Remote Rifle Project [Archive]

dtknowles

09-04-2015, 01:33 PM

well now you done it.
the wife asked if I was going hunting again yesterday.
I said yes,,, since I can't really shoot stuff from the couch.
well,,, now apparently I can.
we have an any-weapons season for deer here I think this would qualify as an any-weapon.

Wasn't there someone who set-up such a gun and put it in a deer stand and would let people hunt (hunt is the wrong word, don't know what you would call it) over the internet?

Tim

jmorris

09-04-2015, 02:21 PM

Wasn't there someone who set-up such a gun and put it in a deer stand and would let people hunt (hunt is the wrong word, don't know what you would call it) over the internet?

Tim

Yes, and why I shelved the project for a decade. Had a pretty bad hog problem at the time and I had started gathering bits and had the gimbal done when Live-Shot came out and my State banned remote hunting.

oddly enough we can still poison and trap animals with no regulation on if/when we have to check traps or have provisions for food or water, before you walk up on it and kill it...

FergusonTO35

09-09-2015, 06:07 PM

Pretty sure remote control guns have been declared to be subject to the National Firearms Act as AOW, same as disguised and booby trap guns. Wasn't this what happened to the Live Shot thing?

jmorris

09-09-2015, 08:16 PM

No, live shot caused some States to ban remote hunting though.

Folks even play with them that can move around.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtDgTeK-D5I

One could however build a remote controlled AOW if the firearm itself is an AOW.

26 U.S.C. § 5845(E)

For the purposes of the National Firearms Act, the term “Any Other Weapon” means:

Any weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive;

A pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell;

Weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading; and

Any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire.

Mine won't fly but here is another.
http://www.newsweek.com/gun-shooting-drone-newsweek-talks-inventors-dad-355723

FergusonTO35

09-09-2015, 09:39 PM

I believe you, still I am surprised at some of the things ATF doesn't classify as NFA.

NavyVet1959

09-09-2015, 10:29 PM

Are you using an electrically operated solenoid to directly operate the firing pin? Something like this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/10mm-10N-Spring-Load-Push-Pull-Actuator-Electromagnet-Solenoid-DC-12V-/351174822248?hash=item51c3a68968

https://www.googledrive.com/host/0B8A9o0AImjXHfmlSQWdFVFRfSmd6d19mTG1jVXUzRWhrZk1KQ WFvdjJidlFtUERRcXh3M1k/solenoid-actuator-10n.jpg

Or you using a normal trigger and spring mechanism where the actuator just has to pull the trigger?

NavyVet1959

09-09-2015, 10:30 PM

I believe you, still I am surprised at some of the things ATF doesn't classify as NFA.

Actually, NOTHING should be classified as NFA since the NFA and ATF are blatantly unconstitutional in that they violate the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Ballistics in Scotland

09-10-2015, 08:06 AM

jmorris

09-10-2015, 09:12 AM

Or you using a normal trigger and spring mechanism where the actuator just has to pull the trigger?

That is how it works, you can see the setup at the end of this short video.

http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/qvideo/Mobile%20Uploads/th_VID_20150901_130018_454_zpsfvvwz2yu.mp4 (http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv5/qvideo/Mobile%20Uploads/VID_20150901_130018_454_zpsfvvwz2yu.mp4)

jmorris

09-10-2015, 09:28 AM

This device is a booby trap gun.

Not according to the ATF, it is not autonomous nor designed to cause anyone harm.

Misused it could, then again so could just the firearm but they are not booby traps either.

NavyVet1959

09-10-2015, 04:10 PM

But felons, infants and lunatics are people too, and I don't believe anybody is seriously permitting that they should be allowed to keep and bear arms. If the Second Amendment can be abridged, it can be abridged.

I don't think infants are a major concern.

With respect to felons and those who are "bat-excrement crazy", I stand by what the Founding Fathers wrote -- "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". To believe that their 2nd Amendment rights should be able to be infringed is just one more step down that slippery slope that will result in the 2nd Amendment rights of ALL of us being infringed upon. The prohibition of felons and the mentally ill is a recent infringement and was not originally provided for by the Founding Fathers. As such, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

So, you're wrong... There is at least ONE person here that is saying that they should be allowed to keep and bear arms. Maybe I would prefer that they didn't in certain cases, but I will stand upon the principles of the 2nd Amendment as set down by the Founding Fathers.

NavyVet1959

09-10-2015, 04:23 PM

That is how it works, you can see the setup at the end of this short video.

I can't really tell from that video, but it looks like a regular rifle, so I guess you are just using some sort of actuator for a normal trigger. The video seems to be saying something about "150 yard shot on a can with an arrow".

Personally, I've been curious about developing a servo powered striking pin using something like I posted in my previous post. I'm just not sure whether those servo actuators react fast enough to cause a primer to fire.

jmorris

09-10-2015, 04:52 PM

The video is with the servo mounted on one of my air rifles at the end of the video (8-10 seconds in) you can see how the servo is mounted.

The pull and release of the trigger is the same as you would do with your finger.

There are solenoid fired guns as well like these.

http://www.pardiniguns.com/pistols/t...s/38-sp1sp1-rf (http://www.pardiniguns.com/pistols/target-pistols/38-sp1sp1-rf)

http://www.matchguns.com/en/mg2e-rapid-fire

There have also been electronic "spark" fired rifles like the Remington EtronX rifles that use special primers.

Krico also made electronic "spark" fired rifles, kricotronic electronic ignition, that used standard ammunition/primers, imported by Beeman from 1986-1988. Used a 9v battery in the stock.

zubrato

09-12-2015, 03:57 AM

I don't think infants are a major concern.

With respect to felons and those who are "bat-excrement crazy", I stand by what the Founding Fathers wrote -- "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". To believe that their 2nd Amendment rights should be able to be infringed is just one more step down that slippery slope that will result in the 2nd Amendment rights of ALL of us being infringed upon. The prohibition of felons and the mentally ill is a recent infringement and was not originally provided for by the Founding Fathers. As such, it is blatantly unconstitutional.

Hear, hear!

Either a man freed from jail is safe to be released amongst society, or he isn't. Once he's free his freedoms should be restored.
We have many many stupid felonies, too.

The second amendment is the most clear and easily understood of the entire bill of rights. There is no way to misinterpret SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Would I care if my neighbor had one?
Lol dude, I'm sniffing distance from Chicago. Pretty much guarantee you my neighbors are up to much worse than a hobbyist tinkering around.

Back on topic; I had no idea about this remote hunting! This is a super cool project, gonna do some reading and follow this more closely.

jmorris

09-12-2015, 10:15 AM

Either a man freed from jail is safe to be released amongst society, or he isn't. Once he's free his freedoms should be restored.
We have many many stupid felonies, too.

I have to admit I never thought of it this way. Guess we have such a revolving door prison system now it never crossed my mind. FWIW it is also a shame that although currently you can't own a firearm but you can be a congressman or senator that makes laws for the rest of us that are not felons...

oldred

09-12-2015, 12:40 PM

But felons, infants and lunatics are people too, and I don't believe anybody is seriously permitting that they should be allowed to keep and bear arms. If the Second Amendment can be abridged, it can be abridged.

This device is a booby trap gun. If it is put to practical use, no way can they be unable to find a way to treat it as criminal, with existing legislation. Besides, wireless control of devices isn't that secure. Many forms of hacking or accidental malfunction could leave you with some fast talking to do. Would you want your neighbor to have one?

I won't comment on the device being a booby trap or not, I simply am not in a position to say one way or the other, but the comment about felons etc is way off base. First felons have forfeited certain rights when they became convicted criminals, owning a firearm is one of those rights. "Lunatics" or other mentally disturbed people incapable of exercising the responsibility that goes with these rights also are required to involuntarily forfeit said rights. Our constitution does guarantee certain inalienable rights but does not guarantee those rights to those people who can not exercise them with responsibly.

dtknowles

09-12-2015, 12:46 PM

Hear, hear!

Either a man freed from jail is safe to be released amongst society, or he isn't. Once he's free his freedoms should be restored.........

You got any ideas for new sentencing guidelines to make this work, like the death penalty or life in prison for Car Jacking. Do you think it is ever safe to release a confessed car jacker. There are many crimes including murder where the convict will be released and they never have to renounce the crime or even show remorse, you fulfill the full sentence and you are free to go. I am not saying that the Constitution doesn't provide them the right to keep and bear arms but don't just think that that is safe. Then again it is not safe to drive either.

Tim

zubrato

09-12-2015, 04:00 PM

Really sorry for the thread hijack, OP. I think the reaction is that most of us were never expecting to see someone to waver on the position of the second amendment here.

I'm not a policy maker or an empty suit for my opinion to matter on the subject, however, I do think I'd rather have violent persons prevented from being released back into society time and time again.
Either someone is free, or they arent and there shouldn't be a middle zone where someone who has reformed cannot protect themselves or their family.

http://felonyguide.com/List-of-felony-crimes.php

Murderers and violent persons are #8 on the top ten list of felonies, where many many millions more are now stripped of their god given rights for non violent crimes.

I'm not standing by what those people did, and I'm glad they were caught and charged.
But, If you believe someone can be reformed after the sentence they were given to fulfill, then they should be restored their freedoms as american citizens.
If you haven't then you don't truly believe they are reformed, or that they haven't paid the appropriate price for their crime. Then why release them back into general population?

jmorris

09-12-2015, 06:30 PM

No problem on the drift, not much else to say on the original topic anyway.

You got any ideas for new sentencing guidelines to make this work, like the death penalty or life in prison for Car Jacking.

Reminded me of an old school board meeting when the subject was corporal punishment. One of the folks addressing the school board substituted "capital punishment" instead, when the comment "yeah, that will teach'em, for good." came out the speaker didn't even catch his folly.

On a serious note,

77 percent of felony defendants have at least one prior arrest and 69 percent have multiple prior arrests.
http://www.crimeinamerica.net/2010/06/02/repeat-felons-dominate-the-criminal-justice-system—most-convicted-felons-do-not-serve-time-in-prison—part-one/

What does that say about our reform system?

NavyVet1959

09-14-2015, 09:35 AM

You got any ideas for new sentencing guidelines to make this work, like the death penalty or life in prison for Car Jacking. Do you think it is ever safe to release a confessed car jacker. There are many crimes including murder where the convict will be released and they never have to renounce the crime or even show remorse, you fulfill the full sentence and you are free to go. I am not saying that the Constitution doesn't provide them the right to keep and bear arms but don't just think that that is safe. Then again it is not safe to drive either.

Say a person kills someone else with a baseball bat and because of the whatever laws are in place in that state, he eventually gets released to society. Currently, we say that he is prohibited from owning firearms. But his crime wasn't committed with a firearm. Shouldn't we be prohibiting him from owning *baseball bats* instead? Why should we treat firearms as a special case? By doing that, we are falling into the liberal mindset that somehow, firearms are "different" and deserve to be legislated as such. They are just TOOLS, nothing more. The Founding Fathers understood this, that's why the 2nd Amendment has the clause "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and DOES NOT have any exceptions.

jmorris

09-14-2015, 10:21 AM

The Founding Fathers understood this, that's why the 2nd Amendment has the clause "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and DOES NOT have any exceptions.

You think they should also have the right while they are in prison?

NavyVet1959

09-14-2015, 10:41 AM

You think they should also have the right while they are in prison?

Well, I think the Founding Fathers were talking about *free* men, not slaves or prisoners. But that does beg the question of whether we would find it acceptable to restrict the religion that a person exercises in prison.

jmorris

09-14-2015, 11:21 AM

From what I understand even after one is out of prison they are still not "free".

Drifting the boat further, I am a "good guy" and there are still times my right is infringed.

oldred

09-14-2015, 08:33 PM

Say a person kills someone else with a baseball bat and because of the whatever laws are in place in that state, he eventually gets released to society. Currently, we say that he is prohibited from owning firearms. But his crime wasn't committed with a firearm. Shouldn't we be prohibiting him from owning *baseball bats* instead? Why should we treat firearms as a special case? By doing that, we are falling into the liberal mindset that somehow, firearms are "different" and deserve to be legislated as such. They are just TOOLS, nothing more. The Founding Fathers understood this, that's why the 2nd Amendment has the clause "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and DOES NOT have any exceptions.

You know that's a darn good point, I had never thought of it that way but it does indeed make sense! Someone might argue that well a bat is not considered a weapon while a firearm is but what about a knife? Bow&arrow? Commit a murder with any of those things and get out of prison later and what are you prohibited from owning, guns of course!

dtknowles

09-14-2015, 09:55 PM

You know that's a darn good point, I had never thought of it that way but it does indeed make sense! Someone might argue that well a bat is not considered a weapon while a firearm is but what about a knife? Bow&arrow? Commit a murder with any of those things and get out of prison later and what are you prohibited from owning, guns of course!

It can depend on the terms of your release. If you searve you whole sentence then that is true but if you are released on parole, then terms can be made so that you don't have legal access to almost anything the Judges can think of.

Tim

6mm win lee

10-02-2015, 08:18 PM

The answer lies not in the second ammendment but in the fifth.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Does a man retain his right to life and the right to defend his life after a jury sentences him to a term of imprisonment and his release from the same? Does the same man retain his right to life and his right to defend that life during the imprionment? Even the convicted whose life will be subject to the corruption of blood (death penalty) retains their right to life and the defence of that life until they are subject to the execution of the death penalty. It is a natural response for any creature to want to preserve its life in the face of an potentially fatal attack, even from other imates in prison.

The second part of all that is other men should be able to protect themselves from their fellow man who wish to inflict harm on them. That is where the control debate starts and should end. The old adage is correct. An armed society is a polite society. Gun control does not protect anyone from harm.