"DeepDiver" wrote in message

It takes a continuing motion to produce continuous firing. Now, if
you
hook up a motor to drive the crank, that's different. It becomes a
minigun,
very Class III.
Yup


Which again goes to show how absurd gun control laws are.

I agree. But I'll qualify that and say 'some' gun laws are absurd.
Turning by hand good. Turning by motor = bad.
True, yet one can roughly double th' number of rounds fired per min.
with a motor feed over hand cranked... if th' weapon is operating
correctly.
Turning by hand, 600 rounds per minute or more is possible according to
other builders and the designer. A motor besides being illegal might well
exceed the guns capabilities. Remember this thing was designed in the
1860's. High speed (1000 RPM) wasn't in the cards then. The RG-G gun is
esentially the same design.


I could easily design a mechanical transmission, with governor, to both
increase the speed of the hand crank as well as regulate it's rotational
speed in order to provide a fairly smooth and constant rate of fire
similar
to that of an electric motor. Yet the entire system would still be powered
by the hand crank. Does that mean it's still not an automatic weapon?

I beilive that is correct.

What if I attach an electric motor to the Gatling drive, and then use a
hand-cranked electric generator to drive that? Technically, it's still
powered by hand. I've just replaced the mechanical transmission (a shaft)
between my hand and the operating mechanism with an electrical
transmission.

Technicaly its still hand cranked. But the ease that a switch or "trigger"
could be installed would probably raise some eyebrows at ATF. I'd guess they
would lock you up.
What about a hydraulic motor driven by a hand-pump?

Still not a machinegun, but why? It's just adding complication. Or are you
just tweaking the collective nose of the Feds?

It's kind of like shotgun barrel lengths: 18" = good; 17-15/16" = bad

Gotta draw the line somewhere.

"snip"

Or the ridiculous "assault weapon bans" where
the criteria for banning the weapon has to do with its cosmetic
appearance.

That one expired over a year ago. It was a stupid law and wasn't renewed.

These regulations (which are clearly in violation of Constitutional law)
are
arbitrary and capricious.
It's not that clear to me.
Tom