User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/31/2007 8:28:28 PM EDT
[#1]
This has been mulled over ad-naseum. The thing is if ATF gets a big stiffy to make life tough for you, having something that is a machinegun specific in your gun will give them an excuse to bring charges against you. Me personally I would not have a M16 carrier in my semi auto only guns. ATF has a nasty habit of saying one thing is not ok, then saying it is then changing their minds. Either way, you would end up in court settling this dispute just for having something you think could possibly be illegal. If you have money and attourneys as personal freinds, then tread boldly. Otherwise be carefull.
On a technical note - there is no performance improvement in having one in a semi auto gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 3:23:54 AM EDT
[#2]
Can someone post a side-by-side picture of an AR15 and an M16 carrier?
I understand what's been said about having the covered firing pin, but I don't remember what it looks like (it's been 14 years since I left the Army and I haven't seen a FA carrier since). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 4:48:57 AM EDT
[#3]
Gun laws are funny things, i have an Chrome M16 carrier in my M4gery & i'm in the UK!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 5:15:59 AM EDT
[#4]
MACVSOG's extended post is technically absolutely on target, and a very good explanation of the reasons for the AR15/M16 carrier differences. But when you look at the law, and history, you find that nowhere has there ever been a requirement that the Colt designed cutaway under the firing pin was ever mandated. It was purely a politically correct move by Colt in the 1960s.
 Beyond that, when was the last time any of you nondealer types ever saw, much less had a rifle inspected by, an ATF agent? I did see one once, while at a gun store. She had come to do an inspection of the dealer's records. That was about 15 years ago.  So if you want an M16 carrier, I sure wouldn't advise you not to do so. On the other hand, if you're paranoid about such things, by all means use a carrier that leaves you feeling comfortable. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 5:26:06 AM EDT
[#5]
That sounds to me like the BGC alone isn't enough. Even to get you on trumped up "constructive possenion", you would have to have an M16 fire control group AND the BCG. But if they can get you on those charges just by pulling the disconnector out, a lot of people are in trouble. All AKs will sometimes slamfire if you remove the disconnect (or it doesn't catch the hammer). And won't a 1911 go auto if you pull the disconnector out? Does anyone have a letter from the ATF on this point? I think I have seen one before that definitely said you can have FA parts in your gun as long as it won't fire more that one shot with one trigger pull. I would really like to add a copy of that letter to my file. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 6:00:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Here's the best letter I could find. Not a scan, unfortunately. I highlighted the critical sentence in red.
That pretty clearly says an M16 BCG is ok so long as the weapon remains semi-auto, which it will if that's the only FA part installed. Still, I would like a more explicit statement, specifically about issues of constructive possession, and may write to them to get it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 6:20:56 AM EDT
[#7]
Not exactly. The exposed firing pin was somthing invented by Colt to prevent conversions/slam fires. Sort of like large pins and sear blocks. To work properly it needs to be used in conjunction with a hammer with a hook that catches on the exposed firing pin. The main thing that makes an M16 carrier is the ability to trip an auto sear. Many, many early rifles were sold with covered firing pins, so I can't see how the ATF could now say it is not legal. AFAIK no early SP1 ever was shipped with an M16 carrier, ever. My all original 1964 version has a covered firing pin but a small amount of the bottom is milled off to prevent it from ever working in/as an M16. More recently there have been reports of new Colts being shipped with M16 carriers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 6:21:25 AM EDT
[#8]
I have seen that letter to Colt before. Also note that as of the time that was written, Colt was/is leaving a web of material in the auto sear area to stop installation of military or drop in sears. I guess really if you have a milling machine you can remove it and install either of the latter sears. Also Colt is using oversized pins on all their semi autos to prevent people from easily using M16 parts. So yes if you intend to use an M16 carrier, get a letter. Also be warned that ATF can reverse letters on a whim and have done so. If you followed the Akin's debacle you know what I am talking about. Interpretations vary, but it is usually universally agreed that when dealing with ATF, CYA is not a bad policy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 9:38:40 AM EDT
[#9]
Thanks for the replies.
I sincerely doubt that the ATF could use removing the disconnector as an excuse for intent to build a machinegun. If that were the case, every Ruger mini-14/mini-30, m1 garand, m1a, SKS, AK etc.. owner could be charged. Like I said I milled back that bottom metal, so I'm not going to worry about it anymore. I just don't like having people like that knowing about something like that if it's questionable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 9:51:39 AM EDT
[#10]
Exactly, and I think if they want to bring charges against you, they'll use any BS they can. Remember they have no standard procedure for testing weapons. If they want to call one of your guns an MG, they will. My view, you can't stop them from bringing a case if they want to. They will find or make up something to drag you into court. But they still have to convince the jury, and that's where their letters and evidence of your intent and everything else can save your ass. Relatively speaking, of course. You still go broke paying attorneys, but at least you stay out of prison. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 9:52:48 AM EDT
[#11]
The only thing the M16 carrier does is trip the sear that then releases the hammer, thereby causing the weapon to fire.
Messing with the disconnector has nothing to do with the carrier and one could cause full auto fire with a 1/2 circle carrier if the disconnector is monkeyed with. Of course, this is only a mechanical explanation regarding the sequence of events in M16 operation and has nothing to do with ATF regs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2007 11:26:32 AM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2007 5:14:56 AM EDT
[#13]
The best policy is to not give them any reason to get their intrest. I've never had anyone check any of my bolt carriers or magazines for legality, then again I don't give them any reason to. 99% of LEO types know almost zero about firearms and the average police officer wouldn't know a carrier from a muzzle brake, much less how to tell a 15 carrier from a 16.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2007 7:21:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Well put. No one is going to ask if you don't volunteer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2007 8:58:12 AM EDT
[#15]
Why is it the AK guys never argue about their carriers? I guess its a good thing Colt never made a semi-auto carrier for the AK.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2007 8:36:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Variety is the spice of life my friend! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2007 7:00:22 PM EDT
[#17]
COLT 9MM RIFLES HAVE COME WITH FULL AUTO (NORMAL) CARRIERS FOR YEARS . It has never been questioned.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2007 7:16:21 AM EDT
[#18]
Hope this helps. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/4/2007 7:46:39 AM EDT
[#19]
ATF basically just repeats the regulation when asked. Fine. The reg says if it fires more than once per pull of the trigger it's a machinegun.
The M16 carrier by itself will not make that happen. The M16 trigger by itself will not make that happen. The M16 selector by itself will not make that happen. The M16 Hammer by tiself will not make that happen. Most of the ATFs rulings, advise and recommendations on the use of M16 carriers in an AR15 are in direct violation or conflict with the reg. If it makes you feel warm and fuzzy to not use an M16 carrier, the ATF accomplished it's goal and you can sleep better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/24/2007 6:58:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Appears as though this topic of discussion is also of
interest here - www.xdtalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49964 Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 7:26:46 AM EDT
[#21]
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 8:05:22 AM EDT
[#22]
Slickside BCs were used in the model 605 and 605a which were selective fire. Is that a commercial S/A BC at the top of the pic? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 9/25/2007 11:42:15 AM EDT
[#23]
I'll say it again. When the ATF uses words like, must not, should not, recommend against, whatever they are talking about is not case law, regulation or fact. If the installation does not make your gun shoot more than one round per pull of the trigger, it is legal to install.
The only caveat to that is where ATF has stated they were able to make an AR15 fire full auto with 5 M16 trigger assy parts installed. While this does not change the fact an M16 BCG can not make an AR15 fire full auto, it is worth considering in any decisions to use M16 trigger parts. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
