Future Ban on Bump Stocks?

Following the tragedy in Las Vegas recently, there has been an outcry from the media and gun-control activists to ban “bump stocks,” a device used by the shooter in his rampage. A bump stock replaces a rifle’s standard stock and increases the rate of fire of a semi-automatic weapon to mimic that of an automatic weapon.

THE MECHANICS BEHIND THE “BUMP STOCK”

              Image courtesy of Wikipedia

As stated, a bump stock replaces the standard rifle stock and uses the energy of the recoil to effectuate rapid fire. The shooter keeps his finger in place on the trigger while exerting backward pressure on the pistol grip, and then exerts forward pressure on the barrel. The rifle is held loosely against the shoulder to allow the stock to rapidly slide back and forth between the shoulder and trigger finger.

When a round is discharged, the rifle will recoil (“bump” back) against the shoulder. The trigger resets, and the non-trigger hand continues to push the rifle forward, away from the body. This causes the trigger to press against the stationary finger again, firing off another round.

It still results in one round being discharge with a single trigger pull and is therefore not a truly automatic rifle. However, the bump stock pushes the trigger forward against the stationary trigger finger rapidly, resulting in the rifle mimicking an automatic weapon.

Since the rifle is held loosely against the shoulder, accuracy is somewhat sacrificed during the operation of a bump stock. What you gain in rate of fire you give up in accuracy.

Granted, it does allow for someone to fire off a number of rounds in a short amount of time, but is it that much faster than an experienced shooter using a standard equipped weapon?

THE “BUMP STOCK” CHALLENGE

That very question was put to the test by marksman Jerry Miculek as he used a traditional AR-15 in a match against someone using an AR-15 with a bump stock. Each had a ten-round magazine, and at the sound of a buzzer, both emptied their magazines at a target down-range.

The result?

There appeared to be no discernible difference in the amount of time it took either of the shooters to run through ten rounds. In other words, an experienced marksman can fire off as many rounds in nearly the same amount of time as someone using a bump stock. But one thing that was evident is that the bump stock proved to be less accurate in the showdown. That could be because of the shooter’s lack of skill or more likely because of the method a bump stock uses in attaining a rapid rate of fire.

See for yourself. Here is a video of the challenge.

 

Should Bump Stocks be banned? Tell us what you think!

41 comments on “Future Ban on Bump Stocks?

Comment navigation

  • Robert A Hafetz says:

    If one opposes further control of the BS then how does one argue that a class 3 license is valid and should oppose that as well. The BS is mechanically legal but effectively its a full auto weapon. Opposing any more regulations destroys the credibility of gun owners as responsible and consistent.

    Reply
  • Robert A Hafetz says:

    A simple solution is to classify the BS as a class 3 modification. That will effectively place it in the same context as an automatic weapon without an outright ban.

    Reply
  • As an NRA member, & supporter of the 2nd amendment, I believe gun control is the ability to control one’s weapon & to hit one’s target.

    Bump Stocks fly in the face of control & accuracy (proven by many experts).

    NRA should consider supporting a ban on devices detrimental to control and accuracy of the weapon, with no real benefit.

    I own an AR 556, and enjoy shooting it because of it’s reliability and accuracy.

    Reply
  • Pastor Chiko Asuncion says:

    “How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!” – I truly believe the anti-gunners will win, IF we allow them one small victory at a time. I say no banning of any sort, of any accessory, for any reason unless it violates the “one trigger pull = one round shot” (then it becomes an NFA-controlled item).

    This video by Eric and Jerry does reveal several items:
    1. Humans can out perform (or come real close to it) any mechanical device.
    2. Bump-stocks are not necessarily faster (definitely not more accurate) than an extremely well-trained individual.
    3. All semi-automatic weapons have one thing in common, a human. Humans are prone to muscle fatigue and failure which will affect the rate of fire regardless of what accessory is used.

    Final thoughts: Any weapon is a tool and any tool/item can become a weapon. It is never the weapon/tool that kills people, it is the person behind said weapon/tool. Humans have been killing each other since the beginning (before firearms) and, unfortunately, will be doing so until the end of time.

    Reply
    • G.C. Beauregard says:

      Personally, I do not care for the “bump stock”. I like accuracy and I hate wasting good ammunition. Whether or not I support a ban, on that item, is irrelevant, since those decisions are made way above my pay grade and usually without any advice or consent from me. On the other hand, the Bill of Rights is not a guarantee of our right to be armed. The Bill of Rights simply tells you what your rights are. Protecting those Rights is and always be “our responsibility”.

      Reply
  • Absolutely NOT. Every time you give the anti gun maggots an inch, they will try for a mile. Don’t own one, don’t want one, don’t know what they are good for but don’t tell me I can’t have one. What we need to ban are liberals.

    Reply
  • Personally I don’t see the need for them as an AR-15 owner my primary use is for if things get extreamly out of hand & all anarchy breaks out I would like for my rounds to hit the intended target, the “spray & pray” method is not about stopping large number as it just wastes ammo in the long run. Unless you have an endless supply of ammo the bump stop is really a useless item. We have the right to keep & bear arms & don’t see any reason why we should stand ground on this item. Let’s all be responsible in this issue & agree there is no need for this device. Otherwise it will just be more arguement that the anti-gun people will use against us so why not throw them a bone & support the ban of bump sticks.

    Reply
    • 404 Error, Not Found says:

      You don’t understand, it’s not just about the bump stock. The legislation they want to send down would ban anything that increases fire rate. Most glock modifications would be banned, many AR triggers would be banned, stronger springs would be banned. It’s not just the bump stock its targeting all aftermarket parts. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.

      Reply
    • Amen, and as a firearms instructor and owner of many firearms, I agree with you 100%. There are many other battles that are worth fighting and the bump stop is not one of them, IMHO

      Reply
    • Ralph Manfredo says:

      I agree. Let’s show some responsibility on this issue. Once Yu are willing to sacrifice accuracy for volume, you lack credibility of your decision to support our cause. As someone who likes to hunt and also wishes to provide protection for my family and also likes to shoot, I prefer accuracy. I prefer to fire one shot, two at most to hunt an animal or bird, and If I am protecting my family, I prefer to fire one shot and hit my target that possibly firing a hundreds and possible hitting an unintended target. And frankly, when I go target shooting, it’s hit the bullseye and not to see how man rounds I can fire without the possibility of hitting one bullseye. BTW, we should be thankful the Las Vegas shooter used a bump stock, because if he had not, there might have been more deaths but less wounded.

      Reply
  • James Wasneechak says:

    No, “Bump Stocks ” should Not be banned. It would only lead to, as Representative Nancy Pelosi stated, “A slippery slope “, toward outlawing noise reduction devices, etc.

    Reply
  • Dennis Klump says:

    I always thought that these bump fire stocks were a gimmick to separate you from your money. I don’t think that they should be banned just because they were used in a mass shooting. With a little practice a person could do the same thing manually or with another gimmick that’s used to waste money and ammunition.

    Reply
  • Eddie Crain says:

    If it makes no difference in how rapid the gun fires, then the NRA should ban the bump stock, and make it look like the NRA is doing the right thing to make people more safe from crazy people.

    Reply
  • Alison Adams says:

    I dont own a bump stock but feel very leery about the banning of anything dealing
    With our second amendment rights. Assessories are a part of free market enterprise and banned or not, if a thug wants to obtain and use with intent to injure or kill another human being, he will do so. We ned to come down on criminals and leave law abiding citizens and our freedoms and rights alone.

    Reply
    • Robert A Hafetz says:

      Wash VS Heller allows for certain types of firearms to be banned or controlled more carefully. The BS is exactly that kind of weapon that needs further regulation.

      Reply
  • Bump stocks should not be banned. One bullet, one pull of the trigger. My concern lies with Fostech’s echo 2 trigger. 2 bullets with one pull of the trigger – one bullet with pulling trigger and 1 bullet with releasing the trigger. I don’t think this echo 2 trigger should be banned, but I can see gun control advocates attempting to ban it.

    Reply
  • Paul Metcalf says:

    Hell no…..if we allow those idiots to ban the “bump stock” what is next, POS Pelosi already said that she hopes for a slippery slope to advance their agenda on gun control (aka) gun confiscation.

    Reply

Comment navigation

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice — it will appear shortly.