M16 bolt in AR15? (Page 3 of 12)
|
ATF special message. That means this is one of their "Opinions". NOT to be mistaken with law. "§ 5845. Definitions (b) Machinegun. -- The term "machinegun" means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." A machinegun cannot be made with only a bolt carrier. THerefore, a bolt carrier is not concidered a "part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person." THe point was made in the last 4 pages. Maybe you missed it. Go back and start at page one. |
Isaiah 16:11 "Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp..."
Prudent advice but certainly NOT the law and a far cry from the "end of story". |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
| Many Colt SP 1's were sold to the public with solid M-16 carriers. Are these gun owners in jeprody? I've been told by people who seem to know (usually) what they are talking about that the ATF has ruled that these guns were and are legal. I wouldn't take the chance however. A small investment in a used carrier could save a lot of problems. |
| I enjoy the debate but I believe the case closer is this. The ATF is made up thousands of individual field agents each of whom have their own ideas of what is illegal under the general framework of their training, which in many cases is woefully short on legalities and probably out of date. (If you think you are confused by the thousands of federal rules, case law and findings how do you think they feel?) So, their apparent modus operandi would seem to be, when in doubt, take the gun and the offender and let the court figure it out. Sounds like an expensive proposition even if you win. |
|
Quite true. It is better safe than sorry. It is better to not have an M16 carrier. They may charge you, and you may have to defend yourself in court. The only point we are trying to prove, is that it is in fact perfectly legal. It's like carrying a baggie or oregano around. Sure, it brings a few questions, and may get you some nice bracelets and a smack on the hood. But there's notihng illegal about it, except the way they proclaim a legal situation to be unlawful. |
Isaiah 16:11 "Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp..."
That reminds me of another JBT thread... Edit: yay freedom! |
Straight Shooter
*OPERATION ARFCOM FREEDOM PEACEKEEPING FORCE* JOIN THE COALITION!
"Crab fishing is the option, and it isn't
*OPERATION ARFCOM FREEDOM PEACEKEEPING FORCE* JOIN THE COALITION!
"Crab fishing is the option, and it isn't
Ok according to The Machine Gun Dealers Bible 4th Edition (2002) by Dan Shea you cannot even own, let alone install, a M16 hammer, disconnector, bolt carrier, trigger or safety IF you also own a AR-15 type rifle or receiver UNLESS you also own a Registered DIAS. This DOES consitute a illegal machine gun. I find this to be a definitive source in the C3 community. For those interested page 5-3 "Things That Get You Into Trouble." |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
I called Hillary Clinton and she said all guns are machine guns and unless you take all the parts out you are BAD....!!! This thread is going NOWHERE... read the regulation as it is burried in this thread... I don't care what any dick, joe, or even Hillary says... I care what the LAW says and what the Court would say if I was in front of them... It is not smart to have M-16 parts in an AR-15.... BUT.... a few parts does not make a MACHINEGUN! |
www.Quarterbore.com
Are you joking? I can't tell[:\] |
www.Quarterbore.com
Ooops sorry. We need a "I'm serious this time icon." The above information is very accurate. Dan Shea is probably more knowledgable than all the NFA branch combined (I know that ain't hard). Also I have some first hand with this. In 1992 I lost a preban Colt Green Label because I had it set up for use with a RDIAS. I intended to buy one in the future and was not aware these parts were illegal to install (let alone own) as it didn't function as anything but a semi auto. Bottom line ATF took my gun and I didn't get it back. |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
|
And I will bet in a point of law that the ATF didn't take your gun... you surrendered it... I will bet that they agreed not to press charges if you turned it over and being that this was a less expensive optian than a legal battle you gave them the gun!!! This does not mean that if you hired a good attorney that was willing to fight to the definition and points of the law that you couldn't have won! It would have cost you more to win the war than it cost you to loose the battle so the smarter thing for an individual is to surrender the gun! Besides that, if you were found guilty, which I still don't think is likely, you could room with BUBBA for 10-years and that would be no fun! That has been pretty much the point of this thread from the first page! Legal... I think so .......... Good Idea... No, not at all! .......... |
www.Quarterbore.com
Couple points. 1. Sheriffs Office took my gun without me even being present. S.O. turned it over to ATF. No other person surrendered the gun on my behalf. The S.O. had a warrant to inventory contents of the house related to my parents divorce. 2. It is illegal, everything I've researched says it's illegal and ATF told me it's illegal. 3. ATF did not simply agree not to press charges. They KEPT the gun and told me I was lucky they are not pressing charges. It amazes me that people want to define the definition of "is" on this thing. You want to know for sure do what I did. CALL NFA BRANCH (202) 927-8330 Guess what? IT'S ILLEGAL. Now some early Colts were made with M16 parts. Some other manufacturers have done the same. According to ATF "technically" those are also illegal but more or less grandfathered in. But guess what happens when YOU (ie not a manufacturer or person with a ATF approval letter) put a M16 part in your AR15? You have made a illegal machine gun according to ATF, specifically NFA branch. Wanna bet you can beat them on some bullshit technicality or attempt to define "is"? Be my guest but they will probably prosecute you as an example. This should be the final word. Not because "I" said so but because NFA Branch says so. Again that number is (202) 927-8330. Give them a call. I did. |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
|
Hey, I am not arguing with you... but... until it is heard in a court of law you were not found guilty and your case might have been won... How many M-16 parts did you have... Carrier, Selector & Hammer? If so, that is quite a few M-16 parts... anyone would agree... This is different than just an M16 carrier... Like I said, and will continue to say... it isn't smart to have m-16 parts in an AR-15... I don't do it as there is no benifit and lots of risks for those that do... Sorry to hear you lost a rifle... I am not blaming you or saying you should have fought the case... and I would turn my gun over as well, even though I think I could win in a court... Are we on the same page...? Oh yea... one more thing... the ATF doesn't make the law, they interpret it! It is up to the courts to define if one is guilty or not and I have also spent A WHOLE LOT OF TIME looking at these laws as I respectfully disagree with the ATF and your oppinion! Now, I am not so stupid as to take the ATF to court as someone will ammend the regulation and then it will be the law! |
www.Quarterbore.com
|
I'm goign to have to agree with quarterbore. I don't want to start a flame war. Fact of the matter is, ATF doesn't make laws. They enforce them. True, their opinion may hold up in court. But, the law is very clear. Would i want an M16 carrier? No... it's ain't worth the trouble. But i am very confidant in what the law says. Comparing an M16 carrier to your rifle is rediculous. You had many parts.... of course they are going to bust you. LAst time i checked, a carrier alone cannot enable full auto fire. By the letter of the law.. that makes the carrier legal. |
Isaiah 16:11 "Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp..."
|
OK guys...ne more time. When I installed the M16 parts my rifle STILL was not full auto. I had it set up for a RDIAS which I "thought" was legal at the time. Say anything you want ATF does classify even the possession of ANY M16 specific part as a "illegal machine gun" even if uninstalled IF you own a AR15 type rifle. Again call NFA BRANCH (202) 927-8330. And I specifically asked them if all the parts had to be present or if just a carrier was ok. NFA BRANCH told me that ANY part, installed or not, was a FELONY unless you had a registered sear. This is not a fad or some currently in vogue definition. This is the law they are currently enforcing and have been enforcing for at least 11 years. And they are gettting a LOT of guns this way. Now OJ Simpson can try and claim he simply gave Nicoles mother a post birth abortion but the law see's it differently. This one is not going to be "fought in court" cause it is already won by ATF. Any questions call NFA BRANCH. Now I personally, as do most intelligent people, thnk the law is bullshit. It is either a machine gun (ie functions per that defeinition) or it is not. But ATF doesn't see it that way. This is nothing new. Here is a great example. Given a pre86 HK94 to MP5 conversion. Now we all know there were two ways to do this (1) registered sear and (2) registered receiver. Prior to May 1986 as a title II conversion you could register either part to make a legal machine gun. If you went with the registered sear you installed a clip on type lower (with the registered sear in it) onto the HK94 semi auto frame, added a full auto carrier and you had a legal registered MP5. However you could never install a swing down lower because that would modify the semi auto frame and make a illegal machine gun even though it HAS a registered sear. Stupid right? Doesn't matter. Registered sear or not, if you drill out the trigger frame for a swing down lower they will have you for possession of a illegal machine gun. Ok so prior to 1986 you could register the receiver. This meant you didn't need a registered pack because the receiver was already a machine gun. There was two ways to do these, (1) they drilled out the hole for a swing down lower so a standard factory would fit or (2) they installed a full auto clip on lower that DID NOT have a registered sear. Normally if you have a full auto clip on lower that in itself is a illegal machine gun UNLESS it is owned with a registered receiver that has a trigger pack hook. Most people with registered receiver guns and clip on lowers didn't like the idea of having a non registered, modified pack and preferred being able to install factory swing down lowers. Since the reciever was already registered they just drilled them out for a swing down pack. However post May 1986 ATF has declared that to be illegal. most didn't understand since the receiver was already a registered machine gun. AND HERE IT IS... ATF has declared that drilling out that hole (even on a registered receiver) constitutes the making of a SECOND machine gun. Since this second machine gun was made AFTER May1986 the entier thing becomes a post 86 machine gun and therefore illegal for private ownership. Quite a few guys have lost their pre86 LEGAL MP5s this way. SO... If ATF is going to take a NFA registered MP5 under this defininition they are definitely gonna take your AR15. Things like "Hey thats not fair", "I didn't know", "You guys gotta be shitting me", etc. aren't gonna work. I tried them 11 years ago. Just trying to make sure ATF doesn't get any more guns. They got enough already. |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
I did; had a long conversation on the law. The guy I talked to at the Branch confirmed what I have said here in that they prefer you don't possess an M16 BC cause it "might", in conjuntion with other parts, equal enough for FA. He agreed that the only time you would be violating the Code section is if you possessed those "other" parts- just like the Bartlett letter states. I believe you when you say you had a different conversation. I really could care less however. Bottom line is, I say the same thing the ATF says in recommending not to possess an M16 BC in your AR- why bother? However, THE LAW IS CLEAR- a BC alone is NOT enough. I think it's their admonition everyone gets stuck on. Now, regardless of my advice (which I stand by), can you give me one example of an AR conviscated 'cause the owner had an M16 BC? You can't- if you want, call that number to the Branch; they can't either (that's no joke). I think you agree with me on what the law really is. You sound confused however when you tell readers that you think the "law is bullshit"; it's not, it's actually quite clear. And I don't believe it's being enforced as such (in this specific example, ie. M16 BC in an AR). If you press the Branch and actually confront them with the Code section, they will agree. I will shoot off a letter from my office on Monday and forward copies to anyone who wants one when they reply (could take a month or two, or three). At least we'll have there official nod regarding very clear and unambiguous law. I'll bet money on it. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
Steve-in-VA, I was told that even a M16 bolt carrier alone is considered a illegal machine gun if possessed with a AR15 type rifle. They were specific in that the carrier didn't even need to be installed to be in violation of the law. Please post anything you recieve from ATF branch. I'd like to call them again with their own statements to the contrary. Of course this wouldn't exactly be the first time ATF has rendered two conflicting verdicts. |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Steyr, I'd like to get you involved in the letter if you don't mind. I'd like to bring up the fact that the Branch has been giving out bad advice contrary to the law in the letter itself to press the importance of some clarity in writing. Check your IM. Steve |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
Steve, the guy to get involved is Dan Shea. Among other things I believe he is a second amendment attorney. I'll try and get some contact info. |
My Current Group Buy:
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
Cavalry Arms Trooper Carbine
Check Group/Bulk Buys Forum in the Equipment Exchange.
|
Here's my letter on my law office leterhead. Sent out today: July 7, 2003 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms Firearms Technology Branch 650 Massachusetts Avenue NW Room 6450 Washington, DC 20226 Re: M16 Bolt Carrier in an AR15 semi-automatic weapon Dear Sir or Madam: On March 25, 1999, Edward M. Owen Jr., Chief, wrote a letter in response to a citizen regarding the following subject, to-wit: ”[P]ossession of spare M-16 machinegun parts by a person who possesses a registered M-16 and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle.” The letter contained the following reference number: “903050:CHB 3311”. Notably, Chief Owen correctly stated the following: Any weapon which shoots automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger meets the definition of a machinegun in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (NFA). An AR-15 rifle, which is assembled with certain M-16 machinegun fire control components, and which is capable of shooting automatically is a machinegun as defined. The definition of machinegun in section 5845(b) also includes any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. Thus, an AR-15 rifle possessed with separate M-16 machinegun components can meet the definition of a machinegun, if the rifle shoots automatically when the components are installed. The fact that a person lawfully possesses a registered NFA firearm does not grant authorization to possess additional non-registered firearms. A person who possesses a registered M-16 machinegun and a semiautomatic AR-15 rifle and a separate quantity of M-16 machinegun components could be in possession of two machineguns. My question expands on, in a very particularized manner, the subject matter of the above letter. It is this: Do you take the position that an M16 bolt carrier installed in a semiautomatic AR15 rifle violates section 5845(b) of the NFA, provided the bolt carrier is used in the rifle alone and without any other M16 parts installed NOR possessed by the firearm owner? I take the position that this configuration does not violate the law (while at the same time advising my clients not to take such action to “be on the safe side”). As Chief Owen clearly pointed out in the above letter, the definition of a machine gun under 5845(b) hinges on a part, parts or any combination thereof that renders a semiautomatic rifle “capable of shooting automatically”. An M16 bolt carrier alone will NOT render a semiautomatic rifle “capable of shooting automatically”. I ask this question because your office has been inconsistent in its reading of section 5845(b) when it comes to this very specific question. Representatives of your office have stated that such a configuration is “illegal” and constitutes a “felony” for violation of federal law. This is not consistent with the law. Shooters who compete with AR15s often desire to use an M16 bolt carrier in their rifles for the added weight. With no other M16 parts in the rifle, the AR15 will NOT fire automatically, slam fire nor double fire in this configuration and therefore it is NOT a violation of section 5845(b) of the NFA to configure the AR15 as such. For clarity, I understand that such a configuration “could” violate the 5845(b) “if” the owner possessed other M16 parts, even if NOT installed, that in totality amounted to enough parts that would enable the rifle to shoot automatically. That is NOT what I am asking in this letter. I am asking about an owner who simply possesses an M16 bolt carrier, an AR15 and nothing else. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
I wish I hadn't been away on vacation!!! I would like to have had this expanded to include the question of using an M-16 selector in an AR-15.... The reason I say this is that I would like to see the excellent KAC 2-stage trigger for the M-16 to be modified in such a way that it would be semi-auto only. Imagine three selctor positions... 1. Safe 2. Single Stage Semi-Auto 3. Two-Stage Semi-Auto This would make a must have trigger group and I have been playing with a few designs for a couple months but some have argued that an M-16 slector in an AR-15 is illegal.... I disagree because of the same logic as applied above as an M-16 selector without other parts will not function as a machinegun. If I am ever able to get a working trigger prototype together I will just send a sample to the technical branch for their oppinions... |
www.Quarterbore.com
I can just write another letter if you want. However, I would like to wait until they answer this one first. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
Interesting read. www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/staples_briefs.txt |
The religious right is wrong!
|
"The government's expert, a ATF enforcement officer, Agent McLaughlin, conceded at trial that the AR-15 rifles containing internal "M-16" components are still legal semiautomatic AR-15 rifles provided they are not equipped with the sear or auto-sear. n3 (Tr. p. 109, Aplt. App. #Q, p. 299). " interesting... |
Isaiah 16:11 "Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp..."
|
Very good read. Not applicable to this thread for a very obvious reason. (also, the AR15 was obviously an "add on" offence to the M1 related charge). The part in question was the selector switch, not the BC, and the government was alleging double-fires. Further, the M16 part in question, the selector switch, in the AR15 had been modified. The selecter switch had been filed down and the government's evidence was "that this AR-15 fired multiple shots with a single trigger pull ". They called it a "hammer down effect" or some shit- basically slam fire. That was their "evidence" anyway- they used their own BC and had to clean the shit out of the rifle to get it to operate.  This case was really about "strict liability" and whether the government has the burden of proving someone actually "knows" what he is "possessing". You don't have to actually "know" you have a mg to be convicted- thus the admonition by the ATF (and me) not to stockpile M16 parts AND possess an AR. Doesn't change the law and the conclusions in this thread. Good case to read though not relevant to this discussion. Thanx anyway. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
Good place to do some reading. www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/ "An auto sear, selector switch, disconnector, trigger, and hammer (the first five parts) are incapable of turning a semiautomatic weapon such as an AR-15 into a machine gun; it takes the bolt carrier to complete the job. So, too, the bolt carrier can't produce automatic fire without the auto sear. None of the sales amounted to the transfer of a "firearm", making registration unnecessary." www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/us_v_bradley.txt |
The religious right is wrong!
| I was just thinking about the various comments here, and that there has to be "intent" to create an illegal weapon (machine gun), not just the accidental enabling of such. Thus, the fact that a bunch of ATF techs can somehow manipulate a weapon to fire twice with one trigger pull is not proof of intent. If the ATF could legally manipulate things this way, they could arrest virtually any AR-15 owner if they just twiddle things enough to make the gun malfunction. If they caught you with a gun that would go full auto with a toothpick jammed in the right way, and you were out shooting with a pocket full fo toothpicks, they might have something. But the final standard is what a jury thinks a "reasonable person" would do, and some kind of Rube Goldberg kludge to make a rifle slam fire is not reasonable. This kind of tactic doesn't pass constitutional muster, though various federal agents have tried it every so often. But from what I've read of the law, if you don't set out to create a machine gun, there's not really much of a case. That doesn't mean the legal bills won't break you, though, and each of us has to make his own call on that one. But a personal comfort level is quite a ways from being the law. |
Life isn't like a box of chocolates, it's more like a jar of jalapenos.
What you do today might burn your ass tomorrow.
What you do today might burn your ass tomorrow.
That's a great site, thanx.
That was part of his argument regarding an illegal transfer case. He was arguing that, because he transfered each part separately, he did not transfer an entire MG. Stupid argument. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
I would be quite cautious about intent being needed. In the case of putting M-16 parts into an AR-15 AND the BATFE was able to make her fire in FULL AUTO.... how will you explain your INTENT as to why you had the full auto parts in the lower! Now, this may well be out of context for what you meant to say for I have seen lots of posts about guys having guns double every now and then due to parts problems... In that case, yes, I am sure the ATF would have a tough time nailing somebody to the wall and the same goes to the ATF making a LL and putting it into my AR-15 and saying that it's a machinegun! Best advise remains... JUST DON'T USE M-16 PARTS IN AN AR-15... unless you have a solid reason and then be prepared to defend the reason you did it as you are playing with a FEDERAL LAW with serious fines, jail time, and a perminant loss of all firearms ownership! STUPID AREA TO PLAY IN MY HONEST OPPINION! |
www.Quarterbore.com
|
Most receivers made require additional machining to allow a M16 auto sear to fit - plus having to drill the pin hole for it. Some receivers are machined in a way that would accept a DIAS (Drop In Auto Sear) which is considered a machine gun by its self. Some receivers are machined in a way that would appear to accept a DIAS but are "high Shelf" such as the current offerings from RRA. All said - a lower with SP1 config trigger group and BC is (IMHO) more readily convertable via LL (Lightening Link) than a std SP1 trigger group with a M16 BC. This is because a M16 Bolt Carrier prevents Full Auto fire via a Lightening Link. |
anything less than 800rnds wasn't worth getting the gun dirty.
April 6, 2006 - I can wait.
April 6, 2006 - I can wait.
| I have spent a great deal looking through all the links,pages and bickering in this thread.The original question got side lined essentially from the beginning.WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO USE AN M16 CARRIER IN AN AR15?Not don't do it,its okay,notokay ect.What is the direct benifit of using it over the standard bolt carrier? |
|
M16 carriers have more weight and a different "Ramp" area that contacts the hammer during cycling to re-cock the hammer. The difference in weight does affect how a gun will function with a given barrel length/gas port hole size/gas port position. The actual effect is minimal in most cases. |
anything less than 800rnds wasn't worth getting the gun dirty.
April 6, 2006 - I can wait.
April 6, 2006 - I can wait.
Taking the last question first. No, you could use just the bolt, but it would still fire semi-auto only. You would not need to modify the lower if you just used the BC. Yes, you would have to modify the lower to use the sear. Kinda drives home the point. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
Here's my anecdotal tale: Two years ago when I received an M-16 firing pin with a new "kit," I called my local BATF and asked whether this meant trouble. The local BATF agents asked: "Mr. Cryoman, does having that M-16 firing pin in your AR-15 allow it to shoot multiple rounds with a single trigger pull?" I stated: "Of course not, and you BATF guys know this already..." "Have a nice day, Mr. Cryoman, be safe and enjoy your new AR-15." was their final reply. Cheers, Cryoman |
To clarify, here are the bolt carriers During the battery stroke, the extended bottom shroud on the M16 contacts the upper portion of the auto sear. At that point, the bottom portion of the auto sear is holding the hammer back by the topmost hook of the hammer. The carrier causes the auto sear to rotate and release the hammer. The hammer then strikes the firing pin. The pause between hammer release and firing pin strike allows the bolt to lock. If this pause does not occur the hammer follows the bolt closed and rarely fires the next round. The M16 selector and M16 disconnector remove the semi automatic function of the disconnector from the AUTO firing cycle. The M16 trigger is slotted all the way to the rear to allow the longer tail of the M16 disconnector to reach under the selector where it contacts one of the extended cams of the M16 selector when said selector is rotated to AUTO. Cutaway  The M16 firing pin (larger collar than the AR15) only became an issue when Colt started slotting the bottoms of their bolt carriers. The slot exposes the underside of the rear of the firing pin and the larger collar can snag on the top of the hammer during the battery stroke. Slotted carriers  Shrouded carriers  Hooked hammer  Removing the disco in a SEMI gun allows the hammer to follow the bolt closed. It rarely provides even double firing. Removing the disco most often causes a hammer down malfunction. Semi auto lower parts kit  The slotted carrier/ hooked hammer combo was intended to prevent ANY double firing created by modifying the operation of the disco. This combo can, and has, created a lot of problems with bent firing pin retaining pins and failure to chamber or lock due to the hammer's interference with the firing pin. This is often seen on bottom feeder rifles and trigger that have been "tuned." The use of M16 carriers in AR15s is the solution to most bent firing pin retaining pins problems. The extra weight also keeps the rifle truer to its original design thereby theoretically enhancing reliability. I don't know why comp shooters use them, I rarely understand why comp shooters do most of the things they do.  It is a small matter to "neuter" M16 carriers by removing a small amount of material from the auto sear trip face on the front of the lower shroud. An 1/8" makes a world of difference. The first corporate attempts at doing this resulted in privately made devices to lengthen the trip face. These devices bolted into the carrier. The carriers with fully machined lower shrouds were "Fixed" in the same manner. This is the reason for Colt's sear blocked lowers. The sear block prevents the installation of carriers with M16 length lower shrouds. All this said, I've been in personal contact with TWO persons (one friend, one business) who have been arrested, charged, and convicted of possessing unregistered MGs for having M16 parts (no auto sear, pin, or pin hole in either case) in their AR15s. Granted, they were arrested/investigated for other firearm violations and the AR15 was found during the resultant inventory. Granted, the ATF and the county performed extensive mechanical maneuvers to show full auto function. In one case, the confiscated "MG" came back into the shop. The county that had confiscated it sent it back for "repair." It was considered a repair bc the rifle was already a MG by someone's (county? fed?) definition. Our repair consisted of drilling the auto sear pinhole, installing the auto sear and tweaking various other factors to get the gun to run FA. In the second case, the local Portland news channel showed footage of an ATF agent test firing the confiscated piece. A large amount of electricians tape could be seen wrapped about the lower receiver. The tape was no doubt intended to interfere with the function of the disco. The agent attempted many times to get the piece to double. On his ninth or tenth try it did. Voila' it's a MG. Gotta run, nice little forum you got here. |
Moderation is for monks. RAH
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
Tweak, Which parts? Thanx, Steve |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
| Not sure about the content of Big Al's piece, I heard on the flip flop that he did have M16 parts in it. OTOH, my SuperFriends buddy had everything EXCEPT the bolt carrier and auto sear.I worked on that one when it came into the shop. |
Moderation is for monks. RAH
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
|
Steve, I understand that, I did read the entire thread, and the links, from page 1. I used those examples to show the lengths the law is willing to go to in creating an MG. Just bc your rifle doesn't fire FA with some M16 parts doesn't mean it won't fire FA when they test it. |
Moderation is for monks. RAH
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
HEY YOU WASHINGTONIANS! Come to YOUR hometown forum http://ar15.com/forums/forum.html?b=8&f=15
| Well, I guess anything is possible, even government fraud- that's why I consistently recommend not doing it. However, the law is quite clear and the "manipulation" anectdotes (including your own) seem to be prevelant in cases with more than just a BC. I don't know of any cases, official or not, that involved just a BC. At any rate, if I get the letter I want from the Branch, it should clear things up even more and hopefully put a final quash on the misinformation that seems to flourish on the web. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
I realy dont car what other people have done its ilegal. Its in a special secton of the 5300 regs.Hopeing a leo wont know is stupid,they can take your gun to the batf experts if they want.I was in some large legal warfare here a few years ago that i won over isues like this but there not knowing causes a lot of time cosumeing trouble. ANY M16 PARTS IN YOUR AR MAKES IT ILEGAL BE VERY CAREFULL!!!! Brad |
Brad, Say it as much as you like, it will not make it so. There is no law that makes it illegal to have "any" M16 part in your AR. Sorry, but that's reality. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"
|
The Tech Branch responded, sorta, to my letter. They say that "[w]e have observed that AR-15 rifles with M16 bolt carriers can shoot automatically" if the disconnector is removed (NO SHIT!), improperly made or worn; where the disconnector spring is worn; and finally where the hammer is improperly made, modified or worn. Yea, OK, I'll buy that. The problem is that I was not assuming the hypothetical AR was defective or had a friking removed disconnector! So they basically dodged the question. They did not answer it at all, even with their "observation" examples. They simply said it was good advice to tell ppl not to have one in their AR (something I do anyway) but dodged the question as to whether or not they viewed it as a per se violation of the code section. I wrote them back and clarified that my hypothetical AR did not have the defective conditions mentioned in their response. I'll post their second response when I get it. |
"So remember kids, playing Hitler in school, isn't cool"