Talk:Bump stock

message: There are several videos on YouTube that show some people bumpfiring semi-auto weapons. To the casual observer it would appear that they are full auto weapons but watch how much the gun is moving independently of the shooters body. Also, I seem to come across bumpfire more often than bump fire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.65.42 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do people really do this? 

message: I can provide plenty of links to discussion boards but very few links to reputable websites because it is a slang term. Yes, people really do it just like people shake up champagne bottles and spray them everywhere rather than drinking the champagne: there is no real benefit to rapidly shooting off an entire magazine from the hip, but it is fun to do it. You are trading accuracy and safety for rapid fire of a semi-automatic rifle (usually to show off to your friends). Go to Yahoo.com and type in "bump fire" -nail
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.95.19.42 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the only term for the practice that I know of.  I guess it's formally called "simulating automatic fire by rapidly firing a semiautomatic firearm".  I found this letter from the US gov, which also calls it "bump-fire" (but notes that bump fire is a "vernacular [term] used in firearms culture".  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumping cheese (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Its a slang term

message: I once saw a video of a guy bump-firing a TEC-22 pistol. I thik the wording should be changed to:
Bump firing is the simulated automatic firing of a semi-automatic weapon, usually a rifle. CeeWhy2 23:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rifles only? 

message: I'm well acquainted with the practice of bump firing and have even indulged in it a few times myself, though I agree it is little more than a novelty.  What I can't find a definitive answer to is whether or not bump firing is a form of slamfire.  Does each round go fully into battery while bump firing?
:It is not a slamfire, it is just the equivelent of rapidly pulling the trigger. Yes, each round is fully seated, just as it would be in a full-auto rifle. Slamfires are quite similar, except that the trigger is not necessarily pulled again for each round to be discharged. Both terms are used to describe two different methods of rapid fire and both involve momentum. The difference is that bump fire requires momentum of the whole gun, slamfire requires momentum of just the firing pin within the bolt. Boristhebulletdodger 22:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the original article on this. I agree, someone please merge "bumpfire" and "bump fire" together. --Boristhebulletdodger (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slamfire? 

message: Bump fire can be done with pistols that do not have foregrips by holding the normal grip and pushing it forward.Halconen (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  not exclusive to holding a foregrip 

message: The text in this article divert from the text in the Patent paper. The trigger finger is held stationary pulled in against a rest support after first shot. The weapon then moves back and forth sliding on the new stock due to recoil. No left hand movement is needed, only weapon support. KjellG (talk) 13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence under the headline "Mechanism" explains what a bumpstock is, the rest of the section describes the mechanism of manually bumpfiring a rifle. I moved the first sentence to the Bump Stock section.--Zipor haNefesch (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong explenation in text? 

message: It is being reported that in yesterday's Las Vegas mass shooting a bump stock was used.https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/03/gunman-had-a-bump-stock-device-that-could-speed-fire.html I think that might be relevant info for this article. 77.167.231.99 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include Las Vegas mass shooting? 

message: I think the Las Vegas shooter proved that there was a pretty fucking big "tactical advantage".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.181.59 (talk • contribs) 
: Give it a few days, until we have a definitive source that says the shooter used the "bump fire" devices he apparently had. Maybe we'll have a brand name. John Nagle (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Give it a few weeks, and then a few months. The FBI shall have after-action reports. 05:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. The murder of massed, unarmed civilians cannot accurately be described as tactical situation. One has very little to nothing to do with the other. Syr74 (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with above, one thing to note is that spraying into a crowd from a high position doesn't require precise fire. Botclone (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Setting aside the Las Vegas shooting (because that wasn't a tactical situation), the statement itself would deserve examination... if it were in the article. But it isn't. Which is fine, because it's incorrect. Reduced accuracy doesn't "eliminate" the tactical advantage gained from rapid fire. Fully automatic weapons aren't meant to be accurate anyway, they're designed to be used as a hose to spray targets. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Accuracy is not the inverse of rate of fire. Aircraft gatling guns for example have to be fairly accurate. Automatic fire can be used to precisely reduce reinforced targets, such as concrete bunkers, especially with heavy machine guns e.g. US M2 Browning. The M2 also was shown to be used as a competent sniper rifle. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When firing one bullet at a time in semi-automatic mode, yes, the M2 could be used as a sniper rifle, but not in fully automatic mode. Aircraft gatling guns, which are fastened to a rigid massive frame, are a non-sequitur; the context here is hand-held weapons, which aren't accurate when spraying bullets at a rapid rate. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: With those caveats and disregarding ultra-rapid burst fire, I agree. Actual tactical (military) use of full-auto weapons not on at least a bipod is rare. I'm scratching my head trying to think of a doctrinal, modern use. As you probably know the US went to 3-shot burst on individual weapons for a while for this reason with the M16A2. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I didn't know that. 3 shot bursts seem like a pretty good idea. My experience leans more to heavy artillery and shipboard defense systems from my DoD days. I worked a bit with the Phalanx CIWS and I remember watching a video demonstration of the Kashtan CIWS, a dual gatling gun with a very high rate of fire that basically put an impressive wall of depleted uranium in the air for a missile to fly into. And I'll never forget my involvement in one of these tests, standing in the bunker you see in the background. Probably the largest automatic-fire gun ever built — it could do an 8-shot burst at different charges and elevations so that all 8 would land on target at the same time with devastating effect. The muzzle blast would ruffle your clothes, would raise pebbles on the ground 3 feet into the air. Anyway, this thread has gone into WP:FORUM territory, so I guess it's best I quit it. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revise the claim that "the drawback of decreased accuracy eliminates any conceivable "tactical" advantage that might be gained." 

message: * From Single Shots to Automatics: How Firearms Work https://nyti.ms/2yLUGX0
* What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work? https://nyti.ms/2yJhw1t
* Banning ‘Bump Stocks’ Won’t Solve Anything https://nyti.ms/2xZP8J9
A gif animation could be asked to the WP:GL/I. --Yug (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Request made. Yug (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: I would like to propose adding (as a see also) with content to another article for "Trigger crank" modification mechanism - per link Shaded0 (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trigger Crank 

message: Should we mention the Akins Accelerator as a bump fire device?,  and  The device was available in late 2006 but then banned by the ATF in November 2006. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akins Accelerator 

message: This source does not provide any supporting evidence for the claim of 400-800 rounds per minute.  Every study/demonstration I have seen shows a firing rate of 7.5 rounds per second.  That's 450 rounds per minute.  Additionally, given that nobody has a 450-round magazine, this is still not accurate.  I think we should change the source and revise the article to read 7.5 rounds per second.
NationalInterest16 (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, most tests of bump fire stocks are showing 7 rounds per second, which equals out to 420 RPM.  I think we should rewrite the text to say something like "a cyclical rate of fire of approximately 450 rounds per minute." NationalInterest16 (talk) 08:28, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for 400-800 rounds per minute 

message: It is opinion inserted alongside facts, misleadingly written so as to present no question of the accuracy of the polls results. It is an unwelcome intrusion of propaganda into an otherwise properly neutral article. Get rid of it. I have looked at re-writing it for neutrality but it is impossible by nature.
Opinion polls are not scientific, they are produced and published without peer review, by private corporations with absolutely no legal prohibition to outright falsification and deliberate deceit. There is not even any industry self-regulation to speak of. The results are almost without exception published in already collated and transformed forms that are impossible to ever verify or even attempt to reproduce.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:4280:2B6:E438:B20D:3555:D9CA (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Public Opinion" section has no place in this article 

message: I have removed several direct cites to court papers from litigants (complaints, motions, etc.) in the related lawsuits. We don't need these in view of the significant number of secondary sources available (news articles, law review articles, etc., plus even ultimate court decisions). Moreover, it looked like all or almost all of the court papers linked were submitted by the challengers, but not the government. Neutralitytalk 14:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direct cites to court papers/litigants 

message: I have added text relating to Cargill v. Garland in the Fifth Circuit, which struck down the ATF's opinion letter. Could some kind soul fix the citation to be a proper footnote? I don't speak markup language very well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:CD00:36:5C3B:936B:A3B5:13E (talk) 07:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATF opinion overturned