[mp5pdw2001]

I heard that FN change the trigger pack on the FS 2000 and it had some kind of forward sear, I am new to the FS2000 and was thinking of buying one of the earlier ones.

[email protected]

Ed

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

The forward or secondary sear of the trigger pack was removed to make it more difficult to modify the FS2000 to fire in the automatic mode. This piece is not needed for the semi auto FS2000 according to FN. It was only one part of many that is needed to cause the firearm to be made into a machinegun which is illegal to posess and will get you 10 years and a $250,000.00 fine if you are caught with a unregistered machinegun.

There is no known safety issue with the removal of the secondary sear.

If you can find an older FS2000 with the secondary sear, it is not a problem to own as long as you do not try to modify it. However, all new FS2000 after a certain serial number no longer have the trigger pack with the secondary sear.

 

[ShipWreck]

What he said :?

 

[mp5pdw2001]

fs2000

Does anyone have the serial # ranges that had the forward sear ?

Ed

 

[AngryAndy]

Re: fs2000

Does anyone have the serial # ranges that had the forward sear ?

Ed

like maybe 0050XX- 0057xx ? . It is my understanding that they actually went out in somewhat of a less then sequential order even in the earlier models so knowing a serial range might help narrow it down a bit but you'd really have to ask the seller to provide you with a picture etc.. to prove that he has one.

It is my understanding that that feature has a dual purpose of preventing a against a out of battery discharge, thus you get to keep you face another day by having this feature in your gun. I know I am going to get flamed for stating this but it seems to be the general consensus of what I have been able to read on the web. etc..

as stated in the above posts this feature has nothing to do with the gun being able to be converted in a full auto machine gun and to attempt to modify or mess around with the mechanics of your gun in anyway could get you in serious trouble w the law.

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

Re: fs2000

I know I am going to get flamed for stating this but it seems to be the general consensus of what I have been able to read on the web. etc..

Hopefully no one will flame you.

I have yet to read or hear about the FS2000 ever having an OOB firing with the secondary sear present or not present. There was a thread posted on this forum of a FS2000 that the shooter was stating was an OOB firing but FN had the firearm examined and found it to be the ammo that was being used. The ammo reportedly used in this instance had given the shooter some problems and instead of ditching the ammo he continued to shoot with the bad ammo.

I do not doubt that it may be a unintentional function of the secondary sear, but if it was indeed a necessity to have it to prevent a OOB firing, FnH would never have had it removed due to safety concerns that such removal of the sear would have caused. It would be like removing the brake lines and hoping that the car will not crash.

The secondary sear has but one function. To release the hammer so that the firearm can fire in the automatic mode after the bolt closes to specifications.

 

[AngryAndy]

http://fnforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=8953 :roll:


"The safety sear serves the same role as an auto sear does in an M-16; when set to "auto" it prevents hammer follow when the disconnector is disengaged. After the bolt carrier is in battery, the auto sear releases the hammer automatically so long as the trigger is held back. The safety sear does the same thing, which is the reason it would be later omitted by FN. The disconnector catches the hammer the same as it would in an AR-15.

Does it provide an extra margin of safety through redundancy? Yes. Is it absolutely necessary? For semi-auto use, no.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Promoted Pawn
Sponsor


Joined: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 781
Karma:
12
Location: Bradford Pennsylvania

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject: Reply with quote
Agreed. But I'm glad for the extra margin of safety. With my face so close to the chamber it's more important to me than it would be in a 'regular' semi. The disconnector may grab the hammer, but there is nothing in that trigger group, aside from the SS, that "knows" the position of the bolt.
So even if the disconnecter is working fine you can still drop a hammer on an unlocked chamber.
(((This is actually a much bigger issue with the PS90, since the FS2000 bolt carrier is supposed to block the firing pin until the lugs have rotated into the locked position....))) "


_________________


Unfortunately i am unable to link the large discussion on this topic on AR-15.com since I am not yet a team member and this thread is now in the archives of which I do not have access to but it has been greatly discussed (Ar15.com) and now it looks like it could of actually happened

It's not that FN removed this part it's that the ATF asked FN to remove it.
It's my understanding that the AFT wouldn't be that concerned about our safety or be that qualified at re-engineering the FN FS2000.
(not that I claim to be an expert on this topic just repeating what I have read)

 

[HK SD9 Tactical]

http://fnforum.net/viewtopic.php?t=8953 :roll:

Bad ammo. The operator knew that the ammo was giving him problems and still continued to use it.

...according to Promoted Pawn....

"The safety sear serves the same role as an auto sear does in an M-16; when set to "auto" it prevents hammer follow when the disconnector is disengaged. After the bolt carrier is in battery, the auto sear releases the hammer automatically so long as the trigger is held back. The safety sear does the same thing, which is the reason it would be later omitted by FN. The disconnector catches the hammer the same as it would in an AR-15.

Does it provide an extra margin of safety through redundancy? Yes. Is it absolutely necessary? For semi-auto use, no.

That is what I said, just not so eloquently.

It's not that FN removed this part it's that the ATF asked FN to remove it.
It's my understanding that the AFT wouldn't be that concerned about our safety or be that qualified at re-engineering the FN FS2000.

(not that I claim to be an expert on this topic just repeating what I have read)

Are you implying that the ATF and FnH are somehow in cahoots with each other to modify the hammer group to remove a safety feature putting the firearm operator at risk?

Where is your evidence?????

Where did you read this???? Link???

Removal of the secondary sear in the hammer group does not affect the operation of the FS2000 manufactured to operate in the semi automatic mode only.

 

[homeyclaus]

I have both, and just happened to have both side by side. The new one (as in arrived on Friday morning) looked identical, except for what felt like a substantially stronger hammer spring. Trigger is a bit more crisp, at the expense of a harder trigger pull, although that may be a break-in issue.

Point is, I doubt one is more or less safe than the other. More spring strength here or there, or change in the locking counterweight (that metal thing at the end) will matter more.