Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: I'll post their second response when I get it.

Wow, Federal prisons have www access now? Our tax dollars are work.

Originally Posted By Tweak: Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: I'll post their second response when I get it. Wow, Federal prisons have www access now? Our tax dollars are work.

It's a joke NAM, get over it.

So typos are equivalent to a lack of education now huh? OK, I can play.

You may want to correct this one then.

Steve-in-VA wrote It was a "feeling" that they had about the ATF and, more importantly, there wanting to be on the safe side; something I completely understand.

Steve,

I never said putting an M16 carrier in an AR ws illegal. I do it all the time, I prefer M16 carriers.

My original post (prison) was intended to make fun of those that trumpeted the"use M16 parts go to jail" line early on.

I think we got off on a tangent and somehow on opposite sides of a line that I know doesn't exist. I'm on your side pard.

Ha, and they told me those human relations courses would have no relation to real life.

From Chapter 1, "Perception Checking."

Steve... If I read your posts correclty the Bolt is a go.....Which I hole heartedly agree with......I had no idea there were so many ATF poster children cowering in this thread with the M-16 bolt. Holy crap.

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: I think it's more that there is an incredible amount of misinformation about what the law actually is and it spreads like a disease.

Ah, sounds like a post I made last night about how bad information is military manuals gets disseminated. Later when the info is challenged the manual itself is used as proof of the info's validity. As you pointed out, this cycle is apparent in Bushmaster's policy on selling M16 parts to non licensees.

To clarify, we were talking about the M16 carrier right?

I wouldn't want to be on the 3-4 year test list. I would not add any parts that were questionable. But then I don't speed in school zones, I know, I know, I'm a pus.

WOW I've got a four letter dictionary too, can I can I be a staff member?  Monkey see Monkey do.

Mike see Mike do

PEAX
[edited:for anti-troll compliance]

[Reanimator] This thread will never die! [/Reanimator]

This topic will allways be of interest, and allways a point on which there will be differing opinions.

I would almost recommend a FAQ for this - but people would not agree with the content unless it came directly from ATF, and even then not everyone would be happy.

I have not went through all seven pages of replies to this topic but from my own experience I can tell you, that back in the mid 90's I asked one of the gun dealers at my local gun shop if it was illegal to install a M16 complete bolt carrier assembly or even a M16 selector in a AR15 rifle.  

 The gun dealer told me that the local ATF office was located across the street in the Federal building and that ATF agents were always coming in to shoot the breeze and that the next time they came in he would ask them.

 A few days later he called me and said he asked the ATF agents who came in my questions.  They first asked it one part by itself would make the gun fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, he told them no!  They then asked if both parts were installed in the gun would the gun then fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, he told them he did not think so.

They then wanted to see what the two M16 parts looks like compared to the AR15 versions, he showed them pictures and they then said if the installation of one or both parts did not make the gun fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, then I did not have anything to worry about and I would be wasting my and their time asking further questions about it!

 Then again I did not get it in writing but just my own experience!  

Originally Posted By Milspec-AR: I have not went through all seven pages of replies to this topic but from my own experience I can tell you, that back in the mid 90's I asked one of the gun dealers at my local gun shop if it was illegal to install a M16 complete bolt carrier assembly or even a M16 selector in a AR15 rifle.    The gun dealer told me that the local ATF office was located across the street in the Federal building and that ATF agents were always coming in to shoot the breeze and that the next time they came in he would ask them.  A few days later he called me and said he asked the ATF agents who came in my questions.  They first asked it one part by itself would make the gun fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, he told them no!  They then asked if both parts were installed in the gun would the gun then fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, he told them he did not think so. They then wanted to see what the two M16 parts looks like compared to the AR15 versions, he showed them pictures and they then said if the installation of one or both parts did not make the gun fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, then I did not have anything to worry about and I would be wasting my and their time asking further questions about it!  Then again I did not get it in writing but just my own experience!

I tihnk you've got the gist of it.

The law says it must not fire more than one round per operation fo the trigger.

Bolt carrier and M16 selector? PRovided those are the only two M16 parts, nope. One shot per pull of trigger.

However, all those parts with an M16 disconnector, and you have an unsafe, possibly illegal situation. i would go for the bolt carrier, but stay away from the selector.

However legal M16 parts may be, I would avoid them unless you have a legal reason for doing otherwise. Soem people prefer the M16 carrier for several reason. However, i can't think of a practical reason for wanting an M16 selector.  

From my limited experience I have found that any rifle that ATF sends out for testing results in them finding that it fires full auto. They will do whatever it takes to arrange the parts to make it fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull. If it requires removing the disconnector and such then they will do it and report the results. You will then have to go to the extra effort to defend these findings in court or at a minimum lose the firearm by confiscation.

This says it well I think.

Chief, Firearms and Explosives Division

"Of course, if the AR-15 rifle no longer functions automatically after removal of
the auto-sear, the rifle no longer constitutes an NFA weapon."                          

[Signed]
[Jack B. Patterson]

From page  - 4 - of this link--> [url]www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter35.txt
 [/url]

       Posted - 12/31/2002 :  16:43:46  
       Dano523
       Team AR15.Com
       Registered: Mar 2001
       --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of you are somewhat right it stating that BATF citations are not legally binding. Only an actual decision in a court case can prove the legality or illegality of the M-16 bolt carrier in an AR-15.

However, I am not interest in speculation or "counting the number of angels on the head of a pin". To me if the BATF believes it is illegal, I am not going to fight them on something as unimportant as a bolt carrier. It isn't worth the possible hastle.

Now if the BATF claims my ARs are illegal then that is worth fighting.

Philip

[url]http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/complete.htm[/url]

It is a long document. Use your browsers "FIND" or "SEARCH" feature for the following phrase:

AR-15 TYPE RIFLES

You will find this ruling.

" ATF has encountered various AR-15 type assault rifles such as those manufactured by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW, Sendra and others, which have been assembled with fire control components designed for use in M16 machineguns. The vast majority of these rifles which have been assembled with an M16 bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector and selector will fire automatically merely by manipulation of the selector or removal of the disconnector. Many of these rifles using less than the five M16 parts listed above also will shoot automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal of the disconnector.

Any weapon which shoots automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is a machinegun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA). In addition, the definition of a machinegun also includes any combination of parts from which a machinegun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person. An AR-15 type assault rifle which fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger is a machinegun under the NFA. Any machinegun is subject to the NFA and the possession of an unregistered machinegun could subject the possessor to criminal prosecution.

Additionally, these rifles could pose a safety hazard in that they may fire automatically without the user being aware that the weapon will fire more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger.

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. Any AR-15 type rifles which have been assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts removed and replaced with AR-15 Model SP1 type parts which are available commercially. The M16 components also may be modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration.

It is important to note that any modification of the M16 parts should be attempted by fully qualified personnel only.

Should you have any questions concerning AR-15 type rifles with M16 parts, please contact your nearest ATF Criminal Enforcement Office. Our telephone numbers are listed in the "United States Government" section of your telephone directory under the "United States Treasury Department.""

Steve in VA.  
Did you ever get that response from the second letter you sent the B.A.T.F. regarding the B/C


M4-CQBR              

In reading this thread, Steve-in-VA is right as usual...  He only makes a mistake every know and then!!!  ;-)

I have a letter from BATF coming to me in regards to FA bolt carrier assembly in semi-auto rifle.

Verbally I was told it is fine from Stirling Nixon of BATF tech branch.

We also talked about full-auto parts in semi-auto lower.

Stirling also mentione dthat having FA parts are FINE , as long as it will NOT fire FA.  He said this has been the BATF contention for as long he has ben around (16 years).

Example he gave was, If all FA parts except selector were installed in semi-auto lower and the selector was a SA selector, that would be legal, as it would not fire FA.

That example matches the letter referenced in a very early mesasge.

I asked him to update their FAQ on the BATF website and he said that he would have his computer person look into doing this.  Let's hope it happens.

Originally Posted By budam: In reading this thread, Steve-in-VA is right as usual...  He only makes a mistake every know and then!!!  ;-) I have a letter from BATF coming to me in regards to FA bolt carrier assembly in semi-auto rifle. Verbally I was told it is fine from Stirling Nixon of BATF tech branch. We also talked about full-auto parts in semi-auto lower. Stirling also mentione dthat having FA parts are FINE , as long as it will NOT fire FA.  He said this has been the BATF contention for as long he has ben around (16 years). Example he gave was, If all FA parts except selector were installed in semi-auto lower and the selector was a SA selector, that would be legal, as it would not fire FA. That example matches the letter referenced in a very early mesasge. I asked him to update their FAQ on the BATF website and he said that he would have his computer person look into doing this.  Let's hope it happens.

That is a little misleading.

The auto sear (wether a RLL, RDIAS, or actual burst or auto sear) is the machinegun with regards to the internal parts.

The selector only limits the movement of the sear.

If you put a M-16 selector in a gun with all the M-16 parts WITHOUT an auto sear of some type, the gun will only fire semi if the selector is in any position other than safe (this is, of coures taking into account that all the parts are in spec).

This is going to be the longest lasting thread on these forums and people still want to argue over it

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: Their admonitions in this regard are based on caution that the law could be broken, not that the law is broken per se.  "If you have a worn selector or some other defect AND you have a FA B/C, you could have a double-fire in your AR, so don't do it" . . . that's the line of thinking.  Notice I'm actually giving them credit for for the ability to read and understand a very clear federal code section.  They just don't want to admit the obvious so they hide behind caveats of what "could" happen in a defective part ridden AR.   I don't play that shit.  I will call a spade a spade.  However, in the end, I make the same cautionary admonition and advise not to do it.  Accordingly, this whole discussion, for me anyway, is academic.

And if you have a worn hammer and trigger with an "civilian" bolt carrier, it can double, and you STILL have an MG by their standards.

So it doesn't really matter what you have in it.

More political and legal double speak.

I've read this whole thread. I reviewed all and read the links. I could have done without all of m60308nato's nonsense, as that was an unnecessary diversion and waste of time for him and for those that were forced to patronize him out of the genuine pursuit of truth.

As a lawyer AND a Risk Manager for a major corporation (one of the biggest in the US) it's clear Steve-in-VA is right, correct, on all counts. Period.

There are plenty that still believe the world is flat and that man has never been to the moon. Suffer the fools.

I'm still convinced that you will go to Hell if you do it.

But, I have M-16 carriers in my ARs anyways.

Originally Posted By Tweak: I never said putting an M16 carrier in an AR ws illegal. I do it all the time, I prefer M16 carriers.

You're going to jail Tweak!  

Originally Posted By Skunkworks45: There are plenty that still believe the world is flat and that man has never been to the moon. Suffer the fools.

Well then, smart guy, if the world isn't flat, what is it then?

Wait, we've been to the moon?  Who? When?

Originally Posted By innocent_bystander: I'm still convinced that you will go to Hell if you do it. But, I have M-16 carriers in my ARs anyways.

I'll see you there.

Well *has* anyone gone to jail for havine an M16 BC in their AR15 rifle?

Originally Posted by Dano523: OK guys. I give up!!!!!! Since It hasn't yet dawned on you guys that the hooded carrier is the key to get the rifle to fire full auto. And, the fact that the BAFT will convict on "Intent to create a machine gun" by just having a conversion part,...

If the "hooded" firing pin is the issue, then what of RRA's "new" enhanced BC that does indeed shroud the firing pin?  Are these illegel?  If not the difference between these and true M16 bolts is simply the added weight at the end of the BC.

/S2

Originally Posted By Tweak: SULACO, The area around the firing pin has nothing to do with FA capability. FA is related solely to the rear of the carrier and the length of the ledge there.

Understood.  My question was not so much about the ability for a user to intentionally make/convert an AR to FA, as it was, making the point, that if ATF is going to point out that an AR w/ a shrouded FP "may" go double etc. when the Disconnectors broken, fouled etc.  Then, following that same logic, they would classify the RRA E Carrier as borderline also.  Because though, it does not have the longer "shelf" at its rear, it does have the shrouded FP featue.

/S2

WOW, just got doen reading all 8 pages and my eyes are sore, this thread has been going for 21 months, this has to be a new record havent
Thats my two cents. Good luck to everyone, I will see if I can get a hard copy of a clear response to our question.

How many military people are here, seems like quite a few......

Originally Posted By Tweak: the piece will double as often (MRBF) with a shrouded carrier as a slotted one if the disco fails. Many companies have sold shrouded carriers before RRA tried their marketing magic, all were careful to mill away the rear ledge rendering the carrier semi only.

Who sells the RRA shrouded carrier?

Originally Posted By Hydguy: That is a little misleading. The auto sear (wether a RLL, RDIAS, or actual burst or auto sear) is the machinegun with regards to the internal parts.

The auto-sear is NOT the machine gun according to Sterling.  The lower with the drilled auto-sear is the machine gun.

Example: 5 stripped lowers with the hole drilled is the machine gun.

10 auto-sears are just parts...

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA: I got a "response", but it was basically off-topic.  Did not address my specifics and just repeated the first letter, assuming, I guess, that all ARs have defective parts.    I give up; I think they're sick of my inquiries. I'm waiting to see if someone else gets one who has not worn out his/her welcome.

He said he would get me a letter out.  I have a valid business reason to get a letter.  Nothing in hand yet, so still waiting.

Legalities aside, I've been often pondering this question. What is the benefit to function/safety/reliability/whatever by putting an M-16 bolt into an AR-15? Is it just that rebellious feeling of actually having an M-16 bolt in an AR or is there a sound reason as to function? I'm really interested in knowing this. I'm hoping for an indepth reply as to functional benefit.