A forced reset trigger (FRT) is a type of firearm trigger mechanism designed to manipulate the firing cycle in a way that allows for a significantly increased rate of fire compared to standard semi-automatic triggers. While appearing superficially similar to regular triggers, FRTs incorporate specialized components that actively force the trigger to reset forward after each shot, rather than relying on the shooter’s finger to release the trigger and allow it to reset passively.

The mechanism typically works by using the firearm’s recoil or gas pressure to drive the trigger forward. After the firearm fires, the bolt carrier group moves rearward, engaging a mechanism within the FRT. This mechanism uses the bolt carrier’s motion to physically push the trigger back to its forward position, resetting the sear and preparing the firearm for the next shot. Because the trigger is actively forced forward, the shooter’s finger only needs to maintain constant rearward pressure. As the trigger resets, it engages the sear, and the firearm fires again as soon as the trigger reaches its forward position. This cycle repeats as long as the shooter maintains rearward pressure, resulting in a rapid firing rate that can approach or even mimic that of a machine gun.

The legality of FRTs is a complex and heavily debated topic. In the United States, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has generally classified FRTs as machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA) because they automatically discharge more than one shot with a single function of the trigger. The ATF’s interpretation hinges on the “single function” aspect, arguing that the continuous pressure on the trigger constitutes a single function, even though the mechanism forces the reset. Therefore, possession of an FRT without proper registration and compliance with NFA regulations is illegal under federal law. Individuals found to possess unregistered FRTs face severe penalties, including significant fines and imprisonment.

Proponents of FRTs often argue that they are merely enhanced trigger mechanisms and do not meet the legal definition of a machine gun. They contend that the shooter must still maintain continuous pressure on the trigger for the firearm to fire, and that the FRT simply assists in the reset process. However, this argument has generally been unsuccessful in legal challenges to the ATF’s classification.

The use of FRTs raises significant concerns about public safety due to their potential for increasing the rate of fire in semi-automatic firearms. The rapid firing rate achievable with FRTs can make it more difficult to control the firearm and increase the risk of accidental or unintentional discharges. The debate surrounding FRTs is likely to continue as technology evolves and the legal interpretation of existing firearms regulations remains a subject of contention.