User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:21:57 PM EDT
[#1]
As long as it still goes bang once for every pull of the trigger, its fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:22:21 PM EDT
[#2]
I believe the bolt carrier is fine. FCG = no-no.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:24:52 PM EDT
[#3]
I wonder why I thought that? For some reason I was thinking the BATF ruled that ANY FA parts were a no-no.
Well, I learned something new today. Balming |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:25:59 PM EDT
[#4]
Trying to follow the logic of the BATFE is like trying to follow the logic of a liberal. You could always call them up and pose a hypothetical question about it to them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:26:57 PM EDT
[#5]
a bolt carrier is perfectly legal in an ar15. it's the Fire control group that will get you in trouble. ie. trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and, of course, sear. i believe Colt started using a different Bolt carrier to make it a bit more difficult to make a full auto.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:29:08 PM EDT
[#6]
we don't pay you to think
 mike ps... you should have come out sunday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:40:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Hey steve.....................
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:46:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Don't wish to hijack your thread but...........
With this situation being what it is.......... Why don't all the manufacturers just quit messing around and standardize the bolt carriers and all of them just use the m16 bolt carrier? It would simplify the manufacturing process and eventually lower the overall cost of the bolt carriers as the tooling would be the same. Or is it one of those patent rights situation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 4:52:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Just don't get caught with any M16 parts in the lower.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:08:05 PM EDT
[#10]
I'd venture to say that many if not most have M16 triggers in their lowers right now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:15:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Constructive Posession is something to be avoided.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:46:47 PM EDT
[#12]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 5:48:31 PM EDT
[#13]
M16 BCG is cool.
Just hope the ATF never tries to prove you have an MG. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:00:42 PM EDT
[#14]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:41:27 PM EDT
[#15]
I was told that Colt got tired of the ATF saying this and told them to put it in writing or shut up. They shut. Basically just stay out of the lower receiver stuff especially the FA trigger group and sears. The hammer is supposedly under question now that he bolt has changed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:48:58 PM EDT
[#16]
100% wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2006 6:54:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Colt should fix the FCG pins before they do anything else.hinking.gif |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 7:00:56 AM EDT
[#18]
There actually is an AR15 trigger that cannot accept a M16 disconnector. The difference between being one has a open tail (M16) and the other a closed tail (AR15). A M16 disconnector has to extend beyond the trigger in order to be engaged by the safety in the AUTO position. If you hunt around the internet or books, you will find photos in comparison. Most people do not know this. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 10:51:41 AM EDT
[#19]
I agree, but do both. I don't think there is any point in having the notch in the hammer if it isn't able to catch on the firing pin. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 10:56:13 AM EDT
[#20]
Yes it is okay. This has been beat to death on the technical forums. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:08:36 AM EDT
[#21]
Only 87 times over! JESUS! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:15:11 AM EDT
[#22]
There has been a HUGE thread on this in the Legal section. I have commented, and got flamed for it by people who don't comprehend, that it may very well be perfectly legal under the letter of the law, but I would just as soon not have any M16 parts because BATF could easily start trouble. The lawyers very well may be right about the specifics of the law. But, if BATF comes to YOU, with some jackass with a badge saying the law is what he says it is. Oh, sure maybe you'll find your way through the system and be exonorated - not 100% odds, as they don't like to be wrong. But, you will have spent a fortune and a lot of time. Like I said, I got flamed for it, but anyone who has had anything more than a traffic ticket knows that you get as much justice as you can afford to buy.
So, yes it is legal. But... Some say a DIAS is legal, too, but there was another thread in which it came up and one of the knowledgeable people on there cited title and section where it was NOT. You either play the game, or keep it clean. Or, keep it clean, and be ready with what you need for another time and situation. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:19:15 AM EDT
[#23]
You stated that "many if not most have M16 triggers in their lowers right now." That's what people have been calling you on. I'll do the same. Many, if not most people have AR15 triggers, not M16 triggers in their lowers. Seeing as how most (if not all) parts kits you purchase has an AR15 trigger included. Edit: Here's a picture of an M16 vs AR15 trigger, courtesy of AR15.com: 
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:25:39 AM EDT
[#24]
QUOTE: I agree, but do both. I don't think there is any point in having the notch in the hammer if it isn't able to catch on the firing pin. quote
Hell, Colt should just get the blue prints for lowers from bushmaster. Colt has never made a lower the proper way, it always been something. (bushmaster lower= no sear blocks, correct shelf height (RDIAS), correct size FCG and pivot pins. Like the M16 bolt carrier, The M16 hammer with the J hook will in no way make full auto or any potentially dangerous conditions. IMHO the M16 BCG was a step in the right direction. The M16 hammer would also be another good step toward spec parts, but for god sakes Colt fix the damn FCG pins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:27:07 AM EDT
[#25]
The oversize Colt FCG pins are probably here to stay since they preclude the use of normal M16 FCG parts and add an extra step in any attempt at a conversion process.
Wouldn't an M16 carrier make use of a LL impossible,just as the fully cut out Colt bolt carrier did? If that's the case, than the M16 BC coupled with the large FCG pins would actually make it one step harder to convert a Colt to full auto with a LL. That's based on my assumption that a LL with an SP1 carrier is about the only way to make a large pin FCG Colt fire full auto,since I don't think a DIAS would work,and there aren't any large pin full auto FCG parts that I know of.... Someone correct me if that's wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:32:30 AM EDT
[#26]
I just don't see the need for Colt to neuter the shit out of the weapons, when full auto conversion is already illegal by law.
exception (NFA conversion devices) |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:53:31 AM EDT
[#27]
C'mon. You're being logical, here. Half the laws are unnecessary because the result is already illegal. But some people have to grandstand, hence the rat's nest of laws. Add to that the agencies "legislating" by their own policy statements - "collection of parts is a machine gun", and it's a mess. As I said a number of times, it no longer matters what the real law is, if guys with badges and guns are taking you away in handcuffs, it's a problem. And, until a high court makes an honest decision, it will remain a problem. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 11:54:23 AM EDT
[#28]
?
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 1:08:36 PM EDT
[#29]
That's true, they did. I used to know a guy with an old AR-15 with an m-16 bolt carrier. Now, they mill out a piece of the underside of the bolt carrier so it's harder to make full auto. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 1:59:26 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 2:02:03 PM EDT
[#31]
If you can make it fit, you must acquit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 2:03:23 PM EDT
[#32]
Please don't... I'm sick of people writing stupid letters to the ATF... |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/31/2006 2:55:36 PM EDT
[#33]
You mean by ordering something like this? Do you have to provide a serial number or Tax Stamp number when buying stuff like this? I can't think M16 FCG parts get sold no questions asked. To be legit you would either have to A. have a registered MG or B. have no guns and be making jewelry out of the parts. Something tells me there's a little more monitoring on internet sales of those parts than meets the eye. If I'm wrong, flame away. And as my disclaimer, NO, I'm NOT gonna try to order the parts for "SHTF" along with one of those "pre-81" DIAS from the back of shotgun news! 
|
|
|
|
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.
