I'd missed the whole Forced Reset Trigger debate over the last year or so, but caught an article about it in The Post Sunday and figured I'd see what it's about.

Here's what I learned, executive summary style.

1. The trigger makes things faster for an novice to intermediate shooter once they get the hang of it, but it does require getting the hang of it.
2. The mechanism seems vaguely similar to a bump stock: Use the energy from the recoil from a shot to help set up the next trigger pull.
3. For shorter bursts, it's not necessarily that much faster on mag dumps than an experienced shooter with a conventional trigger.
4. It has very little practical application outside of mag dumps.

My second isn't quite accurate, but check below and it'll make more sense.

First, some YouTube videos and then quotes from an excellent article from the National Association for Gun Rights.

The first shows the trigger in action with some slow-motion demonstrating that a trigger pull is required for each round. But it also is what reminded me of bump stocks. Again, it's not. The bump stock would essentially (afaict, ymmv) push the gun back into your trigger finger so you didn't have to manually pull. It looks like this does something similar but you do have to pull the hairiest trigger possible.

This one shows me two things: The eyes of the first guy shows it fires lots faster than the novice shooter can normally. The second shooter shows me it does take a knack -- easily achieved, but a knack -- to get it to work.

This one, however, is probably my favorite. This fellow shows that he can empty six rounds just as quickly using a traditional trigger. Dude is fast.

Now for some quotes from that article from the National Association for Gun Rights. The last one is pretty telling. They're comparing the Force Reset Trigger to a binary trigger, the second of which also increases discharge rate, but in its case by releasing a round with a pull and a release, thus the whole "binary" moniker. But we learn a decent amount about how actual shooters consider the FRT.

As the BCG [bolt carrier group] moves rearward, it cocks the hammer and simultaneously engages a mechanical component within the trigger assembly designed to push the trigger forward. This forced forward motion ensures a positive reset of the trigger.

...

Forced Reset Triggers significantly increase the rate of fire compared to a standard semi-automatic trigger, similar to the effect of a binary trigger. For shooters who want to send more rounds downrange without the expense and legal hurdles of a full-auto firearm, an FRT can be a viable solution.

...

Ultimately, the FRT is often seen as a fun range accessory rather than a practical tool for precision shooting or tactical applications. While it can provide an exciting experience, shooters must invest time in mastering its operation to use it effectively.

...

An FRT uses the cycling action of the firearm to mechanically force the trigger forward after each shot. This forced reset means your trigger finger moves as the mechanism pushes it forward, rather than through your own conscious effort. While you still feel the movement, the reset action happens automatically due to the interaction between the bolt carrier group and the trigger assembly.

...

If precision shooting is your priority, the binary trigger has a clear advantage. Since the shooter controls when the second round is fired by releasing the trigger, there’s more time to reacquire the target between shots. This control makes the binary trigger better suited for situations where accuracy is more important than the sheer volume of fire.

...

[Which is better in 5 important use cases...]

5. Home Defense:

No Clear Winner — Neither Recommended

Why: In high-stress defensive situations, trigger control and shot accountability are paramount. With a binary trigger, it’s easy to forget about the release shot, which could result in an unintended discharge. The FRT, while mechanically reliable, prioritizes speed over precision, which can make shot placement more difficult when it matters most. For home defense, a standard, high-quality semi-automatic trigger is generally a safer and more practical choice.

That last point (and the "fun range accessory" comment) seem to wrap this up for me. In the wrong hands, a FRT could enable someone shooting at a crowd to cause a lot more carnage than without. For the serious shooter or someone truly interested in eliminating a specific threat, there is no practical usage. That is, unless your adversary was coming at you in waves like an 18-century bayonet charge, it's likely a bad idea to use a FRT for security.

Honestly, I'm still surprised we have a sort of bifurcated Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller is described at today's Wikipedia like this:

The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."

... but there's also otherwise an argument that anything goes. I mean you can even have a fully automatic rifle (as the NAGR references) if you jump through enough hoops. Okay, I realize that's a law, so not 2nd Amendment protection, but in general it feels like "if the Army can own it, so can I" argument comes up more frequently, like with sawed-off shotguns, iirc. That is, in 1939 SCOTUS said:

The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.

But I think I saw an argument that since the Army now assigns shotguns in specific urban missions it's fair game for everyone. But even the text, above, seems counter to Heller: The bar there is "Is this weapon useful to a militia?" not Heller's "Is this something a citizen would have at home and bring to a militia?" Anyhow...

And, as I think I mentioned before, years ago I went to a local gun show to see how tough it'd be to get an AR-15 fully auto. There was a bin of the piece that you'd need to replace to make an AR-15 fully auto and a $10 or so book explaining how to do so easily available. For $1500 or so, you could walk out and be an hour or so away from an fully automatic M-16 equivalent.

The question of whether a FRT should be illegal comes down to how you interpret Heller. I don't know that Heller is talking gun technology. That is, a flintlock musket or rifle (two different things) are nothing, not really, like even a lever-action rifle today. If you'd had a lever-action from 2020 or 1970 in 1770, you would have been a power like no other, not just for rate of fire, speed of round (so velocity and inertia -- damage), but also accuracy.

I think Heller is saying more, "What sorts of weapons do you have around the house today?" rather than "Gun technology stops at 1791".

Even then, NAGR would suggest the FRT isn't one of "the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home" when it says "the FRT is often seen as a fun range accessory rather than a practical tool". When it comes to hunting, they add, "When tracking moving game, accurate follow-up shots are often more critical than speed. The binary trigger provides the time and control necessary to line up subsequent shots, whereas the FRT’s rapid reset can make it more difficult to stay on target."

But this does argue for the binary trigger being legal, I believe. (Strangely, binary triggers appear to be illegal in Florida and Alabama, among other states.)

The weird deal the ATF made with the makers of the FRT is a weird middle ground. I assume it's just a punt. From The Post:

Under the terms of a settlement announced Friday by the Justice Department, “forced reset triggers” can be sold legally so long as their manufacturer, Rare Breed Triggers, refrains from developing similar devices for pistols and enforces its patents to stop copycats.

Once the patent or whatever is out, are we back to where we started?

Regardless, this seems to support where I think I always end up on this one: If you don't like our current state, you've got to amend the Amendment.

Labels: guns, Other Stuff