "juvenile" and they need to immediately stop manufacturing them and selling them !

Go back over this thread and find where I said anyone should stop making anything. You have one lifeline. Begin now...


Lol. No actually LOL while pounding my fist on the floor and holding my stomach from laughing!

But let's get back to you explaining how that Derringer's unguarded trigger is unsafe if the hammer is not cocked.

Another diversion. I never spoke of the hammer as I've said again and again. You brought that up. The trigger is unsafe under normal operation of the weapon and that normal operation would include that time when a round is chambered and the hammer is cocked. Your habit of putting a fine line on things is your undoing - you see, I've been reading this thread and understand what I read. You're finding it necessary to invent parts of it to suit your rant.


See? All your diversion didn't work and I just brought us right back to the question in my last post to you. The ball is in your court. Oops! I just made a reference to tennis. My bad, I should realize that to some people tennis has no "useful purpose". Lol.

I think those last few LOL's set off my nutter alarm.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 10:43 PM
Let me explain some science to you. Opinions are not subject to being right or wrong. They are an opinion. The are subject to approval or disapproval. There's nothing more. They are not right, they are not wrong. They just are. You either accept them or not. Doesn't change their nature.

It is my opinion that you hold people you disagree with in ill regard. Compare that opinion to this statement: You hold people you disagree with in ill regard. You can refute (not sure how) the second part, the statement, but you can do nothing with the opinion except accept or reject it. There is no right or wrong characteristic regarding it. It is mine, and you can have an opinion about it, but you cannot say mine is right or wrong. It doesn't belong to you.

True, everyone has an OPINION, but yours, Evans, Gwilsons or anyone else's OPINION that does not rely on science or the law, is irrelevant to science and the law and therefore not valid under science or the law. And if your opinion is not valid according to science or the law, then your opinion is worthless to others. And that is not just my opinion, that is science and the law. You can "opine" all you want that the earth is flat. That does not make it so and those who know the truth will not give you academic respect for stating such unfounded legally and non science based OPINIONS.



.

dp
10-04-2010, 10:47 PM
I cant believe this nonsense!

How many prior posts have been made by those of us building/working on guns - of all types, and a new guy comes along showing one off, and he gets this crap.

He's here to sell them. He's been on every BBS in America with this same story (and getting the same reaction).

Are those you made dressed up Rugers? If so, hell of a job on them. If not, still a hell of a job on them.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 10:54 PM
I didn't realize this was a debate. I thought it was a new member, showing off great machining on a neat gunsmithing project, and you sh!ting all over it.

But my point about your infamous rant in Doc Nickel's .44 thread is that you have a history of coming unglued about gunsmithing posts, so it's not unexpected.

Thanks for your kind support lazlo. You are exactly right. I was just posting to show my latest 3rd metal prototype stock. I never envisioned my thread would be hijacked by Evan and then further crapped upon by him and a very few others who have a very narrow world view of what they THINK should be allowed regarding firearm stocks. For Christ sake, just firearm stocks!!!

But take a look at my join date. I joined back in 2008 and although I don't post often, I read here a lot.
So I've been a member since 2008 and am hardly a troll as Evan disrespectfully accused me of being, (how's that for being disrespectful Gwilson?) or me being a "nutter" (nut case) as dp accused me of being just because he makes me laugh and I let him know that with my "LOL's". See, this is what liberals do. They ignore the real issue at hand when they can't win the debate logically and instead attack a person personally.

dp
10-04-2010, 10:58 PM
or me being a "nutter" (nut case) as dp accused me of being just because he makes me laugh and I let him know that with my "LOL's". See, this is what liberals do. They ignore the real issue at hand when they can't win the debate logically and instead attack a person personally.

Mmm - there's the "L" word again... You're obviously not reading this thread, let alone this forum.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 11:01 PM
He's here to sell them. He's been on every BBS in America with this same story (and getting the same reaction).

Are those you made dressed up Rugers? If so, hell of a job on them. If not, still a hell of a job on them.

LOL, once again you make me laugh dp. What you are saying is just not true and is very easy to disprove.

I have none for sale at this time. And I don't know when I will have them for sale either. So I am hardly here to sell them. Hell, my final 3rd prototype is not even finished yet. No corporation set up, no production line set up, but yeah, according to your OPINION, I am here to sell them. LOL again!

If anyone googles up "Pics of 3rd prototype water cooled/air cooled Ruger 10/22", they will see that the response from any forum I posted them in has OVERWHELMINGLY been positive response.

Hey, I made a dressed up Ruger dp, aren't you going to tell me "hell of a job" too??? LOL


.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 11:07 PM
Mmm - there's the "L" word again... You're obviously not reading this thread, let alone this forum.


Gee dp, you are the one who champions opinions aren't you? You are the one who says opinions are neither right nor wrong and just "are". That's what you wrote. My opinion regarding liberals is my opinion and you are the first to defend and champion opinions whether you think they are right or wrong....correct? That's what you wrote. What about the "N" word of you disrespectfully calling me a "nutter" (nut case), or the "T" word of Evan calling me a troll? I guess those are okay huh? Lol.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:09 PM
I have one. And a Ruger Redhawk. In the 90's, the .454 Casull was "the world's most powerful handgun", but nowadays it's a derringer compared to the .50 caliber revolvers, and ridiculous creations like the .600 Nitro Express.

The one I was shooting was a Ruger. The owner had several boxes of .45 Long Colt rounds and just one of teh .454 :). I liked the way it set into my hand on firing - my Ruger Blackhawk 45 LC even with the grip mods I put on it (larger backstrap and grip) would rock 90 to the vertical, but then I was shooting pretty hot loads that would separate the base about a third of the time. The Casull is definitely a hot round and I don't feel challenged enough to go after the .600 NE. A gun needs to have a bit of practical value. My plinker is a 6" .44 mag. and my defense piece is the Glock 10mm because of the near bottomless clip :)


It's like the "world's hottest pepper sauce" -- you're long past any flavor, and once you get to pure capsaicin...

Exactly - there comes a point when there's no point to it.


That's what I was reading by this comment. If that's not what you meant, then I apologize:

It is possible to have a practical opinion of a thing without being offended by it. My idea of an offensive gun is a wheel gun that doesn't index well and sprays lead into the shooting boxes on both sides of the shooter.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:13 PM
Gee dp, you are the one who champions opinions aren't you? You are the one who says opinions are neither right nor wrong and just "are". That's what you wrote. My opinion regarding liberals is my opinion and you are the first to defend and champion opinions whether you think they are right or wrong....correct? That's what you wrote. What about the "N" word of you disrespectfully calling me a "nutter" (nut case), or the "T" word of Evan calling me a troll? I guess those are okay huh? Lol.

You didn't express an opinion, Bill - you called me a liberal. Big difference. It matters because it's not scientific or true.

Go back over this thread and see where I called you a nutter. I actually said "My nutter alarm ..." It is completely possible for you to come across as a nutter (and you do) without actually being a nutter. Just as you find it possible to think I'm a liberal when in fact I'm not. But the difference is I didn't call you a nutter. You got the idea anyway, and that's important, I suppose.

To give you a better scientific feel for what I actually said - we call it passive aggression. Chew on that.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:15 PM
Hey, I made a dressed up Ruger dp, aren't you going to tell me "hell of a job" too??? LOL


.

I did - twice. Now I know you're not reading this stuff.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:17 PM
LOL, once again you make me laugh dp. What you are saying is just not true and is very easy to disprove.

You've been doing it for years.

http://www.google.com/search?q=first+water+cooled+10%2F22

Shall I go on?

Sure - why not...

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277058

beanbag
10-04-2010, 11:25 PM
so lemme get this right... a minor flame war broke out over the fact that while the gun appears modified to a layman, e.g. its appearance has changed, none of the essential parts have been changed, and thus it is considered "unmodified" under the law and therefore legal?

dp
10-04-2010, 11:33 PM
so lemme get this right... a minor flame war broke out over the fact that while the gun appears modified to a layman, e.g. its appearance has changed, none of the essential parts have been changed, and thus it is considered "unmodified" under the law and therefore legal?

I don't think so - Bill is quick to attack anyone who disagrees with him and in such a way as to draw return fire, to preserve the metaphor.

Personally I think he's a huckster like another recent drive by visitor, trying to drum up business for a product that 'will be ready for sale in a few months'. He's been hustling that boy toy for a few years and it's still not quite ready. It has a familiar ring.

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 11:33 PM
Robert, you have exactly zero debating skill. You instantly move to the ad hominem attack and it goes downhill from there. You would last 1 second in a refereed debate. You don't know how to debate something without resorting to irrelevant, antisocial and offensive tactics. You have a long history of this type of interaction and not just with myself. You resort to insult and misdirection instead of addressing the issue. You constantly make references to something and try to make it appear that the person you are attacking was somehow responsible for the reference. A perfect example is your last post in the press fit bearing thread. You remind me of an attorney that will make a statement in court knowing full well that it will be struck from the record but following the old adage that "You can't unring a bell".

Really Evan? You accuse Robert of ad hominem attacks and state that Robert resorts to insult and misdirection instead of addressing the issue.

Hmmm. I guess you calling me a troll wasn't an ad hominem attack on your part against me was it Evan? I guess you ignoring answering any of the legal and or scientifically based questions I've posed to you in this thread and instead just insulting me as a "troll" wasn't misdirection and not addressing the issue was it Evan?


.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:50 PM
Hmmm. I guess you calling me a troll wasn't an ad hominem attack on your part against me was it Evan? I guess you ignoring answering any of the legal and or scientifically based questions I've posed to you in this thread and instead just insulting me as a "troll" wasn't misdirection and not addressing the issue was it Evan?


You want to tell the nice people why you got tossed off the Florida Shooter's Network BBS?

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/

You really didn't say you would turn cop killer, did you?

Bill Akins
10-04-2010, 11:53 PM
Cool - let's play Spot the Modified Ruger!
The following two photos are Ruger 10/22 rifles. Can you spot the one that has been modified? Is it Ruger #1?

http://metalworkingathome.com/images/ruger1.png

or is it Ruger #2?

http://metalworkingathome.com/images/ruger2.png

You can use one lifeline - begin now...



I recently had the opportunity to shoot a .454 Casull. It was, literally, a blast. Did I imaging myself as a big game hunter? No. Did I fancy myself as being an hotshot iron fisted conqueror of large bore pistols? No. Was I just being me shooting the most powerful handgun I'd ever shot. Yep. And I hit the target, too. I liked it so much I'm going to buy one.

Me too - I just don't get all army guy about it. Guns are fun to shoot. I like blowing stuff up, too. I don't fancy myself being a Navy Seal when I do.

STOP

I don't find them offensive. I find them to be silly. I find the crank to be unsafe. Those are both opinions.



True replica Gatling guns, and I'd love to make one, are replicas of historic weapons. They are still weapons. They are not gun dolls dressed up in big gun clothes. They are big guns. War re-enactments are not silly - again, they are historically accurate within reason, and most frequently for educational entertainment. It is the difference between "Rescuing Private Ryan" and "Star Wars". Star Wars was adults playing space cadet games. That does not mean it wasn't entertaining.

It is impossible to tell which Ruger 10/22 might be modified because the two in the dual dress up kit might not be modified, but the one in the factory stock might have a full auto Norrell trigger group in it. So it is impossible to tell legally which 10/22 in those pictures is modified under U.S. law WITHOUT HAVING AN EXPERT TAKE IT APART AND DETERMINE IF IT'S RECEIVER OR RECEIVER INTERNALS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED. THAT'S WHAT THE U.S. LAW SAYS AND ISN'T JUST SOMEONE'S OPINION. So without being able to inspect the internals of their receivers, it is impossible to answer your question. [B]What they LOOK like is irrelevant under U.S. law.

You wrote: "I recently had the opportunity to shoot a .454 Casull. It was, literally, a blast. Did I imaging myself as a big game hunter? No. Did I fancy myself as being an hotshot iron fisted conqueror of large bore pistols? No. Was I just being me shooting the most powerful handgun I'd ever shot. Yep. And I hit the target, too. I liked it so much I'm going to buy one."

Then if that was true for you, then why do you automatically jump to the conclusion that anyone using my stock would not be imagining themselves as "playing army"???

Here's another below example of you saying the same thing and not giving other people the same leeway that you give yourself oh elite one.

You wrote: "Me too - I just don't get all army guy about it. Guns are fun to shoot. I like blowing stuff up, too. I don't fancy myself being a Navy Seal when I do."

Ah! So once again, when it is YOU who is shooting full auto guns YOU of course don't get all "army guy" about it nor fancy yourself a Navy Seal. Uh huh.

So why do you automatically draw the conclusion that someone using my stock would have to automatically think or get all "army guy" or fancy themselves a Navy Seal? You seem to think very highly of your elitist self, and are SURE of your mind, but when it comes to others using my stock, in your opinion crankfires are silly and the people shooting them are just silly children playing war and you can read their minds and tell that they are fantasizing being all "army guy" or "Navy Seal" right? Lol.

You wrote: "I don't find them offensive. I find them to be silly. I find the crank to be unsafe. Those are both opinions."

Both your opinions mean exactly squat according to what others like and according to science and what the law dictates.



.

dp
10-04-2010, 11:58 PM
Both your opinions mean exactly squat according to what others like and according to science and what the law dictates.

You finally got something right. My opinion means nothing to you and that's fine. Except the part about the science which you clearly don't understand. Oh - may I call Molivo for you?

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:06 AM
I also did not say that trigger cranks are offensive. They are unsafe.

Please explain how if the barrel on a tripod mounted firearm is pointing downrange and you are able to engage the factory safety on the firearm, how crankfire trigger activators are any more or less safe than a standard trigger?
If no one is forward of the firing line and you do not chamber a round until you are ready to fire, how is the trigger crank unsafe?
If you engage the safety and tried to activate the crankfire activator it would not function. Just like the trigger would not function if the safety were applied.
Since a trigger crank has now become the trigger under the law and the old trigger is legally now just a sear and the trigger crank is just a trigger that will function or not function according to whether or not you function it or apply the safety so it will not function, so how is a trigger crank unsafe?



.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:08 AM
I cant believe this nonsense!

How many prior posts have been made by those of us building/working on guns - of all types, and a new guy comes along showing one off, and he gets this crap.

So add me to the silliness - these were all shown here on finishing them, and were well received. Heres my German MG-42 (that was designed by one our own here) and the CCS designed "Ma Deuce" along with the 2 other CCS designs, the 1919 and 1917 Brownings. I fired them to confirm they would function, (after the modifications) and then sat them on a shelf. I take them down fairly often to show them off to admiring friends.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b301/pace1980/Machine%20gun%20replicas/IMG_0825.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b301/pace1980/Machine%20gun%20replicas/IMG_0649.jpg

EXACTLY. THANK YOU SIR. But I'm not new. I've been a member since 2008.


.

dp
10-05-2010, 12:26 AM
EXACTLY. THANK YOU SIR. But I'm not new. I've been a member since 2008.

Did you say this on the Florida Shooter's Network BBS in the context of being stopped by law enforcement officers?


Bill Akins wrote:You may even be legally justified in firing on them to prevent them from illegally disarming you since you were going to or from a range. You would prevail in court on the technicality that you are allowed to open carry to or from a range.

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=41367&start=60#p322436

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:30 AM
I said the trigger is unsafe. And you talk about the hammer. I never mentioned the hammer, but there is a reason Colt .45 owners let the hammer fall on an unloaded chamber when holstering the piece. I don't know enough about the Derringer hammer to know if it can set off a chambered round by striking it, but it was not the hammer I was talking about, in any event. I think you'd call your hammer introduction "a diversion".



Lazlo asked me why, in my opinion, the crank was unsafe. I gave an example of a trigger that has no guard. The crank has no guard as you know, because you understand science. They are equivalent, and both unsafe when the weapon has a chambered round and in battery.



Hmm - another diversion. The old inappropriate language parry.



The bolt is not unsafe. Another diversion. It is the crank that is unsafe. And you can, in fact safe a Ruger in a number of ways, and you have selected on that is the least safe. The weapon is still loaded (presumed until proven unloaded), and can be put in battery in a blink with a dangling trigger crank hanging out the side.



No, let's not, because that requires dragging in the hammer which I was not talking about. But let me tell you about another weapon I consider unsafe and which I own. I have a Glock 20 10mm and there is no way to know if the gun is safe until you look in the chamber. No external hammer - I loved that about my Colt Combat Commander - visual, safeable weapon.



You can believe that, but that is not scientific. The law only defines what is lawful, not what is modified. If you chrome a gun it is modified. If you scroll it, it is modified. These are cosmetic. If you create a hair trigger it is a modification. If you put a muzzle brake in it you have modified it.



Nobody cares. An M16 stock is not going to make anyone think the weapon is anything but a real weapon. Put it all in a cardboard tube with the trigger hanging out the bottom and you have a legal weapon in a box. Call it a dress-up stock if you wish. It is now a concealed weapon.



See my photo contest in this thread. Don't play - you won't win.



I don't owe anyone an explanation regarding the Derringer hammer. That is your notion. I'm of the opinion that the unguarded trigger on the Derringer is unsafe and can, under NORMAL use, cause an unintended discharge.



Ok - now you're being an asshat. Everyone here knows very I'm an ultra conservative. I'm talking to an idiot.



And you are convinced that anything goes and "modified" does not apply unless the law says so. That is sophomoric.



The law has nothing to do with it. You are hopelessly putting too fine a point on the importance of the letter of the law. In the definition of the word "modify" in any dictionary you can find, it never mentions what the law says. Anything you do to change a thing causes a modification.



The law ultimately reflects the will of the people (the current administration not withstanding). If the populace finds your glamour guns to be a form of concealment the law will ultimately reflect that.



It is a reach for you to continue to call the thing a stock. That is not what the citizenry will call it. They might call it doll clothes for little guns (my favorite) or an attempt to hide the purpose of the weapon or even its existence. What we know is if they don't like it they will write to their congressman and we know how you like the letter of the law.

con'td next post

Well you unsuccessfully tried to divert from the point again by saying you weren't talking about the Derringer's hammer but were only talking about its trigger being unsafe as you claim a trigger crank is unsafe. Well dp, the Derringer's trigger doesn't work unless you first cock the hammer does it? And we all know you never cock a hammer until the firearm is out, pointed and ready to shoot at something don't we? So, gun pointed at target, hammer pulled back to enable the trigger to fire gun. (It won't fire unless the hammer is cocked). Now, how is that trigger unsafe in that condition if you never cock the hammer until ready to fire? It isn't and your argument that it is is just as spurious as your argument that trigger cranks are unsafe.

Oh, and I noticed that since you absolutely refused to answer the above question in your post, you resorted to ad hominem personal attacks against me by insultingly calling me an asshat and an idiot. Excellent debating decorum there dp. Really showed everyone how intelligent you are.



.

dp
10-05-2010, 12:37 AM
Well dp, the Derringer's trigger doesn't work unless you first cock the hammer does it? And we all know you never cock a hammer until the firearm is out, pointed and ready to shoot at something don't we? So, gun pointed at target, hammer pulled back to enable the trigger to fire gun. (It won't fire unless the hammer is cocked). Now, how is that trigger unsafe in that condition if you never cock the hammer until ready to fire? It isn't and your argument that it is is just as spurious as your argument that trigger cranks are unsafe.

You built that entire scenario to support your notion that the Derringer is safe. Amazing. But it is not the entire set of scenarios as you well know.


Oh, and I noticed that since you absolutely refused to answer the above question in your post, you resorted to ad hominem personal attacks against me by insultingly calling me an asshat and an idiot. Excellent debating decorum there dp. Really showed everyone how intelligent you are.


I am pleased to say that after an evening of browsing the Florida Shooter's Network BBS I can say with great amusement that you are in fact a nutter. Thanks for playing.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:43 AM
You didn't express an opinion, Bill - you called me a liberal. Big difference. It matters because it's not scientific or true.

Go back over this thread and see where I called you a nutter. I actually said "My nutter alarm ..." It is completely possible for you to come across as a nutter (and you do) without actually being a nutter. Just as you find it possible to think I'm a liberal when in fact I'm not. But the difference is I didn't call you a nutter. You got the idea anyway, and that's important, I suppose.

To give you a better scientific feel for what I actually said - we call it passive aggression. Chew on that.

Ah, so I see. It's okay to say my stock is "unsafe", has no "useful purpose", is just "doll clothes on a gun", you called me an asshat, an idiot, and those are not just your opinions huh? But when I call you a liberal I'm not entitled to my OPINION that you're a liberal huh? What you write proves you to be a liberal....in my opinion. Remember, you're the champion of unfounded opinions dp and my opinion based upon what I have seen you write, is that you are a liberal.

No dp you can't wriggle out saying that your writing I was setting off your "nutter" (nut case) alarm is not the same as calling me a "nutter". It is exactly the same and everyone here knows it and your trying to say it wasn't is disingenuous for everyone to see. Many people are proud to state they are liberals. So that is not an insult. But when you call me a "nutter", an "asshat" and an "idiot", those are insults and have no place in a forum of discussion other than to bring to everyone attention how insulting you are.

.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:49 AM
You've been doing it for years.

http://www.google.com/search?q=first+water+cooled+10%2F22

Shall I go on?

Sure - why not...

http://www.uzitalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=277058

You just contradicted what you said earlier. Earlier you said I was "spouting" my "banal" arguments all over the net with the same result. Well dp, your first link showed the google page to a lot of other pages, but your second link showed a thread at Uzi talk wherein the response to my prototypes was overwhelmingly positive. So...how does that jive with you stating earlier here that my posts online about my protos have met with similar negative response such as I have received here? Read that Uzitalk link everyone and thanks dp for posting something that totally disproves what you said earlier. Post after post saying how much they like it. Overwhelmingly the responses were like....."neat!", "I like!", "Great job!", "I want one!", "damn fine job", "beautiful work!", "you're an artist!", etc, etc.
It's been overwhelmingly positive like that at almost all of the sites I have posted about my 1st 2nd and 3rd prototypes at. So what does that do to your argument that my posts online have met with the same negative results as here? It totally disproves what you said that's what it does. Keep the laughs coming dp.

.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 12:58 AM
so lemme get this right... a minor flame war broke out over the fact that while the gun appears modified to a layman, e.g. its appearance has changed, none of the essential parts have been changed, and thus it is considered "unmodified" under the law and therefore legal?

That's pretty much correct beanbag. The law, science and logic are both being ignored by some people here. Along with them calling me a troll, asshat and idiot when they cannot logically nor cordially defend their non scientific and non legal based positions. Pretty much sums it up.


.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 01:12 AM
I don't think so - Bill is quick to attack anyone who disagrees with him and in such a way as to draw return fire, to preserve the metaphor.

Personally I think he's a huckster like another recent drive by visitor, trying to drum up business for a product that 'will be ready for sale in a few months'. He's been hustling that boy toy for a few years and it's still not quite ready. It has a familiar ring.

You don't even know me dp and read a lot here but I rarely post. So your above statement about me being quick to attack someone is simply not true.
Nice failed attempt though to try to wrongfully demonize me when you don't even know me and my posts here have never reflected what you accuse. But you are quick to deviate from the points of cordial discussion and to call me a "nutter", an "asshat" and an "idiot" and now a "huckster". Funny, first you accuse me of being a "huckster" trying to "drum up business for a product that will be ready for sale in a few months", (even though you have no idea what my plans are) then in the very next sentence you say I've been hustling my "boy toy" for a few years and it's still not ready". So which is it dp? According to you am I a huckster with a product ready to sell in a few months, or will it not be ready for a few years or even ever? You don't know do you? But you babble and contradict yourself. You accuse me of being quick to personally attack someone who disagrees with me, yet it is you who stoops to ad hominem name calling attacks like "nutter", "asshat", "idiot" and "huckster"? Hmmm, now just WHO is the person here being quick to personally attack anyone who disagrees with him? Seems that would be you.


.


.

dp
10-05-2010, 01:15 AM
I'm done with you.

http://metalworkingathome.com/images/bannedlist.png

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 01:23 AM
You want to tell the nice people why you got tossed off the Florida Shooter's Network BBS?

http://floridashootersnetwork.com/

You really didn't say you would turn cop killer, did you?

Let's stick to the subject of my thread and stop having your feeble attempts to divert from the subject of this thread to attempt to demonize me. You have already called me multiple names, "nutter", "asshat", "idiot", "huckster".

If your personal insults and attempts to deviate from the subject of THIS THREAD do not stop, I will be forced to bring this to a mods attention that your insults and hijacking of my thread are disruptive to this thread and violate the COC of this site and ask them to take appropriate action to make you stop. So just stop the personal insults and quit trying to change the subject to things irrelevant to my thread.

You never have answered mine and others question about how that Derringer's trigger was unsafe if the hammer was not cocked. And don't keep saying the hammer is not the point and that you weren't talking about the hammer. Because without the hammer being cocked, the trigger does not fire the Derringer. THAT leads into you explaining why you accuse trigger cranks as being unsafe. Explain to us all how they are. Then explain how my stock that does not necessarily have to have a trigger crank attached to it is unsafe.



.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 01:31 AM
You finally got something right. My opinion means nothing to you and that's fine. Except the part about the science which you clearly don't understand. Oh - may I call Molivo for you?

You may call anyone you like. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with this thread other than for you to once again try to divert attention from the subject matter when you cannot debate it logically. You continually try to divert from the subject matter of this thread and bring up things that are not pertinent to this site or this thread's subject matter. Plus you continue to ignore answering questions about HOW things you accuse as being unsafe, are unsafe. Not the best or most cordial way to debate there dp. I guess when you have no logical position to debate, all you CAN do is fling personal ad hominem insults, ignore legitimate questions regarding the subject, and attempt to deviate to another subject entirely.


.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 01:37 AM
Did you say this on the Florida Shooter's Network BBS in the context of being stopped by law enforcement officers?



http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=41367&start=60#p322436

Okay, that's it. I call upon a mod to stop the personal attacks against me by this individual known as dp. He has insulted me by calling me multiple names such as "nutter", "asshat", "idiot", "huckster" and has on three posts now tried to bring non related subjects from other forums into this forum in an attempt to deviate from the subject matter of this thread. It is clear this individual does not want to discuss or debate the issue of this thread, but instead is just attempting to divert to other non related subjects from other sites in an attempt to try and damage my reputation here. I am asking for a mod to put a stop to his disruption of my thread.

I don't want my thread closed, I want this dp individual to be moderated by the mods so that he quits the insults and stops the deviation of the thread's subject matter toward unrelated subjects from other unrelated sites.

.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 01:47 AM
Did you say this on the Florida Shooter's Network BBS in the context of being stopped by law enforcement officers?



http://floridashootersnetwork.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=41367&start=60#p322436

No I did not say that in context of being stopped by a law enforcement officer. I said that in context of a Florida shooters network thread of if anyone, law enforcement included, were to attempt to kick in my door without a warrant, I would resist. Not if I was just stopped by a law enforcement officer. And I think most people would think the same way if someone came to their door to confiscate their firearms and enter their home WITHOUT A WARRANT. You took one post out of context to the entire thread.

And just what does this have to do with this thread dp? Please explain what your purpose for bringing this unrelated subject from another unrelated site to this thread was other than to attempt to try to divert from your lack of ability to logically debate the subject of this thread and to instead feebly attempt to try to damage my reputation here by writing incorrect statements that I did not say from another site. That was obviously your purpose dp. Sorry it didn't work out well for you and just showed how weak your illogical position on my stock is that you had to resort to something like that. Pretty sad really. I'd laugh, but I actually feel kind of sad for you exposing to everyone just how low you will stoop when you cannot defend your position of debate on this thread's subject matter.


.

beanbag
10-05-2010, 02:15 AM
Bill, settle down. I don't think dp is going to post in this thread anymore.

P.S. You could have just asked him not to.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 02:28 AM
Bill, settle down. I don't think dp is going to post in this thread anymore.

P.S. You could have just asked him not to.

Thank you beanbag. I'll remember that next time and ask him not to participate in any of my posts if he comes into any in the future. Likewise for Evan and Gwilson. I've been a member here since 2008 but I rarely post and just read. I've posted a few times but not a lot. I got a few laughs out of dp's and Evan's and Gwilson's illogic, but overall this was quite an unpleasant experience.

I guess it was just too simple to post my latest progress and expect nice discussion instead of getting crapped all over when other people have made similar metal stocks and shown them at this site. The CCS (coffee cup stains) mini Browning 1919 and 1917 plans that use a Ruger 10/22's HIGHLY modified and milled action were shown at this site without any rancor at all.
And those CCS builds WERE highly modified Ruger 10/22's that had their receivers milled down and their trigger guards completely removed and their trigger milled down to just a nub. None of them said anything about them. Yet when I posted about my UNMODIFIED Ruger 10/22 and its dress up stock and how a trigger activator crank COULD be attached to it, they had a cow.

Likewise that metal build mini MG42 semi auto machine gun Look-a-like was shown at this site without any rancor. But for some inexplicable reason when I did likewise, what you saw happened. Sheeez! What a bummer! But I know there are bad apples everywhere and the vast majority of people here such as yourself and many others who posted opinions that were supportive to my stock build are not like that. But still....sheeeez! Lol. Pretty much ruined my thread. I think that was their intent. They crapped all over it and then would not answer scientific and legal questions to support their statements. Then after crapping all over my thread, flinging multiple insults and bringing in subjects from other forums not relevant to the subject matter of this thread, and being unable to support their unscientific and non legal based statements, they simply left. AFTER they ruined my thread that is. Lol. This is the worst experience I have had posting about my metal stock builds at any site I have posted at. All the other sites have been overwhelmingly supportive. Again....sheeeez!


.

oldtiffie
10-05-2010, 02:35 AM
Just a few observations.

Once an/the Original Poster (OP) starts a new thread here he has no real ownership of it and can only ask - and NOT direct - others to comply with his wishes. The thread is "public property" and as such belongs to no one and every one.

Without going into the merits or otherwise of firearms - either specifically or generally - I think that any "machining" component of any current discussion is conspicuous by its absence and if it continues on its way this way - as it seems destined to do - then it will be a slagging match with no machining interest that I can see.

In my opinion, the thread should have been opened in the "Gunsmithing" forum at:
http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8

It should have either be transferred to the "Gunsmithing" forum or "Closed/locked" as the chances of any more posts of any or significant "Machining" content and/or merit are somewhere between minimal and zero.

Perhaps the adversaries or combatants would do better to continue their "discussions" (I'd hardly grace it by calling it a "debate") "in private" per medium of the Email and/or Private Message (PM) facilities of the HSM forums (collectively).

Arcane
10-05-2010, 02:42 AM
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu290/piolhodf/fun/arguing-internet.jpg

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 02:48 AM
Just a few observations.

Once an/the Original Poster (OP) starts a new thread here he has no real ownership of it and can only ask - and NOT direct - others to comply with his wishes. The thread is "public property" and as such belongs to no one and every one.

Without going into the merits or otherwise of firearms - either specifically or generally - I think that any "machining" component of any current discussion is conspicuous by its absence and if it continues on its way this way - as it seems destined to do - then it will be a slagging match with no machining interest that I can see.

In my opinion, the thread should have been opened in the "Gunsmithing" forum at:
http://bbs.homeshopmachinist.net/forumdisplay.php?f=8

It should have either be transferred to the "Gunsmithing" forum or "Closed/locked" as the chances of any more posts of any or significant "Machining" content and/or merit are somewhere between minimal and zero.

Perhaps the adversaries or combatants would do better to continue their "discussions" (I'd hardly grace it by calling it a "debate") "in private" per medium of the Email and/or Private Message (PM) facilities of the HSM forums (collectively).

I think Oldtiffee is right beanbag. On further reflection I can't stop someone from participating in any thread of mine. But then again beanbag, you didn't say I could REQUIRE them to not participate. You just said I could ASK him not too. I guess anyone could do that. Asking is not requiring.

I guess this would have been better posted under the firearms forum, but since my metal stock is not actually a firearm itself, but is just a metal housing stock, I thought it might be more appropriate to this forum rather than to the firearms forum. So that's why I posted it here Oldtiffee.

In the future I'll post any updates on my progress on it in the firearms forum at this site even though it isn't actually a firearm itself. Maybe that would be better and if anyone doesn't like firearms, maybe they will stay out of that forum and I won't have this problem again. Hopefully anyway.




.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 02:50 AM
http://i656.photobucket.com/albums/uu290/piolhodf/fun/arguing-internet.jpg

That's pretty funny Arcane. And true.


.

dp
10-05-2010, 03:08 AM
I like the "Somebody is wrong on the Internet!" cartoon :)

dp
10-05-2010, 03:14 AM
Bill, settle down. I don't think dp is going to post in this thread anymore.

P.S. You could have just asked him not to.

I actually knew who Bill was when he first posted and just wondered how long it would take for him to melt down.

He's well known in right wing and firearms circles. As I'm a fellow right wing shooter, he's practically a household name around here. In a "I wish he were a democrat" kind of way.

As they say in show biz, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

Evan
10-05-2010, 03:34 AM
http://metalshopborealis.ca/pics/troll.jpg

Evan
10-05-2010, 03:43 AM
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/dec/18/211606/pasco-marksmans-invention-leads-him-ruin/

http://ixian.ca/pics7/akins.jpg

He has used the "It's JUST A STOCK" argument before. BATF didn't buy it.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/docs/akins/Complaint_with_exhibits.pdf

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 03:50 AM
I actually knew who Bill was when he first posted and just wondered how long it would take for him to melt down.

He's well known in right wing and firearms circles. As I'm a fellow right wing shooter, he's practically a household name around here. In a "I wish he were a democrat" kind of way.

As they say in show biz, you ain't seen nuthin' yet.

I am not the one who melted down here dp. It was you who everyone saw melt down by lowering yourself to bringing up non related to this thread subjects from other forums because you are unable to scientifically or using the law, to cordially debate the subject of this thread in a logical manner without calling me names such as "asshat", "idiot", "huckster", etc.

I have already contacted both mods to this forum about your insults and bringing up subjects from other forums that have no relevance to the subject matter of this thread. I am nicely asking you to please leave and to stop your disruption of this thread. If you do not, and the mods here do not take action against you soon, I will contact the administrator of this site.

You said once that you were through with me and this thread dp. Yet you broke your word and came back to further try and insult and be disruptive didn't you. That shows everyone here just what kind of person you are.

I have asked you nicely to go away. The same goes for you Evan. Both of your insulting posts are not contributing anything to this thread but insults and disruption.




.

Bill Akins
10-05-2010, 04:03 AM
He has used the "It's JUST A STOCK" argument before. BATF didn't buy it.



It's real nice to see that you agree with the BATFE that my previous stock invention/patent that allows the shooter to simply "bumpfire" where the trigger is functioned once separately for each shot fired, is not legal in spite of the fact that the BATFE twice approved it in writing before they rescinded their "approval", and in spite of the fact that congressional NFA law says it is perfectly legal. Good to see you on the BATFE's side. It tells us all a lot about exactly whose side you are on regarding firearm rights.

But your posting about my previous "bumpfire" accelerator stock has nothing whatsoever to do with this threads metal stock. This thread of mine's metal stock has nothing to do with "bumpfiring" or rate of fire and my new metal dress up stock is supposed to be the subject matter of this thread that both you Evan, and dp have done everything in your powers to try to be childishly insulting and disrupt. Since that previous invention of mine has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of THIS thread regarding my new stock invention, the only possible reason you could have brought it up was to attempt to taunt/antagonize me about something that has nothing to do with this thread's subject matter. Let's see now, you agree with the BATFE on infringing upon our 2nd amendment and NFA firearm rights and you bring up this non related subject to attempt to taunt and antagonize me. Didn't work very well for you except to show everyone how you are being disruptive and diverting from the subject matter of this thread and what kind of person you are who is incapable of defending your illogical position regarding my new stock, so instead you stoop to attempting to taunt and antagonize.

I think both you and dp are hilarious, and you both have made me laugh with your illogic and refusal to substantiate your positions either scientifically or legally. But you have both become too disruptive to my thread with your insults and taunts and posts about subjects that have nothing to do with this threads subject matter. I have nicely asked you both to stop, but you continue.

So I have contacted both mods to this forum asking for their moderation to make both you Evan, and dp, to stop hijacking my thread by posting unrelated subjects to this thread's subject matter, and to stop the two of you from your insults. Since I have not heard back nor seen any action taken by those two mods, I have also contacted the site administrator to ask them to make you two stop. Your continued taunts and insults only shows everyone here what type of individuals you both are. You both have lost all semblance to discuss the original subject matter of my thread either cordially or rationally. Instead you both have devolved into silly children. Which is exactly what dp called my metal stock in this thread or anyone who would use it. Now look how both of you are acting for all to see. I know what you both are doing. You are trying to run me away from this site because neither of you could cordially or rationally debate or substantiate your positions on this threads original subject. I have been a member of this site since 2008 and neither of you are going to run me away by your childish actions. I trust both your insults and disruptive posts not pertinent to the subject matter of my thread will not be lost on the mods and administrator.



.

Evan
10-05-2010, 04:06 AM
Troll.



..................


I have contacted the site administrator to ask them to make you two stop.

Thanks, you have saved me the trouble.

beanbag
10-05-2010, 04:34 AM
dp and Evan,

While I feel that your initial criticisms of Bill's device were valid and worth discussion, this thread has now turned into both of you actively antagonizing him. I kindly request that you stop.