User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:14:28 PM EDT
[#1]
Bolt carriers are OK. Hooked hammers are not.  Any M16 or full auto FCG parts are off limits for title I AR15 type firearms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:15:33 PM EDT
[#2]
The bolt carrier is fine.
Don't know about the hammer. I don't think i would use it. There would be no advantage in the hammer. There is one in use of the heavier BC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:24:10 PM EDT
[#3]
Ok thanks for the replies. I was just curious. I don't have any M16 parts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:31:58 PM EDT
[#4]
The search function would have answered your questions as this gets asked probably 3-4 times a week.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:40:27 PM EDT
[#5]
Properly modified, yes - there is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:44:03 PM EDT
[#6]
molsen ,dont read or comment if irritates you . cant make evryone happy...and certainly dont make exceptions for 1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 5:52:25 PM EDT
[#7]
If it was going into a semi rifle what would that be? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 6:17:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Rounded hammer and shrouded carrier is the correct config for the AR/M16 platform (IMO)
No different than a DPMS hammer or similar hammer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 7:24:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Why is an M16 hammer illegal with a m16 carrier?
The existence of the hammer hook is redundant because if you don't have an auto-sear for that extra hook to catch on, it serves no purpose. I doubt having a M16 hammer alone in a FCG with a M16 carrier will be a violation of the law. Is there any documentation to support this claim? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 7:40:13 PM EDT
[#10]
it's the "readily converted" part of the law. you can make it full auto too easily (i.e. with two pop can tabs) if you have both the carrier and the hammer in the gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:05:24 PM EDT
[#11]
You'd already be breaking the law with an unmodified M16 hammer - so the "pop tabs" is irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:14:37 PM EDT
[#12]
GA law says that you can have a rifle that shoots up to six shots with one pull of the trigger, but federal law says this is illegal. WTF?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:15:16 PM EDT
[#13]
The only source I can find for this information is the same source that says M16 bolt carriers are illegal, and we know that is untrue. Can you point me towards documentation that states this? I have been wondering about this for some time. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:15:41 PM EDT
[#14]
Do you have a link to that law?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:23:15 PM EDT
[#15]
I guess "pushing the law" is more appropriate.  I see it this way - an M16 carrier has more mass, and a shrouded firing pin. I see those as benefits. I see no benefit to the spur on an M16 hammer, so I grind them off to be safe. Will an unmodified M16 hammer by itself cause f/a? not likely. But get enough parts together and that's when "they" get nervous... Here's a link post in the Legal Forum that helps explain what's what. www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=6&t=739614 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:27:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Why bother pushing the law?
I'd not risk anything with the ATF honestly... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:36:42 PM EDT
[#17]
M16 carriers are legal..M16 hammers just grind off the hook on the hammer,disconectors grind off the tail.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 8:38:18 PM EDT
[#18]
O.K. here is the deal. You are NOT allowed to have ANY fire control parts in your weapon from an M-16, or any fire control parts that go into an automatic or select-fire weapon. You cannot have the trigger, auto-sear, hammer, safety selector, burst disconnector, cam clutch spring or burst cam. You cannot have a lower receiver with the auto-sear pin-hole drilled into it. Any one of these parts will/can be construed to be posession of a class 3 weapon.
Most, but not all manufacturers will NOT sell you a M-16 carrier just to be on the safe side. Most, but not all of US believe that a carrier is NOT part of the fire-control group of a weapon. Most of us agree that the legal wording does not prevent us from using an M-16 carrier in our weapons, and we have not heard of anyone running into legal issues from doing so. Take your hammer and dremmel off the hook now, or trash it to be safe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:10:59 PM EDT
[#19]
just curious and not to be stupid dont you need a federal lcense to buy any of the M16 fire control group parts
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:17:36 PM EDT
[#20]
no. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:23:05 PM EDT
[#21]
-1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:42:26 PM EDT
[#22]
It just gets old and I can understand the frustration from both sides. I also realize if something wasn't repeated on here then there may not be any new threads at all.  Carrier is fine. If you want a hammer that's close to the M16 hammer then buy a DPMS parts kits. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:45:07 PM EDT
[#23]
If the parts installed make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger, they are illegal.
A M16 bolt carrier will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. A M16 hammer will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. A M16 trigger will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. A M16 disconnect will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. A M16 disconnector will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. A M16 selector will not make your gun fire more than one shot per pull of the trigger. But combined with a M16 disconnector, it can cause a slam fire condition and not safe to use. All ATF letters saying not to use any M16 parts are designed to keep shooters from inadvertanly making a MG but are recommendations only and are not consistent with the law. The OP did not ask anyone's opinion on whether he should use a M16 bolt carrier and hammer, he asked if they are legal to use. They are legal to use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:45:07 PM EDT
[#24]
Oops, double post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:56:00 PM EDT
[#25]
It's also supposedly legal to own a post-83 DIAS as long as you don't own an AR
But you won't find me placing an order...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/9/2008 9:59:11 PM EDT
[#26]
I don't know. David Olofson might disagree with you on some counts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 10:26:23 AM EDT
[#27]
No, he's 100% correct. The problem comes when you you have a malfunction that causes your rifle to double or worse, dump the whole mag. Then the presence of those parts can become a problem. Something as simple as soft primers or a stuck firing pin can be enough to cause a malfunction. It's bad enough that this can happen in a perfectly functioning semi-auto rifle. There's no reason to put your intent in question by using any m-16 FCG parts. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 10:44:10 AM EDT
[#28]
Could you please post written diagram with pics as HOW TO DO THIS?...I'm kidding now...but you know someone is thinking this,,,lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 11:27:38 AM EDT
[#29]
Its only as legal as the atf wants it to be. The m16 hammer does not help anything so I'd stay away from it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 12:58:42 PM EDT
[#30]
I have found that m16 parts last longer. That may not be true for all aftermarket parts, but seems to be true for colt ar15 parts. The colt parts appear to be soft. I haven't rockwell tested them but trigger jobs go south early. This is OLD info I have not bought any trigger parts in a long while. I doubt most folks would fire as many rounds as I did either. I was just pointing out a reason for m16 parts.
Noob |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 4:46:04 PM EDT
[#31]
It's little wonder these types of questions are repeated over and over when you see the kind of bad and inconsistent information provided in this thread. We were most of the way through a page before Tangochaser provided a correct answer. Everybody else was just posting piles of BS that will guarantee than someone else is going to be confused and have to ask the question again the day after tomorrow.
The LAW says it is illegal to have a machinegun. Putting an M16 hammer in an AR-15 will not create a machinegun. Therefore it is legal. The End. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 5:13:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Its all good! when obama takes over anyway, all your guns will be banned no matter whats on em
 Stick it to the man and just dont get caught! save it for the zombies! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 5:28:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Yeah I was under the very distinct impression that it was illigal to use M16 parts on your AR-15. And no where have I ever read a distiction between one part or an enitre lower built with them. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2008 5:29:58 PM EDT
[#34]
+1
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2008 8:52:03 AM EDT
[#35]
What is it with people posting things they have no clue about...  the law went into effect in 86, not 83. You can have a PRE 86 unregistered DIAS. A post 86 DIAS is a controlled item. You can only have a pre 86 DIAS that is unregistered if you dont have an AR, have a registered receiver set up to use an ungistered DIAS (registered receiver without an auto hole drilled... a pre 86 conversion that is very rare), or are an FFL type who can own the item.You can own ANY auto parts you want so long as your rifle will not fire automatically with any combination installed. If you have 100% semi auto parts and your rifle fires automatically its a machinegun. The parts themselves have ZERO bearing on this, legally. It is 100% about function. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/11/2008 12:15:16 PM EDT
[#36]
I meant "pre-81"
and it was a joke. Just going off of Quarterbore's website (who is a respected member here) www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html Didn't mean to offend you, Your Highness.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 6:45:11 AM EDT
[#37]
State law supercedes federal so you are all good |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 6:56:28 AM EDT
[#38]
If the state law is more restrictive, then yes it does. If the state law is less restrictive, then no, it doesn't. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:01:19 PM EDT
[#39]
The more restrictive law prevails, unless you can prove it infringes your second amendment rights, as in Heller vs DC. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:04:56 PM EDT
[#40]
Well in Olofsons case this was it. The weapon was clearly malfunctioning when it went full auto, and this was admitted in the case, but the fact that he had an auto fire control group component, which did not actually cause the malfunction or full auto, hurt his case tremendously. He was sentenced to time in jail even though he did not intentionally cause his rifle to fire more than one round per trigger pull. Since we can count on the BATFE to do everything it can to prosecute, fair or not, and we can count on a sheeple jury of our peers to be influenced negatively by the word "machinegun" even if we did nothing wrong, why push your luck when having M16 FCG components provides no advantage. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 12:37:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Olofson was rail roaded. He was found gulity of transfering a MG not making or possessing one. He didn't get convicted because he had M16 parts in his gun, he was convicted for a number of reason and because the ATF and their attorney's lied to the judge and the biased judge suppressed key evidence for the defense. The ATF modified the testing procedures to make the gun fire full auto, and the jury believed an ATF agent with two years on the job knew how to tell the difference between M16 and AR15 parts.
His own attorney sucked as well by arguing the wrong point. Instead of trying to argue what is and what is not a MG, they should have argued that there was no evidence that Olofson installed the M16 parts and that it was in the hands of the prosecution witness for a couple months. He could have installed the M16 parts. It also didn't help the fact that Olofson has a history of pissing off the ATF. My comments still stand. Nowhere in any firearms regualtions does it specifically mention parts of any kind. We can argue for decades on the smartness of using M16 components in an AR15 but the law does not prohibit the use of M16 parts. The one exception that is viewed by ATF as an illegal part is the auto sear as it was designed specifically for MG use. Don't believe me, read the regulations on the ATF website yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 4:35:57 PM EDT
[#42]
ATF lied? huh. never heard of 2 pop tops used to go FA, anybody else have a link or info, i searched and found nothing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 4:58:09 PM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/12/2008 5:02:08 PM EDT
[#44]
SBR's have nothing to do with select fire. They are subject to the same config laws as their Title 1 counterparts. Which apparently state you can tun M16 parts - but at your own risk. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2008 3:50:32 PM EDT
[#45]
I know David Olofson and was at his sentencing.
The Government lied and purposely put an innocent man in jail. He didn't go to prison for violating any law, he went to jail because he was a true Patriot and they hated him for that. By the way-the real law of the land states "shall not be infringed." All laws that infringe that inalianable right are illegal laws. Having said that-use M16 bolt carrier probably going to be OK. You have a missfire with any M16 part and you are at the mercy of the ATF. |
|
|
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.
.jpg)
