Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/9/2010 4:24:31 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/9/2010 4:24:31 AM EDT by Lancelot]
I was talking with a tier one manufacturer (I will not mention the name out of respect) about why they spec their commercial AR's with the cut down semi-auto carrier. I would prefer a full sized M16 carrier, even if I won't notice the difference in performance. He stated that they don't spec their commercial AR's with M16 carriers because of the possibility of the ATF reversing their position on the issue and outlawing M16 carriers in semi-auto only AR's.

What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?

Also, if their position is reversed, will the guns produced with the M16 carriers be "grandfathered" in or be required to be retrofitted with cut down semi-auto only carriers?

With the vast amount of commercial AR's floating around out there with M16 carriers (for example, Colt 6920) I imagine that this could be a pretty big issue.

Mike

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:00:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 6:01:52 PM EDT by durabo]
write the ATF and ask?


You'll probably get the same answer that youd get here.. who knows?

I dont think the ATF even knows what they will do day to day... its a political thing and mostly depends on the current public feeling and social mood.

If I was you I'd get a M-16 BCG now and hoard it if your concerned.


Also.. I would edit your subject line.. i thought you had some actual information about them doing it... not just a question... got me all excited for nothing! :P
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:01:07 PM EDT
I have heard nothing of the sort. It's probably a precaution more than an actual impending rule change.

That said, who knows how ATF will handle it...
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:06:17 PM EDT
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:07:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:09:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
He stated that they don't spec their commercial AR's with M16 carriers because of the possibility of the ATF reversing their position on the issue and outlawing M16 carriers in semi-auto only AR's.




I don't really see that he was implying that he expected it. As a matter of fact, when any company says "we don't offer that because of XYZ reason which has nothing to do with us", I tend to take the statement with a grain of salt. Just an observation.

Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:13:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/8/2010 6:14:13 PM EDT by jerz_subbie]
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


Damn... oh well, it was one of two so now we know... not that it really matters as the response is a very generic one.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:29:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


I can't think of any other mfg that is considered "Tier One" that specs semi carriers aside from LMT. So why don't you just tell us who the mfg is that you think deserves that designation.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:31:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


Damn... oh well, it was one of two so now we know... not that it really matters as the response is a very generic one.


Who's the other? All the ones I can think of ship with M16 carriers.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:36:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


I can't think of any other mfg that is considered "Tier One" that specs semi carriers aside from LMT. So why don't you just tell us who the mfg is that you think deserves that designation.

Sabre Defense. I haven't heard of them refered to as a "tier one" manufactuer often, however the rifle in question when I was speaking to them was a A4 type, of which Sabre has a contract for the US Government (select fire M16A4 type). Aside from FN, there are no other manufacturers producing M16A4's for the military. IMO, I would say that makes them a "tier one" manufacturer much in the same way as Colt producing M4's alongside their law enforcement models (6920, 6721, etc.).
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:40:04 PM EDT


What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?


BATFE has no position. If asked, they will just cite the definition of a MG and recommend you not put any M16 parts on your gun.

BTW, does the MFG you talked to NOT cut the sear relief into the upper receiver? Doubtful so what will they do if that is reversed?

Reality is nothing is going to happen.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:42:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


I can't think of any other mfg that is considered "Tier One" that specs semi carriers aside from LMT. So why don't you just tell us who the mfg is that you think deserves that designation.

Sabre Defense. I haven't heard of them refered to as a "tier one" manufactuer often, however the rifle in question when I was speaking to them was a A4 type, of which Sabre has a contract for the US Government (select fire M16A4 type). Aside from FN, there are no other manufacturers producing M16A4's for the military. IMO, I would say that makes them a "tier one" manufacturer much in the same way as Colt producing M4's alongside their law enforcement models (6920, 6721, etc.).


When they start shipping thier carbines with M16 carriers and milspec REs maybe that will change my mind.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:46:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


I can't think of any other mfg that is considered "Tier One" that specs semi carriers aside from LMT. So why don't you just tell us who the mfg is that you think deserves that designation.

Sabre Defense. I haven't heard of them refered to as a "tier one" manufactuer often, however the rifle in question when I was speaking to them was a A4 type, of which Sabre has a contract for the US Government (select fire M16A4 type). Aside from FN, there are no other manufacturers producing M16A4's for the military. IMO, I would say that makes them a "tier one" manufacturer much in the same way as Colt producing M4's alongside their law enforcement models (6920, 6721, etc.).


When they start shipping thier carbines with M16 carriers and milspec REs maybe that will change my mind.

Interesting, I was not aware that they did this. I wasn't looking at one of their carbine models. I guess I stand corrected
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:49:08 PM EDT
Don't try to make trouble where there is none.

Full size / full weight bolt carriers will not make your AR-15 into an M-16 and are not illegal.

Let sleeping dogs lie.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 6:59:23 PM EDT
I'm not sure that it's ever a good idea to write to BATFE.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 7:30:21 PM EDT
You wake them up and them damn dogs start barking.. Yep, let sleeping dogs lay.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:11:05 PM EDT
The ATF can't make anything illegal. The opinion they promulgated saying M16 BGCs were ok was merely their then-current interpretation of the law. M16 BCGs were never illegal in a semi-auto gun. What IS illegal in a semi auto gun are parts that would make that semi-auto gun fire in full auto.

That's it. ATF has a horrible track record in court.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:30:20 PM EDT
The funny thing is with a semi carrier one only need to drop in a lighting link to convert.

Its more likely to convert something with a semi bolt carreir rather than a auto bolt carrier.

Six of one and a half dozen of the other as far as I am concerned. I use both and cant really tell a difference in performance.
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 9:44:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By CTbuilder1:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:

Originally Posted By jerz_subbie:
So you talked to LMT, it's OK you can say it There aren't too many Teir 1 mfgs that use semi carriers.


I don't think we have to worry about this one.

Nope, guess again


I can't think of any other mfg that is considered "Tier One" that specs semi carriers aside from LMT. So why don't you just tell us who the mfg is that you think deserves that designation.

Sabre Defense. I haven't heard of them refered to as a "tier one" manufactuer often, however the rifle in question when I was speaking to them was a A4 type, of which Sabre has a contract for the US Government (select fire M16A4 type). Aside from FN, there are no other manufacturers producing M16A4's for the military. IMO, I would say that makes them a "tier one" manufacturer much in the same way as Colt producing M4's alongside their law enforcement models (6920, 6721, etc.).


Sabre is Definitely a top tier brand
Link Posted: 9/8/2010 10:04:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
[div][span style='BACKGROUND-COLOR: #d5d4d5']I was talking with a tier one manufacturer (I will not mention the name out of respect) about why they spec their commercial AR's with the cut down semi-auto carrier. I would prefer a full sized M16 carrier, even if I won't notice the difference in performance. He stated that they don't spec their commercial AR's with M16 carriers because of the possibility of the ATF reversing their position on the issue and outlawing M16 carriers in semi-auto only AR's.


Not really a valid reason for not providing M16 BCGs. It's not like they will have to retool unless they produce their own BCGs.


Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:05:44 AM EDT
Quote taken from bravo company website:

Written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch
...M16 bolt carriers are not designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun and are not any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled.  Further, an M16 bolt carrier is not a firearm as defined in the GCA or a machinegun as defined in the NFA.  An M16 bolt carrier is simply a machinegun part and as such its domestic sale and possession is unregulated under the Federal firearms laws.  It is not unlawful to utilize a M16 machinegun bolt carrier in a semiautomatic AR15 type rifle.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:33:38 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:27:06 AM EDT



there isn't anything illegal about an M16 carrier, and i really don't think in this day-and-age the ATF will be pressing the issue.

but, every company is free to do business as they see fit, and we are free to choose who we spend our money with.


Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:38:42 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?


To answer your question, this is one decision that the BATFE can't reverse because it really wasn't a decision as much as it was a declaration of fact.

Under current law, the only way for them to restrict or regulate a part is if that part can convert a semi auto gun into a fully auto gun. An M16 carrier by itself will not convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle. This is a hard fact and not "reversible".

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 5:06:16 AM EDT
Originally Posted By airgunner:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?


To answer your question, this is one decision that the BATFE can't reverse because it really wasn't a decision as much as it was a declaration of fact.

Under current law, the only way for them to restrict or regulate a part is if that part can convert a semi auto gun into a fully auto gun. An M16 carrier by itself will not convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle. This is a hard fact and not "reversible".



realistically, all the M16 fire control parts meet the same description without an auto seer. But some think it's illegal to use an M16 hammer and disconnector, neither of which will allow the gun to shoot full auto, without an auto seer.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 5:21:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By airgunner:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?


To answer your question, this is one decision that the BATFE can't reverse because it really wasn't a decision as much as it was a declaration of fact.

Under current law, the only way for them to restrict or regulate a part is if that part can convert a semi auto gun into a fully auto gun. An M16 carrier by itself will not convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle. This is a hard fact and not "reversible".



realistically, all the M16 fire control parts meet the same description without an auto seer. But some think it's illegal to use an M16 hammer and disconnector, neither of which will allow the gun to shoot full auto, without an auto seer

Just because some less informed people think it's illegal, doesn't make it so. I run M-16 carriers and M-16 style hammers in all my AR's and I really don't care what the BATFE's opinion of the week is on it. My rifles only fire 1 round per trigger pull and that's all that really matters.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 7:17:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By airgunner:
Originally Posted By Mach:
Originally Posted By airgunner:
Originally Posted By MichigamaGunslinger:
What is the possibility that the ATF will reverse their position regarding this issue?


To answer your question, this is one decision that the BATFE can't reverse because it really wasn't a decision as much as it was a declaration of fact.

Under current law, the only way for them to restrict or regulate a part is if that part can convert a semi auto gun into a fully auto gun. An M16 carrier by itself will not convert an AR-15 into a fully automatic rifle. This is a hard fact and not "reversible".



realistically, all the M16 fire control parts meet the same description without an auto seer. But some think it's illegal to use an M16 hammer and disconnector, neither of which will allow the gun to shoot full auto, without an auto seer

Just because some less informed people think it's illegal, doesn't make it so. I run M-16 carriers and M-16 style hammers in all my AR's and I really don't care what the BATFE's opinion of the week is on it. My rifles only fire 1 round per trigger pull and that's all that really matters.


exactly
Top Top