User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2002 8:24:28 AM EDT
I am wanting to put an M16 bolt carrier in my AR15, I would think I would get better reliability from a heavier bolt carrier. As long as i have no other m16 parts in my ar, would this be legal?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/7/2002 8:29:17 AM EDT
[#1]
NO NOT LEGAL
Pete in NH |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/7/2002 12:26:00 PM EDT
[#2]
you will go to jail
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 12:51:05 AM EDT
[#3]
I see this routinely with DCM shooters using Chromed old M16 carriers without
FWD assits notches to maximize weight. A tungsten insert into the open rear end will work also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 1:34:45 AM EDT
[#4]
So, We've got one educated No. We've got one unexplained no, and one "yes it's being done". Anyone else have any thoughts/ proof? My interpretation, althought probably wrong, was that if the part you ass causes the weapon to function as an Auto, it would be illegal. So, An auto sear? illegal. Auto fire control parts? illegal. But i honestly don't see how an M16 bolt carrier would make your gun a full auto. might make it a slam fire easier, but not a full auto in itself. Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 2:36:38 AM EDT
[#5]
Considering how many LEO's out there don't know the difference between pre-ban features and post ban features. I surely doubt they know the difference between an auto bolt carrier or a semi one!
|
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 4:18:22 AM EDT
[#6]
From a strict legal standpoint, if the resultant weapon does not fire automatically, and is not drilled for an auto sear (making it a machinegun by definition) there is no law prohibiting the installation of an M16 bolt carrier in an AR-15.
The position of the ATF, as stated in their public and private correspondence, is that if you install an M16 carrier in an AR-15, they can make it function as a machinegun. If you are worried that ATF might come after you, and work their magic on your AR, then don't install an M16 carrier. If you're not worried that ATF will target you, then do what you like, other than drilling your lower for an autosear. Until and unless ATF demonstrates to a court, as part of a prosecution, that your AR fires more than one shot with a single pull/release of the trigger, you're within the law to install any parts in your AR-15 or clone that you like. Most manufacturers and even owners choose not to roll the dice in regards to ATF maybe targeting them, but it's not illegal per se to install any parts, AR-15 or M16 in derivation, in your rifle, provided that the resultant firearm does not fire automatically or have the autosear hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 7:31:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Wrong, not the law.
Wrong again, not the law. I feel like a broken record. The Federal Code section is really, REALLY clear, to-wit: so long as the part, or parts, do not allow your rifle to fire FA (or double fires) then you do not have an UNREGISTERED MG. There is no law, not even an ATF reg, that says you may not have an M16 bolt carrier in your AR. They say, as do I, that you SHOULD not stockpile mg parts since, obviously, you could assemble enough to create, in your semi-auto rifle, an MG. But, so long is that is all you have and it does not allow FA fire, you are ok. To see more on this, do a search in this forum. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 7:34:36 AM EDT
[#8]
I've never seen this; although I hear it all the time. Do you have a letter? If you do, it contradicts letters I've seen and posted on this forum. I don't believe one exists. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 9:33:28 AM EDT
[#9]
Steve,
That's exactly what i understood. Now a question: do you have any sort of letter or documentation? I jsut like to keep a hardcopy of info like this on hand in the event i get questioned. |
|
|
|
CO, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 1:37:56 PM EDT
[#10]
www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/atf_letter52.txt is an example of the wording ATF uses in regards to AR-15's and M16 parts.
Perhaps my previous statement was too strong - in that the ATF recommends against installing any M16 parts in an AR-15, but don't out and out say they can make your AR-15 fire automatically with an M16 carrier - at least not among the letters at bardwell's archive. As for being able to make AR-15's with an M16 carrier, or some other M16 parts fire automatically, the exact reference was in a memorandum discussing one of the court cases. I am unable to locate the specific reference at this time. |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 1:45:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Any m16 parts in an ar15 rifle is illegal and makes it a machine gun, weather it fires more then one shot per trigger pull is irrelevant.
. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 2:09:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Bullshit. That's just plain wrong; read the code section. I get so sick of ppl spouting disinformation on this and other boards. Circuits, That is exactly what the letters say- they recommend not stockpiling. Reason? So you don't possess enough to enable your semi-auto to fire FA. That court case you refer to, I believe, is a case where the disconnector had been modified to allow for double fires with an M16 BC. Under that scenario, you have a problem. However, without any further alterations to your AR parts, you WILL NOT obtain doubling or FA with just an M16 BC. Nam, There are letters that support everything I wrote above- do a search in this forum for "M16 parts" and you'll find threads with links to the letters. Actually, if you read Circuits link, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. For example: 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. That's a big "if". Section section 5845(b) is really clear. |
||
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 10/9/2002 11:54:47 PM EDT
[#13]
MY ANSWER IS IF YA DONT KNOW ..OR HAVE PROOF...IT WILL BE YOUR ASS IF YOU ARE WRONG...I have always heard if any part is USGI m-16 it is illegal....I dont have the time to wait on the court of appeals to decide if the ATF is correct in arresting you and I don't like bail bondsmen or trying to hire attorneys or Jail food...SO WHY RISK IT? JUST GET A GOOD QUALITY CROME BOLTCARRIER ASSEMBLY.And be happy with no having the stressfull question of "if Im leagal or not"????
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 12:46:50 AM EDT
[#14]
History Question:
Since a friend of mine bought a Colt AR back in 1979 - and it had a "M16" carrier in it new out of box. - I want to ask this question. When AR's first hit the public market were all Bolt carriers the same? If so at what point did they switch to an SP1 config. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 7:44:48 AM EDT
[#15]
That's the problem with misinformation, to-wit: it's always "I have heard . . ." I'm not flaming anyone, just the misinformation. You heard wrong. Read Section 5845(b, it's clear. Read the ATF letters, they are clear. What you "heard" is wrong and not supported by either. You do not need to wait on a court to decide anything; there is NO ambiguity in the law and there's no reason to be "stressfull" about breaking a law for which you are not in violation. I do agree with your statement, "why risk it?". I say over and over that it serves no purpose, so why do it? With that said, statements like "I think it's illegal", "you will go to jail" or "ATF thinks it's illegal" are baseless, specious and foster unnecessary paranoia. |
||
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 1:35:45 PM EDT
[#16]
First of all it IS illegal to have any m16 part in your AR15 end of story. That's why you need a tax stamp (form4) or you have to be law enforcement or military to EVEN BUY THESE PARTS FROM A FACTORY. Sure you can buy them on auction's but that doesn't make it legal for you to stick it in your AR15, or to even own if you have an ar15.
ANY M16 PART in your AR15 makes it illegal. M16 parts can be the trigger, selector, hammer, hammer spring, 2 disconnects, the sear, sear pin, and the bolt carrier. also the 3 shot burst wheel thats on the hammer pin.(forgot what it's called) the only way I can see you getting away with having an m16 bolt carrier in your weapon is if your gun is an early SP1 and it came with one in it. Then you can cry I didn't know all you want but Ignorance of the law is no excuse you can still be prosecuted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 1:52:35 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm not going to argue with absolute blind ignorance. Did you even read the statute? Any of the ATF letters? Tell you what, you believe whatever you want if it makes you sleep better at night, however, don't spout bullshit misinformation in this forum, OK?
BTW, you need Form 4 approval to own a REGISTERED MG, not a part. One MG part does not an unregistered MG make. MG parts, if in combination with your AR, that allow you to fire your AR FA is a violation of the statute. See the difference yet? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 2:34:43 PM EDT
[#18]
Steve-in-VA,
It's obvious that some of our fellow AR15.com members are afflicted with high-foreheads and thick tongues. Can you ban people for illiteracy and/or stupidity? |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 2:46:18 PM EDT
[#19]
ok talk shit about me asshole when you are wrong dip shit.
Having any m16 parts in your ar15 constitutes ownership of an illegal machine gun. And if you would read what I sad you fucking moron I said you need a form4 to order the parts from a factory/manufacturer. AND YOU DO NEED A FORM4 TO ORDER THE PARTS STRAIGHT FROM THE FACTORY. Maybe you should do a little reading before you come in here and tell people its legal to commit a felony you asshole. |
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 2:52:27 PM EDT
[#20]
let me ask you something, why would there be a differance between an AR15 bolt carrier and a m16 bolt carrier if THE M16 bolt carrier is not illegal to put in your AR15?
dumbass |
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 2:56:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Forest]
[#21]
Wrong answer Troll. This sort of BS is not tolorated on this board. Especially to a moderator.
Other than your ignorant opinion, can you cite the regulation, law, or case that indicates that? I thought not.
Sad? Yes you are sad (as in pathetic). However if you mean "Said" then what does that prove? Answer: Zero-Zip-Nada. The rantings of an anonymous poster (who doesn't even use his real name) are meaningless. Steve is the moderator and a Lawyer to boot. Where did you go to law school and where is your practice? (Note Steve cited the law - something you have yet to do). Uh-huh so you haven't graduated high school yet - I see. Why don't you get back to your school work and let the adults have their discussion on legal issues.
Well Steve is a Laywer - what are your credentials other than being a potty-mouth little boy? You are the one that needs to do the reading - start with the links Circuits provided and the ones that are posted elsewhere in this forum. Of course if someone is reading this to you - I suggest you get your GED before logging onto the internet. |
||||
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:06:01 PM EDT
[#22]
HERE you go you fucking prick right off bushmaster's web sight. I wont go wade into the BS on the ATF's page.
A Bushmaster Statement Regarding Machinegun PARTS BATF's position is that if your AR15 type rifle contains even one M16 component, it is a Machine Gun. If you own an AR15 from any manufacturer, check to make sure there are no M16 components in its assembly. If there are, remove them immediately; machine them to AR configuration or have them replaced and destroy the M16 components. Refer to the illustrations below to determine if you have M16 components in your assemblies. If you have any questions about your parts, give us a call and we'll be glad to supply you with the legally acceptable parts. www.bushmaster.com/shopping/lowers/individual_parts_for_lower_receivers.asp |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:07:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#23]
Wow, the kid can cut and paste! You've got promise. Yes, that is the same mistatement of law AND the ATF's position that they have posted for years. Is that it? Are you relying on Bushmaster as your legal authority? Next you'll be telling us "cause mommy said so!"
Hey M60308 guy, rather than wallow in ignorance by posting your demonstration of same over and over in this thread, why don't you read 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act? PS: And watch the insults. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:16:47 PM EDT
[#24]
That is truly sad. You are either too lazy or lack the cognitive skills to simply look the law up yourself
Why? 'Cause it will prove you and Bushmaster wrong? ATF takes NO SUCH POSITION. Why? Because the law is as I have stated- the polar opposite of your dribble. Here, straight from Mr. Ownes' March 25, 1999 letter: 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. |
|||
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:18:36 PM EDT
[#25]
I will always trust the manufacturer of the firearm over any idiot who said otherwise.
|
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:22:05 PM EDT
[#26]
Steve,
I'm of the opinion this young-un should be banned since he obviously can't read the rules of the board and has continued to violate them (even after chastising). I mean he posts, and I quote, "Bushmaster's Statement Regarding Machine Gun Parts" - Not a BATF opinion letter, nor the relavant law. But the opinion of the marketing/sales guys at Bushmaster. BTW I'll bet the young-un goes to Taco Bell for medical advice. I mean they make food, so they should know all about nutrition right? |
|
|
MD, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:34:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Ahh yes the Manufactures know so much - Like when DPMS was selling post-ban rifles with welded on 'Flash Supressors' because 'they thought' it was legal (none of them bothered to read the law). Thus selling 1000's of illegal rifles to unsuspecting customers. Even though there were people on this board that said they were in violation of the law. Yeah trust the manufactures say over the law (or the opinion of a professional lawyer). Real smart. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:35:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Forest,
Right, and I'd rely on a priest to judge the legal enforceability of a pre-nup. Well, I called Bushmaster. Their placement of that statement is not based on a letter, the law or anything actually in writing. 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. Guess what? They are going to review the statement. I'm faxing them a letter with from my office giving them the points of law and Owens' letters that seem to be lost on our young friend. Even Bushmaster gets it. Sheesh. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 3:49:40 PM EDT
[#29]
Steve-in-VA,
I second Forest's motion. The sophomoric diatribes above rival those of BOG. Should this behavior be tolerated in a civilized society? I think not. BAN HIM!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 8:29:13 PM EDT
[#30]
whoa guys, looks like i might have created a shitstorm.
 Oh well, looks like i got my answer. i was basically worried because of that bushmaster statement, but now i see that's not totally true. but in any case, thanx for clearing this up all, now, about that troll.......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2002 8:30:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Lol...so the federal law was written by an idiot? Clearly the federal law and the manufacturer's opinions differ. I guess we know who isn't going to bag the prom queen(m60308nato) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2002 9:16:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: EdAvilaSr]
[#32]
m60308nato:
Sir,in order to keep the "conversation" flowing smoothly,we keep the replies civil and respectful to our fellow members. There will be no name calling or personal attacks to ANYONE.....from you or anybody else. This board is for the exchange of information and friendly interaction among responsible gun owners. You can disagree all you want,but personal insults,attacks,threats,and all other undesirable conduct will not be tolerated. Have a good day! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2002 1:50:37 PM EDT
[#33]
 
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 2:45:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Prebandanna]
[#34]
Whew, sounds like things got a little out of hand here! Before someone kills this thread, could you please respond to one more thought. In all fairness to m60308nato, it is sometimes very difficult to sort out misinformation, expecially when it appears as an endorsed article on this very forum. If your position is correct, how could knowledgeable administrators have allowed the posting of such an erroneous article? I refer specifically the the article's statement, "though the rifle will not be capable of full-auto, will still be in violation of the law." This appears to run counter to the interpretation a put forward on this thread. Thank you.
http://old.ar15.com/docs/AR15-M16Parts/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 5:42:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#35]
Article was put there a long time ago, before I was even a mod. So I con't tell you why it's there.
Again, NO FLAME INTENDED, but why don't you look at the Code section. Read the letter from ATF from March of '99- they quote the definition of MG contained in the NFA code section and interpret it correctly. You "can" have an illegal MG "if" you have enough parts to enable FA. It's THAT SIMPLE. Why anyone needs to "interpret" the section is beyond me; it certainly does not take a lawyer to discern the plain language of the statute. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 7:24:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Hi Steve in VA--
Thanks for the response. Yea, Looks like you are probably correct. The law does seem pretty straight forward, as written. I guess laymen are sometimes cynical of legal language. We feel more comfortable when it comes from an interpreter, rather than trust what it says, directly from the source. Maybe that's why there are so many lawyers and preachers. Take care, guys. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 7:38:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AR15forfun]
[#37]
M60308Nato is the same guy who said that blowback 9mm pistols actually open the slide (and chamber) before the bullet leaves the barrel. He got spanked on that misinformation as well. Kinda like on this thread, he just disappeared.
Sounds like he has been taking some things he heard around the gunshop as fact. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/13/2002 10:44:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Gee whiz, was out of town for a week and missed all the fun.
Knock, knock, THIS IS THE ATF, you are under arrest for violating something that is on Bushmaster's web site, BOY YOU IN BIG TROUBLE. BTW, I am not much on banning people, but gee that is tempting ain't it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2002 12:39:51 AM EDT
[#39]
Steve-in-VA - I tried to search the AFT website for this - got over 700 hits in the WAIS database, all garbage. Is there a direct link or a way to obtain a copy. (Please!) |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2002 7:43:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Steve-in-VA]
[#40]
That quote is from the March 1999 letter linked in Circuit's reply on page one. Just click and go.
Bushmaster responded in writing to my letter indicating that the will do the research and look into changing the wording on the statement. They will not, however, change there policy regarding the selling of MG parts to only LEO or Form 4 holders. Something I completely respect. ETA: They did not do shit- they are stating something is illegal when it is not. They are irresponsible and very short-sighted in doing so. |
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 11/14/2002 5:26:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Well I read the law and I read Bushmasters position. I guess the fact that Bushmaster sells parts to the public may influence their postings?
I was ina n armorers class recently for the M16 and sat beside at ATF agent. He answered this question for class and his answer is interesting. He stated probably not the way the law is written. However, sometimes interpretations are made by individuals which may be detrimental to AR owners regardless of the final court decisions. Which plainly stated means the law probably does not prohibit M16 parts in an AR which does not have an auto sear, but field agents may interpret (incorrectly) this law and confiscate the weapon, arrest you and after expensive legal bills you may ultimately win the case. Stuff happens. But I agree, the parts are legal by defination. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 11/14/2002 5:33:07 PM EDT
[#42]
Well I read the law and I read Bushmasters position. I guess the fact that Bushmaster sells parts to the public may influence their postings?
I was ina n armorers class recently for the M16 and sat beside at ATF agent. He answered this question for class and his answer is interesting. He stated probably not the way the law is written. However, sometimes interpretations are made by individuals which may be detrimental to AR owners regardless of the final court decisions. Which plainly stated means the law probably does not prohibit M16 parts in an AR which does not have an auto sear, but field agents may interpret (incorrectly) this law and confiscate the weapon, arrest you and after expensive legal bills you may ultimately win the case. Stuff happens. But I agree, the parts are legal by defination. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2002 5:15:55 AM EDT
[#43]
I bought a nice SP1, took it home and found out it had an M16 trigger in it, probably from the factory.
I tossed it in the trash, then I relayed my story on the forum boards. After further review I now feel that I tossed that M16 trigger too soon. Of course Dave G could always write the ATF a letter... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2002 10:20:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Ok, now that the legalities of the M16 bolt & carrier have apparently been ironed out (thanks, Steve), can anyone convince me to toss my AR15 carrier & replace it with an M16? Are the M16 carriers of better quality to such an extent that replacement is worth it? (I have a stock DPMS A-15.)
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2002 6:56:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Cannibal,
IF you have no reason to do it, Don't. Some people use M16 carriers in competition due to the extra weight. I myself have an older SP1. I can find slick side carriers, but usually they are M16 carriers. So it's not really for any reason other than that's all i can find. IF i were you, unless you thing the heavier carrier will benefit you, i'd stick with what you've got. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 2:55:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Ok boys and girls, it's story time.
A while back, guys were using M-16 parts, minus the auto sear in there SP-1's. By using soft pistol primers, the rifles would fire semi and full auto using "hammer follow threw". Since, at the time, the rules stated that the the "auto-sear" was the illegal part only, then BATF a hard time on conviction. Since then, they changed the ruling to included all the M-16 fire control parts, being the carrier the most important part, since a AR-15 hammer will not bind on the firing pin, and the hood allowing just enough pressure to set off the soft pistol primers on follow-threw. Will the BATF bust your ass for having just the M-16 carrier in the rifle, can you say "Intent to create a machine gun". Mods, please edit this if needed, but to make the point, I needed to give the full story. Dano |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 10:37:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Dano, There is no such ruling. They warn against, as do I, stockpiling mg parts since an eventual accumulation could contain enough to enable FA. However, if I understand what you are saying, the M16 bolt, for the reasons you state, will allow FA. If this is true, I am not sure either way, then your point is taken and completely consistent with the Federal Code section, which btw should be the gravamen of all these discussions. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/30/2002 11:16:03 PM EDT
[#48]
He fails to mention one thing. An AR-15 WILL NOT fire full auto (slam fire) with an M16 bolt carrier. In order for this situation to be even remotely possible one must first remove the disconnector. IF you keep the disconnector in place, there will be no possibility of slam firing. Therefore, an M16 carrier would not make your AR-15 a fully automatic rifle. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2002 12:23:59 AM EDT
[#49]
That was my understanding as well, but you never know, shit happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/31/2002 4:48:48 AM EDT
[#50]
Guys, please notice the wording that I used.
"Will the BATF bust your ass for having just the M-16 carrier in the rifle, can you say "Intent to create a machine gun". Since all that would be required for the BATF to get your rifle running would be a toothpick/match stick/ or anything else to hold the disconnector back, then you have no chance of winning a Federal case against you. And, since the carrier is listed in the don't use list, you have given them even more fuel for the fire to roast you in court. Remember, You can still be found guilty by "Intent to create". Not wether you got the rifle up and running. It's the same reason that we don't do "How to convert" information here. |
|
|
|
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.
