Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Locked Tacked M16 bolt in AR15? (Page 1 of 12)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 12
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?
Link Posted: 10/7/2002 8:29:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/7/2002 12:26:00 PM EDT
you will go to jail
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 12:51:05 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 1:34:45 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 2:36:38 AM EDT
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!
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 4:18:22 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 7:31:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 7:34:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 9:33:28 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 1:37:56 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 1:45:30 PM EDT
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.
.
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 2:09:36 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/9/2002 11:54:47 PM EDT
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"????
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 12:46:50 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 7:44:48 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 1:35:45 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 1:52:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 2:34:43 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 2:46:18 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 2:52:27 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 2:56:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2002 2:59:32 PM EDT by Forest]

Originally Posted By m60308nato:
ok talk shit about me asshole when you are wrong dip shit.


Wrong answer Troll. This sort of BS is not tolorated on this board. Especially to a moderator.



Having any m16 parts in your ar15 constitutes ownership of an illegal machine gun.


Other than your ignorant opinion, can you cite the regulation, law, or case that indicates that?

I thought not.



And if you would read what I sad


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.



I said you need a form4 to order the parts from a factory/manufacturer.
[/qote]
No you don't. Some places do require one - but its their company policy - not the law. I know of several places where you can buy them cash-n-carry its perfectly legal.


Maybe you should do a little reading before you come in here and tell people its legal to commit a felony.



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.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:06:01 PM EDT
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

Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:07:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/10/2002 3:09:34 PM EDT by Steve-in-VA]
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:16:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:18:36 PM EDT
I will always trust the manufacturer of the firearm over any idiot who said otherwise.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:22:05 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:34:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m60308nato:
I will always trust the manufacturer of the firearm over any idiot who said otherwise.



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.
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:35:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 3:49:40 PM EDT
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!!!!!!!!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 8:29:13 PM EDT
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.......
Link Posted: 10/10/2002 8:30:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By m60308nato:
I will always trust the manufacturer of the firearm over any idiot who said otherwise.



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)
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 9:16:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/11/2002 10:22:35 AM EDT by EdAvilaSr]
Link Posted: 10/11/2002 1:50:37 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 2:45:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 3:01:42 PM EDT by Prebandanna]
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/

Link Posted: 10/13/2002 5:42:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 5:46:22 PM EDT by Steve-in-VA]
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:24:49 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 10/13/2002 7:38:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/13/2002 10:46:29 PM EDT by AR15forfun]
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.



Link Posted: 10/13/2002 10:44:17 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 12:39:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA:
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.




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!)
Link Posted: 10/14/2002 7:43:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 4:32:32 PM EDT by Steve-in-VA]
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 5:26:56 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/14/2002 5:33:07 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 5:15:55 AM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 10:20:30 AM EDT
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.)
Link Posted: 11/15/2002 6:56:52 PM EDT
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.


Link Posted: 12/30/2002 2:55:40 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 12/30/2002 10:37:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/30/2002 11:16:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Steve-in-VA:

Dano,

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.



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.
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 12:23:59 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/31/2002 4:48:48 AM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 12
Locked Tacked M16 bolt in AR15? (Page 1 of 12)
Top Top