Talk:Bump stock

Do people really do this?

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)

I see there's now a couple sources.. but do people really do this? I can't imagine how it could possibly be useful. Is it just some guy with a website who talks about this? From google, it looks like most mentions of "bump fire" are talking about nail guns. Friday (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Do people really do this? Yes, but it has little or no practical value (two clues: one, it is not a technique taught in any military or police training I know of; two, Aberdeen Proving Ground tests from WWII refer to situations that amounted to bumpfire in semiauto weapons tests as malfunctions). You can pull off the vectoring of forces required for bumpfire in a controlled range situation, but you cannot count on doing it in a combat situation. It does has a lot of the forbidden fruit allure of doing something "naughty"-because-"illegal". The gun club I belong to does not allow simulated full-auto (perhaps due to rounds missing the paper target but wrecking the wooden target frames). Naaman Brown (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Its a slang term

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)

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". [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jumping cheese (talk • contribs) 07:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Doesn't have to be semi-auto

You can bumpfire a revolver too, or any firearm for that matter that can be fired just by pulling the trigger. Its actually takes some effort to do it right, and takes a bit of practice. But its just a funny trick really. SnitchyCat 14:02, 29 April 2007‎ (UTC)

Rifles only?

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)

Slamfire?

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)

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)

Bumpfire and bump fire

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

bumpfire merged to bump fire -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkface217 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've engaged in the practice, and agree it is fun, but not practical for anything other than experiencing the thrill of close-to-automatic gunfire. I feel that the "bump fire" and "bumpfire" articles be combined under "bump fire", as I believe that is the more common spelling. Aracona (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

not exclusive to holding a foregrip

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)

Wrong explenation in text?

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)

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)

Include Las Vegas mass shooting?

It is being reported that in yesterday's Las Vegas mass shooting a bump stock was used. I think that might be relevant info for this article. 77.167.231.99 (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

References

• No, I do not think we should include the Las Vegas mass shooting in the article. The section that that information is in now shouldn't be there. Sure it is related, but it only taks about it being in a mass shooting event, not more details about the stock itself, or how issues relating to the sale of bump fire stocks are relevant to the shooting.

Botclone (talk) 04:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think a link from any article related to the shooting itself to this article makes more sense than actually discussing the Las Vegas shooting within the body of this article. Syr74 (talk) 06:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support. There are so many mainstream news outlets reporting on bump stocks, what they are, what they do, how many were found, detailed descriptions of bump fire, etc., that it is highly relevant to this article and deserves at least a mention with a link back to the 2017 Las Vegas shooting article, for the simple reason that people are going to come here as a result of that coverage. The information is encyclopedically relevant to this article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shaded0 (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Revise the claim that "the drawback of decreased accuracy eliminates any conceivable "tactical" advantage that might be gained."

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)

Give it a few weeks, and then a few months. The FBI shall have after-action reports. 05:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sources

• 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)

Request made. Yug (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Trigger Crank

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)

Support, it’s a device with a similar purpose. Botclone (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Akins Accelerator

Should we mention the Akins Accelerator as a bump fire device?^{[2], [3] and [4]} 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)

• I can't actually understand from the article, why was this device banned in 2006, but other bump stocks are still not considered machine guns? What's the legal difference? Ain92 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  The Akins device used a spring within the stock assembly. Therefore, this was considered by the ATF to be a mechanical change to the firing mechanism of the weapon of which it was attached; consequently, the bureau determined it was a "machinegun" under the law. Irruptive Creditor (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Source for 400-800 rounds per minute

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)

This is referring to cyclic rate, not sustained rate. Cyclic rate is a function of spring rate, gas pressure, and bolt weight, so I believe 800 or more rounds per minute is feasible with the right firearm.

96.19.142.21 (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

• NationalInterest16, you can talk about "cyclical rate" all you want, but the previous content was verified and you'll need talk page consensus before you get to change the wording. I note also that in your version "cyclical rate" occurred in the text only once: in the lead as you re-wrote it, which makes it either unverified or original research--or both. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 31 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

---

Bump fire → Bump stock – Outside of the first line of the lede, the entire article is actually about the device, the bump stock - what it is and what is its legal status. Given the public uproar over the use of bump stocks in a mass shooting, and their highly publicized eventual ban, this is also likely to be the far better known topic. Move the page and reverse the lede sentence to make this about the device with a comment on what it does. bd2412 T 20:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Support Per nom. If someone wants to write a referenced article about the act of bump firing on the newly formed redirect, they are also free to do so._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy support - I'd have just moved this, dude. Please let someone WP:SNOW this into a move. Red Slash 19:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Public Opinion" section has no place in this article

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)

I'm inclined to agree on this, several years later, and I have also identified a few very clear problems with the following:

A 2018 NPR/Ipsos poll found that 81% of American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±3.5 percentage points. Another poll, by CBS News, around the same time, found that 56% of American adults supported banning bump stocks with a margin of error of ±4 percentage points.

1. That NPR/Ipsos poll figure is wrong. The "81%" figure does not appear anywhere in that section of the poll, the actual figure is 62%
2. The CBS poll does not list that figure anywhere in the article, instead there is a vague mention of "just over half" of Americans, and further, the poll data linked in the article is no longer accessible.

I'm removing this portion entirely, as it's outdated, riddled with errors, and/or unverifiable using available sources. SilverXnoise (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

It is confusing, but if you look more closely, you'll find 62% strongly favor; 81% includes somewhat favor. 56% is in a graphic. Polls help explain why Trump banned them. I think I'll bring back this section. Philosopher Spock (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

My apologies, that was a rookie mistake. It's clearly delineated in the box plots shown in the link. Thanks for reversing my error.

There is a larger consideration for whether a Public Opinion section can be meaningful/useful in articles where the topic is rather niche, such as this one. I can see how that might work for topics like approval ratings for high public offices, where public opinion polls are consistently maintained to enable much more detailed trends. But in this case, polling data tends to be tightly correlated to recent events, and do not necessarily reflect a realistic portrait of how public sentiment evolved, generally speaking, in the broader 30,000-foot historical context of bump stocks. That's not to suggest that public opinion isn't at all relevant here; I rather think it is particularly relevant.

I think a better approach, to help keep the article concise, improve readability, while still preserving this information, would be to combine public opinion with the sections covering the events themselves. In this case, it could be wrapped into the section that covers the Las Vegas and Parkland shootings, respectively, under the History of Regulation heading. We could cite any resulting regulatory and/or legislative changes as having taken place in an environment defined in-part by shifting public opinion, documented in these polls conducted in the days following the events.

I hope that makes sense, I'll try to draft an actual proposed edit to the History of Regulation > After the 2017 Las Vegas shooting section that cites those same referenced polls. It seems a little strange to have an entire subheading for Public Opinion if it can't include a broad enough period of time to illustrate broader historical trends. SilverXnoise (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Direct cites to court papers/litigants

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. Neutrality^talk 14:32, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

ATF opinion overturned

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)

Neutrality

A lot of the article feels like it's written by a guns rights' activist. But especially egregious seems the section where the mechanism is explained. It takes a clear position that it doesn't turn a semi-automatic weapon into an automatic weapon (essentially what the recent supreme court case was about) with the argument that 'there is constant pressure from the non-shooting arm' as if for every shot the other arm has to push the gun forward manually. Never does it mention what the bump stock itself actually does to bump it back, instead it says your trigger finger has to bump the gun back which is very weird to say as it's just the recoil itself and the bump goes the opposite direction. In short it is explained in a roundabout and imo false way to lead one to believe be a purely manual process or technique, and hence it should be legal. The CNN article cited as a source (reference eight) says nothing of the sort and seems to be an unrelated source put in there just as a cover not to remove the writer's weird pro-gun argument. The mechanism of how a bump stock works should be described objectively and clearly at the start of the article. All the arguments about the legality and semantics about what an automatic gun in essence is can go in the description of the court cases in the end. 2A01:827:897:B501:59DE:9A81:BF12:3CFB (talk) 06:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)