I need to use the Ciener "Auto Trip", (that is normally only used with the Ciener M16 22lr conversion) in my 22lr barrel conversion because the chamber is in the barrel and there is nothing to hold the Ciener Bolt on the unit's rails! This Ciener "Auto Trip" just clips onto the rails and, in my case, keeps the bolt from comming off during installation and removal. I was told that I need to get the Ciener Auto Trip from the barrel manufacturer because he modifies the Ciener part so the ATF won't think I have an evil rifle. Will having the Ciener Auto trip clip thing in my AR-15 (no nasty m16 fire control parts at all, pure 100% post-ban) make my AR-15 illegal?

What would be illegal about that?

That's what gets me, I don't see a problem either! It's just part of a conversion unit but the barrel manufacturer said he modified the Ciener auto trips, that he sold, so the ATF won't think it's illegal. I just didn't understand the reasoning behind the barrel manufacturer doing this so I posted this question. I use the auto trip clip because it makes it darn easy to install the Modified Ciener unit in the upper. With the Chamber adapter gone the spring wants to launch the Ciener bolt the first chance it gets!
>>Thanks for the reply.

Is Williebird the manufacturer?

mark

I got the barrel from Kuehl Precision. It's a 20" SS barrel. I read in the instructions, that came with the barrel, that he modified the Ciener auto trip so I e-mailed him and asked why he did this. He explained that the mod was done to make the ATF happy. Since I already have a Ciener auto trip I guess I need to e-mail Kuehl and ask what the mod is so I can do my own.

If he's willing to provide the letters he got from the ATF, I'd like to add them to my collection. They would help me figure out if stuff I'd like to do would be legal.

I don't like writing the ATF myself, because it gives them the opportunity to declare that new things are illegal.

The [b]LAST[/b] thing you want to do is contact the BATF.

They'll just give you a jerk-knee "you can't do it" type of response.

Your manufacturer has already done the BATF leg-work. Just go with his instructions.

Until then, just use it as it is. If someone calls you on it, you have a BATF-sactioned resolution in the works. I'm sure this will suffice.

But make sure you get the legal modification, don't let it drop. You may have to send the sear-trip to him for modification, but you can still use the gun without it. It's just a pain to get back together when taking it out to clean the gun.

I know I have one. I didn't have to make the modification, since I have a couple of M16's.

Mine is on an Accuracy Speaks upper, which also has a true 22LR chamber and eliminates the Ciener 5.56MM chamber-adapter.

You're right, I take back the ATF address I posted on the spooky parallel universe thread that's just like this one.

If Kuehl Precision shows you the letter from the ATF saying that his mod is legal, the letter might also imply that other mods are legal too. That's why I like collecting old statements from the ATF; but I avoid asking them for new statements.

To drfcolt: yes, the Ciener unit is a pain to install without that auto trip. like three monkeys screwing a football - nothing seems to go right. The Kuehl barrel also has the chamber built into the barrel itself just like the accuracy speaks barrel.
To both drfcolt and Blaze-of-Glory: I agree with both of you about getting with the ATF. I would much prefer to contact Kuehl and just work with him and not have to deal with the ATF at all.

Thanks to both of you for your replies!

To Blaze-of-Glory;
I just got a reply back from Kuehl Precision.  There is no letter from the ATF about the Ciener Auto Trip. Rick at Kuehl Precision just did the modification because he felt he didn't want, by chance, to place any of his customers in any possible legal grey areas.

Thanks for the update.

Someday I hope to figure out exactly what I am allowed to add to my registered full-auto sear.

AR-15 in .223? I think so.

AR-15 in .22LR? I think so.

Minigun? I don't see why not.

Tank? I don't see anything wrong with that.

...