Dec 052017

Why build one when you can get two at twice the price?

Having two independent triggers seems like asking for trouble, unless each side is fully independent (which they don’t seem to be).

 Posted by at 4:09 pm
  • publiusr

    Sure to be a prop in a sci-fi film in 3…2…1…

  • Madoc

    I like how the guy manages to keep a straight face while hawking this travesty. Props for his sales dedication…

  • Thucydides_of_Athens

    While the idea of having the ability to deliver extreme amounts of firepower in a very short timespan is valid. the execution here is not…..

    If you really need to go to town to break an ambush, an AA-12 automatic shotgun, a MILCOR six round grenade launcher or an exotic firearm like an FN-P90 (with a 50 round magazine) or an HK G-11 (with a theoretical cyclic rate of 2000RPM with each pull of the trigger) seems more suitable for the task.

    An AA-12 with a 20 round drum magazine firing 12 gauge “Frag 12” grenades would seem to be the ideal setup, with the caveat that your effective range is only about 200m:


  • Ulrich Brasche III

    separate triggers are necessary to avoid “automatic” status. if it fires two bullets with a single trigger pull, only a select few would be allowed to possess one. Pretty sure they’d not be allowed to make a “transferrable” weapon anyway

    • Scottlowther

      Not necessarily. The double-barreled 1911 has a single trigger that fires two rounds at once, and the ATF bought off on it. Seems like there’d be no fundamental reason why, with that precedent, they couldn’t do the same thing here. Though *why* remains an open question.

      • Ulrich Brasche III

        not sure how that worked. but the ATF signed off on a few devices over the years that they reneged on later. thats why double barrel shotguns have either two trigger pulls to fire or two triggers nowadays. No answer as to “why” though.