Sorry Steve, I was fully aware of that.  It seems people keep replying without actually reading the thread.  My last post was for the lazy bastards who will only read the last page.

I'm confident this won't be the last time you, I, or others will have to repeat themselves due to repeat posts by people who won't read the thread before they post.

Damn, this thread is like a Zombie, its been dead for almost 5 years and its come back to life....

Originally Posted By KA3B: Damn, this thread is like a Zombie, its been dead for almost 5 years and its come back to life....

That is because people believe the BS stories that people tell about how it's illegal to use M16 parts in an AR-15.

And Bushmaster keeps purpetrating that myth, actively, even to this day.

And Colt, too.

Originally Posted By Hydguy: And Colt, too.

Umm, the letter I posted on the last page is being provided with new Colt rifles that have M16 carriers.

EDIT : Here is a posted image of the letter from the ATF to Colt.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=242892

No new news there, and once again make note of the word "recommendation" and lack of confirmation as they cannot confirm illegality where none exists.  They can recommend against it though and hope that scares you out of using any of the parts whatsoever.

Wow.  13 pages.  Thanks to the patient few who have explained the law on this matter.

Originally Posted By 0100010: Originally Posted By Hydguy: And Colt, too. Umm, the letter I posted on the last page is being provided with new Colt rifles that have M16 carriers. EDIT : Here is a posted image of the letter from the ATF to Colt. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=14&t=242892

Umm, colt uses oversized FCG pins, and have sear blocks, so you can't put "M-16" parts in it.
So they not only perpetuate the myth, but put physical barriers in their lowers, 'just in case'.

Originally Posted By Tweak: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Umm, colt uses oversized FCG pins, and have sear blocks, so you can't put "M-16" parts in it. So they not only perpetuate the myth, but put physical barriers in their lowers, 'just in case'. AFAIK current COLT's don't use separate sear blocks other than the narrowing of the lower receiver above the selector like that in use by the rest of the industry.

The myth lives on, in spite of the reality of Colt's actions in placing M16 bolts in their semi rifles.

Originally Posted By El_Abogado: Originally Posted By Tweak: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Umm, colt uses oversized FCG pins, and have sear blocks, so you can't put "M-16" parts in it. So they not only perpetuate the myth, but put physical barriers in their lowers, 'just in case'. AFAIK current COLT's don't use separate sear blocks other than the narrowing of the lower receiver above the selector like that in use by the rest of the industry. The myth lives on, in spite of the reality of Colt's actions in placing M16 bolts in their semi rifles.

I have seen new colts that have the rear lug shelf completley blocked off, preventing the use of a RDIAS. ANd the FCG pins are STILL oversized El_Abogado.

I just got a NIB Colt 6920, it came with the 16 carrier it's my understanding that this is legal?didn't get any letter from ATF tho???

I have read this thread from front to back and hate to add to it, but here goes.
I read about using M16 bolts in AR15s, but are you talking about unaltered bolts?
A quick cut and paste from one of the many ATF replies states:"In order to avoid violations of the NFA, M16 hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers must not be used in assembly of AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration.".
Does having the shelf milled put the M16 bolt carrier into SP1 configuration?
I am an AR15 newbie, so please excuse any dumb questions.
If an M16 bolt carrier has been milled, is it still an M16 bc? I mean, it won't operate an M16 in fa mode.
Do all the warnings by the ATF refer to an unaltered M16 bc, or does the alteration exempt it from their warnings?
I also understand that using the M16bc, or other M16 parts does not constitute a mg unless it allows full auto fire.
Thanks,
Jim

I think we need to have a literacy test before being allowed to post in this thread.

WHO CARES? either one is perfectly LEGAL! Icant beleive this has went this many pages.

Originally Posted By Hydguy: Originally Posted By El_Abogado: Originally Posted By Tweak: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Umm, colt uses oversized FCG pins, and have sear blocks, so you can't put "M-16" parts in it. So they not only perpetuate the myth, but put physical barriers in their lowers, 'just in case'. AFAIK current COLT's don't use separate sear blocks other than the narrowing of the lower receiver above the selector like that in use by the rest of the industry. The myth lives on, in spite of the reality of Colt's actions in placing M16 bolts in their semi rifles. I have seen new colts that have the rear lug shelf completley blocked off, preventing the use of a RDIAS. ANd the FCG pins are STILL oversized El_Abogado.

I don't have one of these rifles to look at but, Chip McCormick, in describing a "drop in" trigger they sell states they will not fit Colts with the shelf.  So, that supports the idea of the modifications.

As far as the law is concerned, and I commented earlier on, the true law deep down in the regualtions does not really matter.  If BATF comes up with a regulation, or even if just some district whose agents think the law is what they say it is, you have a problem with the M16 parts.  It does not matter if a bunch of lawyers, whether on here or off in a classrom somewhere can dissect and parse the words, YOU are the one charged with illegal possession of a machine gun, and can fight your way out of it.  As with so many bullshit laws, it's fine for theoreticians or those with unlimited means to buy the necessary legal talent to fight in court.  And, all one needs is a biased judge, then you can pay more for an appeal.  If anyone in BATF says one part is a machine gun, he/she may ulitmately be wrong, but can you, the individual fight it?  You get as much justice as you can afford to buy.  

This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say and, they may indeed be right.  But, who faces the judge?  Who gets taken in?  Who gets his/her house searched and guns confiscated?  I'll say "Have no M16 parts if you want to avoid problems."  Even then, ask some who have been amazed by the BATF technical branch getting rifles to fire full auto.  REfer to the legal procedures comments above.

If we, the gun owners of America do not step up to defend what is right.

Then who do you suggest?

Everything that can and should be said.... has already been said.


This is one of the worst threads in ARFcom history.  This whole discussion needs a "do over"  People let it die forever, then some jackass has to ressurect it from the dead.

The mods wont lock it.... I believe.... only in an effort to drive me completely out of my mind.... bringing it regularly back to the top of "My Active Topics"

I am going to go blow my brains out now.

Originally Posted By Tweak: dude, it's tacked for a reason

I know.  To drive me insane.

Originally Posted By rjroberts: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Originally Posted By El_Abogado: Originally Posted By Tweak: Originally Posted By Hydguy: Umm, colt uses oversized FCG pins, and have sear blocks, so you can't put "M-16" parts in it. So they not only perpetuate the myth, but put physical barriers in their lowers, 'just in case'. AFAIK current COLT's don't use separate sear blocks other than the narrowing of the lower receiver above the selector like that in use by the rest of the industry. The myth lives on, in spite of the reality of Colt's actions in placing M16 bolts in their semi rifles. I have seen new colts that have the rear lug shelf completley blocked off, preventing the use of a RDIAS. ANd the FCG pins are STILL oversized El_Abogado. I don't have one of these rifles to look at but, Chip McCormick, in describing a "drop in" trigger they sell states they will not fit Colts with the shelf.  So, that supports the idea of the modifications. As far as the law is concerned, and I commented earlier on, the true law deep down in the regualtions does not really matter.  If BATF comes up with a regulation, or even if just some district whose agents think the law is what they say it is, you have a problem with the M16 parts.  It does not matter if a bunch of lawyers, whether on here or off in a classrom somewhere can dissect and parse the words, YOU are the one charged with illegal possession of a machine gun, and can fight your way out of it.  As with so many bullshit laws, it's fine for theoreticians or those with unlimited means to buy the necessary legal talent to fight in court.  And, all one needs is a biased judge, then you can pay more for an appeal.  If anyone in BATF says one part is a machine gun, he/she may ulitmately be wrong, but can you, the individual fight it?  You get as much justice as you can afford to buy.   This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say and, they may indeed be right.  But, who faces the judge?  Who gets taken in?  Who gets his/her house searched and guns confiscated?  I'll say "Have no M16 parts if you want to avoid problems."  Even then, ask some who have been amazed by the BATF technical branch getting rifles to fire full auto.  REfer to the legal procedures comments above.

I don't know anyone who has faced prosecution for this, who do you know?  The only cases I know of the guy was truly guilty of illegal possession or conversion.  I also know of no Colt owners who have received the new Colts that come with the M16 carriers that have had issue, nor all the other 1000's of admitted users.  I have at least two friends who have written BATF that they are using an M16 carrier in their AR15's and have had no troubles other than one receiving back a letter of opinion only stating that they recommended for him not to - not that he had broken any law or was in trouble.

The threat simply doesn't exist, chill out.  Now that Colt is equiping their rifles with M16 carriers, I would think that would be enough to alleviate peoples fears if one of the biggest companies, the one who specifically made PC modifications to their rifles - don't have a problem with it.

This issue is now over, done with, and past but it needs to remain posted so those that don't know may learn - there is still much ignorance out there.

Originally Posted By rjroberts: insert rant here

I recommend going home and burning all the books you own. Then, burn all the videos you own. Then burn all the dvd's. photographs, magazines, letters, etc. I mean, we do have the freedom of press. But that's just what the law says. After all, the .gov could jsut issue a ruling that your photos are obscene, your books seditious, and your videos  constructive intent to commit a crime.


I feel sorry for you. i really do.

BTT

Originally Posted By AK_Mike: I don't know anyone who has faced prosecution for this, who do you know?  The only cases I know of the guy was truly guilty of illegal possession or conversion.  I also know of no Colt owners who have received the new Colts that come with the M16 carriers that have had issue, nor all the other 1000's of admitted users.  I have at least two friends who have written BATF that they are using an M16 carrier in their AR15's and have had no troubles other than one receiving back a letter of opinion only stating that they recommended for him not to - not that he had broken any law or was in trouble. The threat simply doesn't exist, chill out.  Now that Colt is equiping their rifles with M16 carriers, I would think that would be enough to alleviate peoples fears if one of the biggest companies, the one who specifically made PC modifications to their rifles - don't have a problem with it. This issue is now over, done with, and past but it needs to remain posted so those that don't know may learn - there is still much ignorance out there.

+1  I'm one of the lawyers on this site.  I've advised clients on NFA issues before.  I've got M16 carriers in my Colts and I'm more than confident of my ability to defend myself in court on the matter, especiallywith Colts.  If you're concerned, don't use an M16 bolt in your blaster.

TO all the people out there: READ THE DAMN LAW FOR YOURSELF!!!!

Bushmaster doesn't make the LAW, so what they do is a practice that THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH.

I have a M-16 BCG, trigger, and safety in my AR, and it only goes bang once per complete trigger pull. Period. It is perfectly LEGAL to have it like that.

THe Tech Branch OPINION is just that, an OPINION. It isn't the law.

Damn.....

Originally Posted By Hydguy: I have a M-16 BCG, trigger, and safety in my AR, and it only goes bang once per complete trigger pull.

You are a brave man, and I applaud you!



From a distance.  

Originally Posted By rjroberts: This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say  . . .

Based on that statement, you are either really stupid or you simply did not read my posts; then again, those choices are not mutually exclusive especially in light of the rest of the garbage you posted.  

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Originally Posted By rjroberts: This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say  . . . Based on that statement, you are either really stupid or you simply did not read my posts; then again, those choices are not mutually exclusive especially in light of the rest of the garbage you posted.

Steve is a lawyer. I am not.

I KNOW what the regs say, as does Steve, but Steve isn't the one who keeps this thread popping up.

It's people that can't comprehend what the ACTUAL REGULATIONS SAY, and want to base their opinion on Bushmaster's sales policy, or what a friend told them/what they read on the internet.

READ THE REGULATIONS. It's pretty damn simple if you can comprehend 'See Spot Run'.

Originally Posted By Hydguy: READ THE REGULATIONS. It's pretty damn simple if you can comprehend 'See Spot Run'.

+1  (Shit, didn't mean to keep this one at the top. . . )

Originally Posted By FALARAK: Everything that can and should be said.... has already been said. This is one of the worst threads in ARFcom history.  This whole discussion needs a "do over"  People let it die forever, then some jackass has to ressurect it from the dead. The mods wont lock it.... I believe.... only in an effort to drive me completely out of my mind.... bringing it regularly back to the top of "My Active Topics" I am going to go blow my brains out now.

the gun you plan to use, does it have a m16 bolt carrier? is that even legal?

I really really, really hate to bring this all up to the top again, and am torn between taking on  fools who wish to pontificate (usually down their noses) at someone, and my usual practice of just walking away from same.  However, the insults of being called stupid, and the down the nose "feeling sorry", sullying my name go a bit beyond the pale.  Since the mods have not seen fit to rein in such behavior, they damn well better not criticize me when I respond.  Such response will remain civil.  Of course, my visceral reaction was to tell one poster, directing an insult at me,  he was an idiot; and, I wanted to tell Steve in VA, since I believe he's a lawyer (correct me if I am wrong) that he is a borderline crook, since his calling me "stupid" was based on a sentence with a clause removed, changing the meaning of the sentence.  That's what lawyers do when they haven't the facts or the law on their side.

But, I shall resist such temptations, and make no such accusations.  My blanket comment is that reading comprehension is your friend.  So, I shall now answer those, and translate my comments for a conclusion.

>>posted by NAM

Originally Posted By rjroberts:
insert rant here


I recommend going home and burning all the books you own. Then, burn all the videos you own. Then burn all the dvd's. photographs, magazines, letters, etc. I mean, we do have the freedom of press. But that's just what the law says. After all, the .gov could jsut issue a ruling that your photos are obscene, your books seditious, and your videos constructive intent to commit a crime.


I feel sorry for you. i really do.<<

Actually, I feel sorry for you, since you clearly cannot read.  That is not what I said.  For info, you don't have the total freedoms you are talking about in this post, though I certainly believe you should.  My comments spoke to the practical issues.  And, frankly, even if all books were banned, I'd not go waving one about in protest, which simply is stupid.   To be sure, I'd be voting from the rooftops, but would not make a display of preparing to do so.



>> posted by Steve-in-VA

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

This thread goes on so long because the lawyers on here will lecture about what the regulations say . . .


Based on that statement, you are either really stupid or you simply did not read my posts; then again, those choices are not mutually exclusive especially in light of the rest of the garbage you posted. <<


Only a stupid person (you used the word) would think another stupid enough to accept such a comment based on a sentence with a cleverly (well, since it was obvious, perhaps not so cleverly) omitted phrase.  That phrase was "and they may very well be right."  So, you see, no one was criticizing or belittling the lawyers:  I actually said you were right, but there were practical issues.

Tsk, tsk, if you thought you could base your case on it.  If I needed a lawyer, maybe it would help to have one who would play with the facts to forward my cause.  Then, it might be a liability, because the opposition might just discover it, and destroy my whole case.  Sorry, but your whole post doesn't work, simply because you played a bit fast and loose with the facts.

Also, it is my understanding, though I am not a lawyer, that not only is it bad form to insult the opposition, but could look bad to the jury, harming your case.


My whole post was an attempt to close the issue.  Both sides, if I may presume to characterize the opposing views as sides, have merit.  On the one, there is the law.  As I said in my post, the details of the law can say one thing, and the lawyers and other knowledgeable people commenting on that may be right.  El Abogado, likely a lawyer, based on the name said he'd be confident in defending himself.  Great!  But, he's  a lawyer!  

The practical side simply says that, regardless of the law, as long as the fundamental attitude of whatever agency - though BATF implicitly is the front runner in this - is gotcha!, you are at risk.  Certainly one may prevail ultimately in court.  But, that's not so certain.  I would venture to say most people beyond the 6th grade realize that right and victory, especially in court, do not necessarily go hand in  hand.  ANd, regardless of outcome, there is a tremendous expenditure of resources, unless one is a lawyer or has a brother who is.  This is not to insult El Abogado, but bully for you if you can defend yourself; I can't. And, I can think of (my wife surely can) better uses for the tens of thousands of dollars it will cost to pay for a defense.

So, to sum up:

The lawyers may be - probably are - right as to the letter of the law. (Judge bias notwithstanding.  Oh, OK, there's the appeals proces$$)

The practical people know there are agents and directors who think they can make the law, and the individual is going through the grinder until the "system" thrashes it all out.

My thought is "why bother?"  Don't have anything BATF can call machine gun parts in the rifle.  Then they don't have probable cause to search your house to find them.  When you are dealing with police and media idiots who make a 10/22 into a dangerous assault weapon dangerous for miles, it's not an argument I even want to get into.  There are some people you just cannot change.  If you want to have "innocent" parts in your rifle, and others in a drawer, which BATF doesn't think legal, that's your business.  But, why wave the red flag at the bull or, in the case of most laws, bull by-product).

That's the whole thing in a nutshell.

When they come for me, I don't own an AR15, but they will get the business end of an AR10, from alternate locations, and will never again have a peaceful day or night.  And, I won't even feel sorry for them.

Once again, reading comprehension is your friend.

Yes, I'm a lawyer.  Yes, I have shrouded carriers in all my carbines.  Yes, I'm confident about the law and know that I would prevail in any litigation.  You mayfeel differently about the law and what you are comfortable doing.  That's not the law, it's policy and personal preference.  One thing to consider:  If it were against the law to do so, do you really think that Colt would include shrouded carriers in its semi-auto carbines?

This has to be the longest running post in arfcom history.

If anyone has  Colt M16 bolt carrier in their rifle and want to trade it for a Colt M16 bolt carrier that has been modified so it cannot trip an auto sear, please let me know and I will trade you.

Otherwise STFU.

Bob  

14 pages and three years.

You are missing ATFE's viewpoint.  Read the letters of opinion they have put out.  Even though they only apply to the addressee and are not law, they describe how the ATFE feels about it and might pursue it in court.  None of those letters say it is illegal to use an M16 carrier in an AR-15.  Let me repeat it for you. None of those letters say it is illegal to use an M16 carrier in an AR-15.  They do say it's illegal when in concert with the rest of the parts to convert to full auto, but that is not the issue. The letters only "recommend" that you do not use the M16 carrier because of the increased chance you might end up with ALL the parts necessary for full auto then you would be in trouble.  There is no real threat from ATFE, they do NOT say it is illegal.  They don't like it and recommend that you don't, but that's as far as it goes.  There is no litigation.  This has been the case for many, many years and there still is no litigation.  Colt is supplying them in their non-LE rifles, ATFE knows it, and there is no litigation.  There is no fear of court action.  Do you really think ATFE is going to suddenly change their position after all these years and make a losing test case out of one of many thousands of M16 carrier users at random?  You?  Your friend?  Why would they even bother?  They have not done so because they know it isn't against the law and they know many people use M16 carriers and know that companies are now supplying them to civilians in semi-automatic rifles.

Tell you what, go ahead and use the M16 carrier and tell anyone who asks that I put it in there myself.  Go ahead and call ATFE and tell them this.  Write them a letter about it.  I dare you to waste your time.  I have two friends who have done this specifically without ill effect.  If they go after someone, don't you think they would rather pick someone who has admitted/confessed in writing of doing this, or perhaps a company with lots of money to bankrupt?  All this has been done and STILL no one has been successfully prosecuted for this specific action.  There is no threat from ATFE.  If they could have prosecuted people for (the specific and exclusive act of) using M16 carriers in AR15's, they would have done so by now.

There is also talk about some of the many, many letters of opinion issued by ATFE.  There are some that press a particular opinion contrary to what is believed to be correct but have not been taken to court because they know they would lose and set a clear precedent opposed to their liking.  They prefer to be ambiguous and hope that one is scared from doing anything contrary to their liking whether it's legal or not.

It doesn't take a lawyer to understand the simple laws concerning this issue.  They are very clear and concise.  The ATFE does not contradict these particular laws, they only make strong recommendations.  There is no fear of court action, but if it came to it, no fear of losing in court because you are in fact not breaking the law and ATFE knows it.

Any fears you have are generated from your own paranoia.  You aren't the only one, many others have the same confusion and paranoia, thus this thread is tacted.  If you wish to relieve yourself of the paranoia that you just can't shake, avoid using all M16 parts and sleep well at night just as the rest of us use the M16 carrier and sleep just fine.  If you want to use an M16 carrier because the M16/AR-15 was designed to use the weight of one but can't stand the paranoia, go get an LBC/Young Mfg carrier - they have the same weight as that of the M16 carrier (and are superior in other ways IMHO).

I agree with virtually everyting AK Mike says.  My whole point was that the detail of the law is one thing, and a bunch of parts is just that, machined metal, which can be fine after a court proceeding, should some politically ambitious sort bother one.  You are saying the same thing I am as far as not using even questionable parts to avoid trouble.  I'll bet a DIAS would have a different comment from many, making it the reincarnation of evil, though it is only two pieces of metal and a spring.  It's only a question of degree: it isn't paranoia if your fears are real.  While I truly doubt we'll be attacked by Martians,  the wrong Federal type is possible.  You only need one.  ANd, that's all I'm saying.  

I think the fundamental issue is the rapid spreading of "technicalities" as a law enforcement issue.  This affects many areas of life, not just guns.  But, looking at the issue of the  thread, in my view a machine gun is a machine gun, and if you have a bunch of M16 parts, but have not done any real conversion, it should not be an issue.  I think we need to get away from all the parsing and silly details, and a crime is only a crime if committed.  That's the way it needs to be in a free society.  IF the issue are anything but guns, there would be an uproar, but no one else cares because they live in a fairy tale world in their minds.  

I feel on solid ground saying that I would want to avoid any question.  Look at the sum of threads on this board,  and there will be a bunch of contradictions in BATF letters.  Technicalities, again.  But, if the attitude is, "let the court sort it out", as with the old time cop line, "tell it to da judge,"  you have a problem.  Maybe the case will be dropped, but then, maybe not.   Not being a lawyer, playing one on TV, or related to one, I don't want to get into it.  So, while I'd disagree with the idea it's paranoia, if one said that not having any parts that could be grounds for contention would be the equivalent of discretion being the better part of valor, no argument there.

You should be able to have whatever you want, but avoidance is a more practical alternative until EVERYONE wises up.

I can agree with that, it's the nut of the situation.  For some, the best move is not to play at all.  It's a matter or personal feeling.  To some, it's too close to edge, others have no problem as long as they don't go over.  I know when I stand at the edge of a cliff, I get woozy even though I am on solid ground.  Others can jump around there and not have a problem.

I don't think there is any shame in avoiding the use of the M16 carrier for those that feel edgy about it.  To each their own.  It's only wrong when the old false myths continue to be perpetrated, even by a company as large as Bushmaster who admitted they were incorrect yet continue to print a false statement.  This is why the myth doesn't die and why this thread is tacted here.  Read the laws and make up your own mind but do not tell the next guy not to do it because you think it is illegal when it is not, tell them instead that it is a matter of concern to some and to do the same - read the laws and make their own judgement.

In any case, ATFE is always to be taken with caution.  If they think you are guilty of illegal constructive intent, you are in trouble and as said no one likes to go to court even if you win.  They are deliberately ambiguous.  Some of their agents are ignorant to their own regulations and the law.  If they can manipulate your rifle into shooting more than one shot with one pull of the trigger, they will use it against you.  That includes jarring, shaking, pounding, and manipulating the trigger in ways you would never intentionally do yourself.

Just a quick reminder and nothing to mention in contention but a DIAS or LL are parts specifically and exclusively manufactured to convert a firearm, unlike the M16 carrier which is a replacement or spare part.  These can get you in trouble when unregistered along with possession of a non-NFA AR15.  Drilling a hole (so you can put in an autosear)/altering your receiver specifically to convert it in a non-NFA registered receiver is also a no-no.

AK Mike, excellent points, especially the last two paragraphs.  Funny you should mention the DIAS as definitely illegal (Supposedly - I have no direct knowledge - BATF or some agency is running a sting in "SHotgun News" offering DIASs for sale).  I haven't gone deeply into the specific law, but I'll bet it's more of a BATF "finding", "opinion" or some such verbiage.  Of course, it is true that conversion is its only purpose, but in the absence of other necessary parts, it's 3 metal parts making a paperweight (albeit a light one).  No, I really don't want to get the whole argumentt started again,  but unless one has the necessary M16 parts, the DIAS is useless.  But, as you say, the DIAS will get you GONE.  That's one of those gray areas which make careers.  (As an humorous aside, no other purpose intended, one of the most essential elements in such a conversion is the M16 carrier, as the tab at the rear, or the whole raised section, is neeed to trip the sear).  My odd thought process argues against the DIAS being, in itself, a violation, or demonstration of constructive intent.  But, I can see drilling the receiver as prima facie intent to manufacture a machine gun.  In that case, one indeed is manufacturing.  But, as a libertarian, that should not be  an issue, either but, as practical reality, the BATF has its way.

Your comments on BATF "manipulating" a rifle to fire more than one shot are well documented.  One doesn't even have to go to any great extent.  Break a firing pin spring/striker retraction spring, give an extra good hit to the pin and, voila, a fixed pin machine gun.  That's happened to people with Garands, M14s and ioher autoloaders n the normal course of life, when a part fails.  So, it's not a stretch to imagine that....well, maybe the less said about "technical tests" the better.

I think the only reason the new Colts are shipped with the M16 carriers is that they CANNOT accept the available "small pin" fire control components,  I'm sure there are NO "large pin" FA parts available.  So COLT has no worries, but what about everyone else?

Are any other manufacturers shipping guns with M16 carriers?

HB

Originally Posted By Hellbender: I think the only reason the new Colts are shipped with the M16 carriers is that they CANNOT accept the available "small pin" fire control components,  I'm sure there are NO "large pin" FA parts available.  So COLT has no worries, but what about everyone else? Are any other manufacturers shipping guns with M16 carriers? HB

Colt has modified the reciever so that you cannot use a RDIAS or RLL in the newer recivers.