Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/5/2006 10:47:10 AM EDT
Does any one have a copy of this letter to post.

Thanks
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:50:19 AM EDT
From the Colt Forum

Photo courtsy of redfisher



Link Posted: 1/5/2006 10:53:13 AM EDT
Sweet! Thanks a ton..
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 11:40:04 AM EDT
Damn, my old eyes can barely read that. Who has a copy of the legible version? I've seen it here before but did a full search on "ATF" and only came up with the above version.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 11:49:46 AM EDT
Tag

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 12:40:37 PM EDT
So with that incredible bit of clarification if the AR doesnt go full auto its legal? I always like the M16 bolt carriers better as they have a little more meat and weight to them. Maybe its just the fabricator in me but it would seem the extra metal and weight would be more beneficial? It also would give it more surface area to ride on plus from a mecinaical stand point I know there are other issues the increased surface and metal would be beneficial too, I'm just going brain dead and cant think of them right now. I never did like the Colt carriers that had all of the bottom removed. Ok go ahead and flame me as I'm probably very wrong.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:15:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mstennes:
So with that incredible bit of clarification if the AR doesnt go full auto its legal? I always like the M16 bolt carriers better as they have a little more meat and weight to them. Maybe its just the fabricator in me but it would seem the extra metal and weight would be more beneficial? It also would give it more surface area to ride on plus from a mecinaical stand point I know there are other issues the increased surface and metal would be beneficial too, I'm just going brain dead and cant think of them right now. I never did like the Colt carriers that had all of the bottom removed. Ok go ahead and flame me as I'm probably very wrong.



The "filled in" part of a select fire carrier as opposed to a semi only carrier does not touch the inside of the receiver.

Link Posted: 1/5/2006 1:25:44 PM EDT
If the ATF can't give a straight answer then who can you contact? Damn, I am sick of their ambiguous, often conflicting, bullshit letters.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:01:03 PM EDT
sounds clear to me. they dont want to condone the use of 16 parts but as long it doesn't go FA your GTG.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 2:34:39 PM EDT
So, Mr Nixon seems to be saying that "constructive intent" is just BS cooked up to scare people.... According to that letter (and the law, not that it matters to the ATF), you could even drill the hole for an autosear and install every M16 component except one.

Who's going to be the test case? Not me.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:24:56 PM EDT
interesting, thank you
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 3:31:43 PM EDT
I really wish colt would take the next step and go back to standard fire control pins.
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:40:58 PM EDT
From my experience in talking with the ATF they don't ever give a clear answer to many questions, and this is a prime example. Why do they have to be so esoteric about this kind of stuff?
Link Posted: 1/5/2006 4:43:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By M16M4A2:
From my experience in talking with the ATF they don't ever give a clear answer to many questions, and this is a prime example. Why do they have to be so esoteric about this kind of stuff?



The BATFE has the "I will neither confirm or deny" syndrome. If you get a letter from the BATFE and don't like the answer, just send another and maybe a different agent will answer your question and will probably give you a different answer.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 4:41:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Griz:
According to that letter (and the law, not that it matters to the ATF), you could even drill the hole for an autosear and install every M16 component except one.


You're kidding, right?

There are about 5 legal definitions of what constitutes a MG, and only one of those definitions is "fires more than one shot per pull of the trigger". The others cover receiver, conversion parts and the general catchall "readily restorable".

Trust me, the autosear hole, even with no other M16 parts will be covered under the statute.

The letter is very clear. If the installation of an M16 carrier doesn't turn your rifle into a MG, you are good to go. If for some reason it does, you're in trouble.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 5:46:17 PM EDT
The letter is very clear. If the installation of an M16 carrier doesn't turn your rifle into a MG, you are good to go. If for some reason it does, you're in trouble. Southern Raider

It seems clear to me too.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 5:59:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Southern_Raider:
The letter is very clear. If the installation of an M16 carrier doesn't turn your rifle into a MG, you are good to go. If for some reason it does, you're in trouble.



26 USC Sec. 5845 is very clear also. If the ATF choses to decide that an M16 carrier doesn't make your gun a machinegun, then how could they argue that a M16 hammer makes your AR-15 a machine gun?

I'll grant that I went a little far in saying that the autosear or autosear hole still would be OK, but everything else that does something when the selector is on "SEMI" would pass Mr Nixon's test of it doesn't make the gun full auto, and it is not solely and exclusively designed for full auto use.

What are the other 4 legal definitions of a machinegun that you know of? All of the federal ones that I know of point to 26 USC Sec. 5845
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 6:02:53 PM EDT
Does the 6920 have a m16 bolt carrier?
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 6:13:32 PM EDT
I believe you would be ok with all M-16 parts except an M-16 disconnector.
An M-16 hammer and carrier's ability to slamfire would be the same as using a shrouded AR-15 carrier and an un-notched DPMS AR-15 hammer.
Even if you had an M-16 hammer and bolt carrier they would not slamfire unless the disconnector was removed or pulled out of engagement.
So even with an M-16 hammer, trigger, bolt carrier and selector your rifle would have just as good of a chance of full auto as an all AR-15 parts rifle with a shrouded firing pin.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 6:31:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Cyclic240B:
Damn, my old eyes can barely read that. Who has a copy of the legible version? I've seen it here before but did a full search on "ATF" and only came up with the above version.



24-hour bump for the same question?
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:40:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/6/2006 7:40:43 PM EDT by fullauto4u]

Originally Posted By johnthreesixteen:
Does the 6920 have a m16 bolt carrier?


Some have reportedly come through with them.
Link Posted: 1/6/2006 7:45:45 PM EDT

What are the other 4 legal definitions of a machinegun that you know of? All of the federal ones that I know of point to 26 USC Sec. 5845

True, but that section of code has several descriptions of what constitutes a MG.
www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode26/usc_sec_26_00005845----000-.html

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.


  • ...means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot (this lines covers working MGs and those that can be readily made to work with some effort i.e. 2 definitions)

  • the frame or receiver of any such weapon (i.e. a stripped AR15 receiver modified to accept a GI autosear, even if you own no other parts)

  • any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun (i.e. DIAS)

  • combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person




26 USC Sec. 5845 is very clear also. If the ATF choses to decide that an M16 carrier doesn't make your gun a machinegun, then how could they argue that a M16 hammer makes your AR-15 a machine gun?

Where have they argued that? I know in the past they may have tried to convict based on something such as that, but unless it "worked" as a MG (i.e. slam fired in this case) they don't really have a case.


I'll grant that I went a little far in saying that the autosear or autosear hole still would be OK...

OK, grandstanding mode = OFF.


...but everything else that does something when the selector is on "SEMI" would pass Mr Nixon's test of it doesn't make the gun full auto, and it is not solely and exclusively designed for full auto use.

The "test" as he described is within the context of the original question. An M16 bolt carrier combined with a standard AR15, cannot meet any other definition of a MG under 26USC5845. Other things can satisfy 26USC5845. e.g. a recently made DIAS even if you don't own an AR15.

Top Top