What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??


PDA






Ughh
February 14, 2010, 11:55 PM
Hey guys, my friend whose an e4 armorer in the army has been trying to convince me that anyone could easily convert a civ AR-15 into a full auto M16. :scrutiny::scrutiny:

I argued to him that that's not true.
He says that he's an armorer and he would know, but I told him that just cause he's an armorer in the military doesn't mean he's familiar with civy weapons.

I mean, aren't there several differences, especially after the whole Waco, TX thing? :eek:

I thought many of these opposites included the auto sear, also the bcg i think is different underneath. The selector switch is obviously different as well, but aren't there much more differences??

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Ughh
February 14, 2010, 11:57 PM
To all, i understand that this is only meant as a educational, not-to-do thing as it is highly illegal to possess or own a automatic weapon ofter some year that i forgot, in which, even if you did own a title II auto weapon before this aforementioned year, you would require a license from which you pay to receive... yada, yada, yada....

Jaws
February 15, 2010, 12:02 AM
I don't think this is a good subject for discussion on a public forum.

kingpin008
February 15, 2010, 12:12 AM
I'll let others handle the meat of your question, but I just wanted to say - Waco had no effect on firearms design/availability/etc.

LJH
February 15, 2010, 12:15 AM
Not anyone can do this. Only FFL with SOT and a demo letter can.

Waco has nothing to do with it.

And you are correct some of the fire control parts are not the same. BCG from the AR will not run a full auto. AR has no auto sear, etc etc etc.

Sam Cade
February 15, 2010, 12:22 AM
Any non-hamfisted machinist can/could fabricate a DIAS or lightning link in nothing flat, add a readily available m16 bolt carrier and its off to the federal pen.

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/dias.html

http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/lightninglink.html

ShadyScott999
February 15, 2010, 12:28 AM
Never mind. Not very HR. The phrase "Curiosity killed the cat" comes to mind.

Ughh
February 15, 2010, 01:22 AM
Yea, everyone should know that it is a high level felony to own a full auto weapon

But even though if this is a touchy subject the fact is that knowledge is not a crime, it's when someone takes that action that's deemed unlawful or against the law that is the evil.

is this subject to be answered?

taliv
February 15, 2010, 01:40 AM
though nitpicky, converting an AR15 to full-auto doesn't make it an M16.

The brady bunch would like everyone to think that it is trivially easy to make any AR15 full-auto.
The NRA would like everyone to think it's nigh impossible to make an AR15 full-auto.
The truth is somewhere in between.

There are in fact, several fairly simple methods to make one technically full-auto. However, almost all the methods of doing this make it fairly uncontrollable, and unreliable, and potentially dangerous, such that for practical purposes, the semi-auto is more useful.

A competent gunsmith/machinist could of course modify or make (or buy) the dozen or so parts to convert an AR15 to full-auto safely and legally (as a type 2 mfg, with the proper paperwork)

Sunray
February 15, 2010, 02:48 AM
"...convert a civ AR-15 into a full auto M16..." Your weapons tech buddy is right. Not by just anybody though. It wouldn't be an M16 or have an auto sear or selector switch though. It'd be an illegal firearm. Any semi-auto can be made FA. Lots of improperly done trigger jobs on semi-auto rifles and pistols will go FA. Wouldn't necessarily be controllable. Most illegally made FA firearms empty the whole mag with one pull of the trigger.
Used to shoot with a guy, long ago, who bought a real semi'd Uzi. It'd go FA with light target loads. Semi-auto only with factory ball. Friggin' thing shot well too. Had the wooden shoulder stock. We all told him to take it back because it would go FA with light ammo.
"...it is a high level felony to own a full auto weapon...as it is highly illegal to possess or own a automatic weapon..." Nonsense. Class 3 firearms are perfectly legal in a lot of States. You can't make one, import one or register one, but if your State allows Class 3 and you pay the $200 Federal transfer tax, there's nothing illegal about 'em. Nothing inexpensive about 'em either. Especially feeding 'em these days. A real M16 runs around 20 grand.
"...whose..." Possessive case of who; possessive case of which. 'Who's' contraction of 'who is'.

ny32182
February 15, 2010, 09:40 AM
"Assuming you can legally do the following" (my disclaimer):

The difference between semi-only and auto ARs resides mostly in the lower. The carrier is different between an auto, and what is put in many semi ARs, but there is nothing illegal about putting an auto carrier in a semi-only rifle, and in fact many come from the factory this way. So assuming you are starting with a semi rifle with auto carrier, to do a conversion correctly, I believe you really would only need the following:

-"low shelf" semi lower: Some semi lowers have the "shelf" behind the trigger inside the lower raised up from where they are on an auto lower, in order to prevent installation of an autosear. Some don't. You'd either have to start with one that has a low shelf, or machine it down.

-Drill press to drill a correct hole for 3rd pin for autosear. If using a RDIAS, this step is not required.

-Select fire trigger group; about $75 from BCM last I saw. All the trigger parts are different (trigger, selector, disconnector, hammer, plus the addition of the autosear), however, they use the same pin placement as in a semi lower, plus the autosear pin hole above the selector, depending on the kind of autosear used.

So, for a properly credentialed dealer to do it, their gunsmith needs a few bucks worth of parts and some slight machine skill. Would be pretty easy for a pro gunsmith or machinist; maybe not so much for a complete amateur with hand tools.

Don't try it unless you can do it legally.

BruM
February 15, 2010, 09:53 AM
Have we already reached the point where folks are afraid to exercise their former first amendment rights?

Destructo6
February 15, 2010, 11:00 AM
I think it's a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

So, while not going too much into the how, your friend is correct. It would not be particularly difficult to convert a semi-only AR into a select-fire version: and extra hole here, the right parts, etc.

However, nobody ever said that committing a crime necessarily had to be difficult. So, you could do it, but you wouldn't be able to shoot it anywhere, and when you get caught with it, you'll pay as much in lawyer's fees as you would for a registered automatic AR and you'll do jail time.

Tully M. Pick
February 15, 2010, 11:05 AM
Have we already reached the point where folks are afraid to exercise their former first amendment rights?
Yes.

AK103K
February 15, 2010, 11:09 AM
Have we already reached the point where folks are afraid to exercise their former first amendment rights?
Yup, and to the point that is pretty sickening to have to listen to 3rd grade "teacher, teacher" comments too.

TexasRifleman
February 15, 2010, 12:01 PM
Despite all the legal ramifications, it is not nearly as easy to do as people think.

It takes a good bit of machine work to make the pieces and modify the parts to get it done correctly and safely.

As for making a Lightning Link, that isn't as easy as it sounds either.

I have a legally owned RLL and anyone who thinks you can just drop that piece of crap into an AR and go to town is in for a rude awakening :)

It takes a LOT of fiddling around to get it working in a specific gun, and it takes some specific parts to work as well, bolt carrier etc.

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
February 15, 2010, 12:33 PM
Yeah, making a semi-reliable, probably-dangerous slamfire rig without a switch is EASY. Making a good, reliable, actual full-auto with selector is not easy, but to a competent machinist with the correct plans, not overly HARD either.

In any event, in the USA, it's pretty much an irrelevant point, since you can't do it anymore (legally) - they closed the registry to import OR manufacture new machine guns in 1986. I think the only exception is dealer samples.

Ughh
February 20, 2010, 05:59 PM
Have we already reached the point where folks are afraid to exercise their former first amendment rights?
Thank you!

And Sunray, i thought there is no such thing as class 3 weapons. i believe it's called title ii weapons that only class 3 ffl dealers can distribute.

i could be wrong

Ughh
February 20, 2010, 06:08 PM
Yes, i agree with Tex. That was what i was trying say to my dummy e4 friend. He says its simple. i think, from what little is posted so far, that it is clear that you can't make just 1, 2, or even 3 little mods to get your civ AR-15 to go FA.

I'm already convinced and next time he's on leave, i'll start arguing my position again. :D:D

Ughh
February 20, 2010, 06:13 PM
Ok so let me ask you guys this in a purely SHTF situation. Well when sh*t goes down, we all would want that FA option right?

So provided I had a auto BCG in my upper, could i pick up a FA lower and slap it on my own upper and bam! get it to work safely and correctly??

Zane
February 20, 2010, 07:04 PM
Ok so let me ask you guys this in a purely SHTF situation. Well when sh*t goes down, we all would want that FA option right?

Not really, believe it or not.

As much as I would like a full auto (BCIC), it probably doesn't add all that much in a truly SHTF situation:

In a CQB situation, such as my house, with all the chaos, I would be concerned about spray and control issues. Plus I would need ready access to multiple magazines on me. I haven't sewn any magazine holders to my underwear.

If I need to be armed beyond basic home defense, access to ammunition becomes an issue. While a full auto option would be nice there, potentially wasted rounds are a problem. I wouldn't really expect my Uncle to give me more if I ran out.

Frankly, I'd see a lot more use for a suppressor that full auto.

LeonCarr
February 20, 2010, 07:08 PM
10 years in Club Fed, $250,000 fine.

Your Army parts replacer friend needs to read some federal law.

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

rogertc1
February 20, 2010, 07:32 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=465361

benEzra
February 20, 2010, 07:50 PM
Post-1986 civilian AR-15's are designed to be very difficult to convert to full auto. M16 fire-control parts won't fit.

Under the National Firearms Act as amended in 1986, any gun easily convertible to full auto IS a full auto for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted. Your friend is incorrect at least with regard to post-1986 civilian AR's; you CANNOT just drill a couple of holes and drop M16 parts in there.

So provided I had a auto BCG in my upper, could i pick up a FA lower and slap it on my own upper and bam! get it to work safely and correctly??
Where in the world would you find a Title 2 full-auto lower that didn't already have an upper on it? That doesn't make sense to me.

Rosstradamus
February 20, 2010, 09:05 PM
I knew an E-4 armorer once too. He was assigned to that job because he was such a fool. The commander put him in the arms room by himself to get him out of everyone's hair. I learned to ignore him pretty quickly. I suggest you do the same with that fellow you know.

pretty sickening to have to listen to 3rd grade "teacher, teacher" comments too.

I think it's funny that people here will engage in the most fantastic hair splitting and nitpicking when it comes to the proper dimensions for this or that part or the correct nomenclature for some obscure item yet they don't think correct English is worth their time. You know of course that the people at work are laughing behind your back at your every memo and email, right? Or maybe you're like one man I work with who is expressly forbidden to write to anyone outside the building.

Ughh
February 20, 2010, 10:00 PM
Post-1986 civilian AR-15's are designed to be very difficult to convert to full auto. M16 fire-control parts won't fit.

Under the National Firearms Act as amended in 1986, any gun easily convertible to full auto IS a full auto for the purposes of the law, even if not actually converted. Your friend is incorrect at least with regard to post-1986 civilian AR's; you CANNOT just drill a couple of holes and drop M16 parts in there.


Where in the world would you find a Title 2 full-auto lower that didn't already have an upper on it? That doesn't make sense to me.
Well most common weapons used by law and mil are crap anyways compared brands that we're open to. Famous saying: "Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder" and hypothetically, if you did find a FA rifle and you had your own quality upper, then why stick with the lowre quality upper already on it and not use your, perhaps, match grade barrel with all the accessories that you already have on it instead.

AK103K
February 20, 2010, 10:16 PM
I think it's funny that people here will engage in the most fantastic hair splitting and nitpicking when it comes to the proper dimensions for this or that part or the correct nomenclature for some obscure item yet they don't think correct English is worth their time. You know of course that the people at work are laughing behind your back at your every memo and email, right? Or maybe you're like one man I work with who is expressly forbidden to write to anyone outside the building.
Or maybe its simply talking at a level that seemed appropriate for the comments. I'm assuming it was understood, but I can jazz it up for those that seem to need a breathier response....

I'm always amazed at how quickly the politically correct bliss ninnies are, to jump right on anyone who might simply ask a simple question, seeking a direct and simple answer, and chide them with their fearful and hand wringing concerns, many times stating the person or post should be reported, for asking something that they seem to believe, might be forbidden knowledge of some sort, and we'll all get in trouble by someone in authority (Todd forbid!) at the mere mention of whatever it is.

There, is that better? Did I spell everything right and use proper punctuation? :rolleyes:

Personally, I still think the "teacher, teacher" thing is more appropriate, simple but direct, and hopefully, not to far over those possibly "educated beyond their intelligence" type heads.

mickeydim468
February 21, 2010, 02:05 AM
AK103K wrote:

not to far over those possibly

you spelled "too" wrong!


Just sayin'! OMG ;)

Mikey!

AK103K
February 21, 2010, 08:34 AM
Well, I did have three choices, and it was a tough decision. I almost took the easy way out and used a number, but I didnt think it would pass inspection. :)

Zerodefect
February 21, 2010, 10:53 AM
Most of the better Ar's have mipspec uppers and carriers.

The trigger group is the semi auto part. Anyone with a hobbymill and a drill press could make a new trigger group from scratch steel. As with all firearms, its not rocket science or hard to figure out. It may be a good thing to know if your the survivalist TEOWAKI prepared type.

Keep in mind its an instant 10yrs in prison when caught and makes our 2nd ammendment rights even harder to keep.

Having shot full auto AR's/M4's, it's really not needed, my trigger finger on my semi is more than fast enough. As far as getting your class 3 tax stamp and a legal Fa.....you'd be better served investing in a good set of nightvision instead.

Ughh
February 21, 2010, 03:39 PM
lol, ak103, i like what you've said.

My hypothetical question still stands: Would my civ upper with a auto BCG mate with a FA lower from, we'll just say a LEO M16/M4 rifle, and work correctly and safely??

benEzra
February 21, 2010, 04:06 PM
Well most common weapons used by law and mil are crap anyways compared brands that we're open to. Famous saying: "Your weapon is made by the lowest bidder" and hypothetically, if you did find a FA rifle and you had your own quality upper, then why stick with the lowre quality upper already on it and not use your, perhaps, match grade barrel with all the accessories that you already have on it instead.
I am not aware of any LEO AR-15's (or even military M16's/M4's) that are "crap". Colt, FN, S&W, RRA, DPMS are all good guns.

The military chooses the lowest bidder that meets the specifications in the contract. If it meets those specifications IAW the TDP, it's good to go. I assume you're familiar with "the Chart" that often makes its appearance on gun boards, showing which AR's meet the various milspecs? Military rifles and carbines have to meet all of them.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure you would not want to put an upper with a tight match chamber on a full auto lower; you'd end up with a jam-o-matic when it got hot, and you'd lose the match trigger and very tight upper-to-lower fit of the match grade lower.

shadowalker
February 21, 2010, 04:36 PM
You could put a quality AR-15 upper with a M16 bolt carrier on a full auto lower and it would work. M16 bolt carriers are legal to run in AR-15 rifles, the main difference is a fully shrouded firing pin and a little extra mass. There is almost no difference between a good fully shrouded semi auto BCG and a FA BCG.

That said in the vast majority of cases full auto fire in a AR type rifle is counter productive.

Well most common weapons used by law and mil are crap anyways compared brands that we're open to.benEzra beat me to it, contractors must meet the standard specified by the military.

The rifles manufactured for the military are much better than the majority of AR-15s civilians buy, the common name commercial manufacturers cut a lot of corners and don't follow any standard.

Colt, FN, LMT all build outstanding weapons and have military contracts. RRA and DPMS don't build to mil spec or have military contracts as far as I know.

Some departments issue sub-par rifles such as DPMS but more and more are going top tier and the handguns they get are usually Glocks, S&W M&P or other quality handguns.

hso
February 21, 2010, 05:38 PM
Well when sh*t goes down, we all would want that FA option right?

No

Those of us that have fired these weapons aren't interested in using them in full auto mode for self defense.

AK103K
February 21, 2010, 05:43 PM
Why wouldnt you?

You have it available, and I would assume since you have one, you know how and when to use it, so why not? I know I'd use mine without a second thought.

taliv
February 21, 2010, 05:45 PM
because semi-auto fire is generally more useful than full-auto out of an AR15

AK103K
February 21, 2010, 06:14 PM
"Generally", I'd agree, but its nice to have the option, as well as the experience, to know when its use is appropriate, and how to properly use it.

JShirley
February 21, 2010, 06:21 PM
Even the Army teaches semi-auto when clearing houses, the most dangerous close-range rifle-using activity you can find. FA is for support weapons and submachine guns, which the M4 has effectively replaced for almost all US service members.

J

shadowalker
February 21, 2010, 06:26 PM
Well when sh*t goes down, we all would want that FA option right?I'd also pass on full auto, there are very few situations where it is useful. Well aimed fire with high quality ammunition is more effective.

AK103K
February 21, 2010, 06:35 PM
I suppose it depends on what side of that activity your on too, and just how well your troops are trained in its use. I think a lot of what the army does, is based on the lowest common denominator, and what works best in that respect.

azyogi
February 21, 2010, 06:36 PM
Your main worry for SHTF should be logistics, as in how are you going to feed a full auto. Just cause I'm a contrary old cuss, my SHTF long gun is a 700 BDL but that's just me.

Ranb
February 21, 2010, 06:49 PM
Where do some of you guys think machine guns come from? They do not come from a chocolate cow drinking from a chocolate stream on a chocolate farm.

They come from a person or company that fills out a few forms; pays a few fees and taxes. Then they have a federal firearms license and are a Special Occupational Taxpayer. Any person or any Corporation that resides or exists in a state where this is legal can apply to the BATFE to do this.

Talking about making machine guns is no big deal. Just know how to do it legally. I have a couple of books on how to manufacture machine guns. I bought them on E-bay. Nobody including the ATF cares at all. When I get my FFL/SOT some day, I will make my own title 2 weapons such as silencers, SBS/SBR's and machine guns instead of paying a $200 on each silencer like I do now.

When a person asks about making a machine gun or how to convert a semi-auto to a machine gun, just make sure they know the legal steps required to do it. Just telling a person that it is illegal ensures that the opportunity to educate people on the forum about the legalities of firearms in the USA is missed. This does no one any good.

Ranb

hso
February 21, 2010, 08:47 PM
FA is good for suppressive fire, but the problems of keeping the thing fed is a nightmare for anyone without good logistical support. The other issue is burning up/breaking parts. Again, needing good logistical support.

The military went to burst fire to provide a viable option between dumping your ammo laying down on the trigger and single rounds. The challenge then is control for accurate fire and support to keep the weapon fed and parts available for the high wear rates FA produces. You can train and train for the former by learning to make controlled bursts. Logistically, neither of which any of us are likely to have at the level of the Army.

AK103K
February 21, 2010, 09:47 PM
Training solves most of the problems. Burst fire is unnecessary, and just compensates, or attempts to compensate, for a lack of training. Like I said earlier, its the lowest common denominator factor, and more about cutting costs than addressing the problem. You'd think proper training would be cheaper in the long run, but I guess its not.

It seems the consensus is that the gun will always be in full auto and used that way all the time, which isnt the case, or at least it shouldnt be. Even so, its not really an issue if proper training is present. Even with guns that are full auto only, with many of them, you can still easily get single round "bursts" on demand, once you know the trigger.


As far as breaking parts, its a definite maybe, and dependent on how your using and maintaining the gun. If the gun has a selector and your keeping it in semi most of the time, as you should be, your breakage rate will pretty much be the same as a semi only gun.

Even when used in full most of the time, depending on how much you shoot it, you may or may not have breakage. My MP5 had well into the upper tens of thousands of rounds through it over 20+ years of constant use, and in all that time, the only thing that ever broke, was a roller retainer, and the gun was still functional with it broken. I have a MAC with a similar track record (actually no breakages in 20+ years now, and probably more rounds than the HK through it), and most consider MAC's to be junk.

I've been shooting these things for a good long time now, and between mine, and those of friends, I cant really remember all that much stuff ever breaking, and we were shooting them on a constant basis, especially back when the ammo was dirt cheap.

JShirley
February 21, 2010, 11:50 PM
The actual reason for the decades-long training by the Army to fire at any opportunity was bad research/disinformation by S.L.A. Marshall in Men Against Fire: The Problem of Battle Command , which was highly influential, and shaped Army training doctrine for many years. FA from a rifle was part of this movement, as Marshall claimed that, even in combat, most soldiers would not fire their weapons.

Marshall lied.

Ranb
February 22, 2010, 05:08 AM
In the book On Killing, the claim was made that Marshall interviewed many soldiers and came to his conclusion that only about 20% of them were able to put out any effective fire based upon their refusal to kill under any circumstances. This was changed as a result of different training in the years to follow so that in the Vietnam war the number of soldiers shooting to kill rose to over 75%. Richard Winters in his book, Beyond Band of Brothers, disputed the 20% claim as far as his men were concerned.

Ranb

1911Tuner
February 22, 2010, 08:36 AM
Once upon a time, back in the SP-1 days...the AR15 was very simple to convert to selective fire. It was reliable, and safe. I never saw one that was so converted have a problem. I won't go into specifics as to how and what was required other than to mention an ingenious little invention known simply as the "Drop-in Auto Sear" that made its debut early on in the AR15's production history.

Drop-in Auto Sears (tm) have been illegal to possess since November of 1981 unless serialized and registered as an NFA item if manufactured post 11/81 with the burden of proof of date of manufacture in the possessor's pocket. Eventually, it became illegal to have one in your possession unregistered ...regardless of whether or not the possessor actually had an AR15 rifle and regardless of the date of manufacture. With that device, so simple was the conversion that the BATFE ruling was that the auto sear alone was a de facto machine gun, with all restrictions and penalties in force.

jmorris
February 22, 2010, 10:00 AM
Ok so let me ask you guys this in a purely SHTF situation. Well when sh*t goes down, we all would want that FA option right?


If you have never trained with it much less knew dam sure it was stone cold reliable you would be better off with a semi. M16’s spend a lot of life with the selector on semi.

Ughh
February 23, 2010, 09:39 PM
I am not aware of any LEO AR-15's (or even military M16's/M4's) that are "crap". Colt, FN, S&W, RRA, DPMS are all good guns.

The military chooses the lowest bidder that meets the specifications in the contract. If it meets those specifications IAW the TDP, it's good to go. I assume you're familiar with "the Chart" that often makes its appearance on gun boards, showing which AR's meet the various milspecs? Military rifles and carbines have to meet all of them.

FWIW, I'm pretty sure you would not want to put an upper with a tight match chamber on a full auto lower; you'd end up with a jam-o-matic when it got hot, and you'd lose the match trigger and very tight upper-to-lower fit of the match grade lower.
Well, i don't mean to bash on them... your right, those are respectable brands, but compared to what we're open to?? isn't it crap?? :

LWRC, Noveske rifleworks, Daniel defense, Larue Tactical, Nighthawk customs... the list is ENDLESS.

FuzzyBunny
February 23, 2010, 09:54 PM
McGyver can make it full auto in 2 minutes with a shoelace and some juicy fruit gum.

Ughh
February 23, 2010, 10:20 PM
lol it's amazing the amount of admins and moderators that are in this thread... well obviously my amazement is due to the lack of the amount of threads that i've posted overall, i'm sure others have seen more admins and moders in their thread... anyways.

Ughh
February 23, 2010, 10:25 PM
You could put a quality AR-15 upper with a M16 bolt carrier on a full auto lower and it would work. M16 bolt carriers are legal to run in AR-15 rifles, the main difference is a fully shrouded firing pin and a little extra mass. There is almost no difference between a good fully shrouded semi auto BCG and a FA BCG.

Thank you! You are the closest person to give me just a straight forward answer.

which currently is: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

GrimmLV
February 23, 2010, 10:27 PM
McGyver can make it full auto in 2 minutes with a shoelace and some juicy fruit gum.

... of course, because he is an FFL/SOT....

kimbershot
February 23, 2010, 10:34 PM
a military spec lower, proper fire control group, drill out sear hole (you can get tool for 35.), modify upper--(file for sear movement), auto bolt and what the heck how different is that from a store bought? legal-not! is it worth it? eh! shot a m16 at our local range--couldn't hit squat. rather have a semi--more accurate. :what:

MrCleanOK
February 23, 2010, 11:45 PM
which currently is: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

Yes. The bolt carrier is the only FA/Semi-specific part in the upper receiver. Quality of the parts is another discussion, but generally speaking yes it will.

MisterPX
February 24, 2010, 08:24 PM
McGyver can make it full auto in 2 minutes with a shoelace and some juicy fruit gum

Damn near anyone, could make a Mini14/30 or M1A full auto with a shoestring;) The gum would be for you to chew while you make it :neener:

JShirley
February 25, 2010, 12:13 AM
the claim was made that Marshall interviewed many soldiers

That's just it- it was only a claim. Marshall didn't interview all the soldiers he claimed. His "research" has been debunked by authentic historians.

shadowalker
February 25, 2010, 11:39 AM
Interesting I heard the community was still split, some firmly believing his research was not authentic and many others believing it was.

Other countries also observed low firing rates or intentional misses in wars prior to and following WWII.

Corey
February 25, 2010, 04:07 PM
I was an armorer for an SOT for a couple of years. When we needed a beater full auto for testing or training I would just take a regular Bushmaster AR and swap out the trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and bolt carrier for the correct M-16 parts and machine the lower receiver to accept an auto-sear that I would install and reassemble the gun. Semi-auto to correct select fire usually took less than 2 hours. Of course, I had all the correct parts and receiver dimensions needed as well as a milling machine. And yes, I did mark the receiver correctly and submit an ATF Form 2. In short, yes it is easy if you have the correct tools and knowledge. Without those tools and knowledge it becomes much harder.

Ughh
February 27, 2010, 12:31 AM
Yes, Thank you for the straight forward answer Corey. This is exactly what I thought prior to even starting this thread: That it's more than just the auto sear, as my E4 buddy believes that it's so easy to do the conversion.

Next time he's on leave i'll just have to convince him.

Ughh
February 27, 2010, 12:36 AM
Isn't Marshall refuted by many other well known guys. If i remember right, Sanow was on his side, but who refuted Marshall & Sanow's works??

Doid Massad Ayoob have anything to say regarding Marshall & Sanow?

Blakenzy
February 27, 2010, 03:41 AM
Proximity of the authority figure to the subject. Marshall noted many
specific World War II incidents in which almost all soldiers would
fire their weapons while their leaders observed and encouraged
them in a combat situation, but when the leaders left, the firing
rate immediately dropped to 15 to 20 percent.

This is from the book "On Killing"

Richard Winters in his book, Beyond Band of Brothers, disputed the 20% claim as far as his men were concerned.

That's probably because he was a strong authority figure, commanding a well trained "elite" unit, and was constantly in the mix of things breathing down their necks, as the TV show seemed to portray.

hso
February 27, 2010, 10:25 AM
AR15 GIF http://mcb-homis.com/blog/trigger-animation.gif

M16 GIF http://mcb-homis.com/blog/m16animation1ww1.gif

Owen
February 27, 2010, 12:51 PM
Ugh,

Define Crap.

jerryd
February 27, 2010, 01:25 PM
Look @ Bushmasters site, all the parts you need are right there, along with a NFA warning about going to Club Fed, if you use them.

Ughh
February 27, 2010, 05:11 PM
Ugh,

Define Crap.
Sigh... not crap, I apologize for my lack of a better word choice. Not as good? I mean, LaRue for example states their uppers can achieve 3/4 MoA accuracy. So not only are some of these better brand models more accurate, they have quality flip up battle sights, and already having quality handguards, etc... Granted, now mil spec states the need for some more accessories for the operator, but the norm and average majority LEO/Mil spec black rifle is very basic: not quad railed, a2 post sights, etc.... Which leads back to my question.

if you did find a FA rifle and you had your own quality upper, then why stick with the lowre quality upper already on it and not use your, perhaps, match grade barrel with all the accessories that you already have on it instead?

Again leading to my ultimate Q: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

Ughh
February 27, 2010, 05:13 PM
I'm not saying Colt or Bushmaster is bad, actually contrary to.

I'm just saying better is... better!

shadowalker
February 27, 2010, 06:11 PM
Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?Yes, other than the BCG the lower is where the FA stuff is at.

A lot of chrome lined barrels are surprisingly accurate, and in full auto fire 1 MOA vs 3/4 MOA isn't going to be significant especially when you consider most fighting happens at less than 300 yards.

Once you get past the basics like good barrel steel, quality MPI barrel and BCG good and better rapidly become subjective.

Some people want rails, some people are completely happy without them. The military does issue some rifles with rails and quality folding backup sights, just depends on what you are doing.

Where feasible my preference is for a fixed backup sight instead of a folding, I have my reasons but someone else may have equally valid reasons for wanting a folding.

JShirley
February 28, 2010, 11:38 AM
Several good historians have reviewed Marshall work, and there is no way he could have interviewed the survey participants he claimed. Whether others since then have bought into his misconclusions does not alter that he fabricated his research.

VFW (http://209.61.225.240/index.cfm?fa=news.magDtl&dtl=4&mid=4976)

"There is no incontrovertible evidence that Marshall ever asked any infantrymen whether they had fired their weapons at the enemy in any interview conducted with any rifle company. That covers those who fought in Europe, and the very small number of prompt after-action interviews we know that he did conduct in the Pacific. None of which necessarily demonstrate his alleged discovery of the ratio of fire.

This means there is no hard evidence for Marshall’s ratio of fire. Marshall seems to have invented his systematic debriefings of those 400-600 rifle companies...Research revealed that on Makin Island in the Pacific, Marshall’s after-action interviews showed that green troops did not fail to fire, they fired too much...

the news that Marshall had invented his statistics has not stopped historians and journalists from quoting him, and them. Since 1989, however, some military historians noted that Marshall’s ratio of fire is at best doubtful. They include Michael D. Doubler, John C. McManus, Russell W. Glenn and James B. McPherson (writing on the American Civil War)."

That Marshall's research was a complete fabrication (and in fact impossible with his time constraints) was also expressed to me by Hubert van Tuyll, history chair at ASU and author of Castles, Battles, and Bombs, Feeding the Bear, American's Strategic Future, and The Netherlands and World War I.

The point is, that American training focusing on high volumes of fire was based on a flawed assumption based on concocted research and errant social theory.

John

alan
February 28, 2010, 02:24 PM
Supposedly, there are internal differences in the receivers/actions of commercial AR-15's and their military equivalents that preclude conversion. Then obtaining the necessary bits and pieces is another matter, and doing the conversion absent the required "hoop jumping" presents serious legal problems, no matter what one might think of present law an it's interpretations.

Then, looking at an argument portrayed in Jurassic Park, the film, one character argues for the recreation of ancient creatures, because "we can do it". Just because we can do something is not necessarily sufficient reason for us to actually do it, argues his opponent. It is something to think about.

Ranb
February 28, 2010, 03:58 PM
I have also read claims saying new recruits during WWII that were trained to aim carefully during infantry training were told by their more experienced comrades on the front to pour out as much fire as they could when in a firefight. There is much conflicting info out there.

Ranb

RippinSVT
March 1, 2010, 09:06 AM
Don't confuse "gun cleaner and basic parts R&R guy" with a real armorer. Every cocky young military dude claims to be an "armorer" or whatever, and due to their basic enlistment was telepathically engrained with knowledge of any and all firearms. Some of the most gun-dumb people I know are cocky-ass 20 year old airmen and privates.


The good young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen don't run their mouths with delusions of grandeur...they also don't wash out or get forced into BS jobs.

MisterPX
March 2, 2010, 09:52 PM
Maybe he is an "armoroer", a 92 series, a guy who can clean rifles, and install handguards.

Now if he was a"small arms repairman", 45B he might know what he was talking about

Ughh
March 2, 2010, 11:02 PM
Don't confuse "gun cleaner and basic parts R&R guy" with a real armorer. Every cocky young military dude claims to be an "armorer" or whatever, and due to their basic enlistment was telepathically engrained with knowledge of any and all firearms. Some of the most gun-dumb people I know are cocky-ass 20 year old airmen and privates.


The good young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen don't run their mouths with delusions of grandeur...they also don't wash out or get forced into BS jobs.
Is this addressed to me?

No, i don't think so because we also blabbed on about rifle cleaning and Militec vs CLP over there, and he's always telling me how much he got tired of receiving dirty guns for servicing only to return them back to the its owner to get them to clean it themselves before resubmitting them for service. On some occasions, he would return them to higher ranking soldiers only to say 'sir, you need to clean this.'

I've known this guy since high school, he's not really the over-exaggerating type when he tells stories like some ppl are.

alan
March 3, 2010, 01:35 PM
At the risk of oversimplification, the "diff" between full automatic and is made obvious by the wording.

A fully automatic firearm will fire for as long as the trigger is held back, given an unbroken supply of ammunition, The foregoing sets aside the possibility of stoppages caused by mechanical failures, overheating and just plain "dirt". A semi-automatic firearm will fire a single shot, each time it's trigger is actuated, all other factors being equal. I would think that that is the end of the story. Regarding the conversion of one to or from the other, that is an entirely different question, involving basic design features and the status of the law, among other considerations.

While interesting points have been raised in this discussion, respecting what seems the basis of the discussion, the question of "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" appears to have perhaps been lost sight of. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong here.

Sam1911
March 3, 2010, 01:56 PM
Alan, :confused:

the question of "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" appears to have perhaps been lost sight of. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong here.

Did your read the original post carefully? The title was worded poorly. The poster's question was actually what the physical (geometric) differences are between a full-auto capable AR-15 lower receiver and that of a dedicated semi-auto only "civilian" model. Specifically vis-a-vis the ease of converting semi- to full-auto.

The tone and wording of his question doesn't leave much question that he's confused over the definitions of "full-auto" and "semi-auto."

-Sam

alan
March 3, 2010, 06:46 PM
Sam1911:

Reading your post, and again the original post carefully this time, I believe that you are correct.

Ughh
March 3, 2010, 09:57 PM
the question of "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" appears to have perhaps been lost sight of. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong here.

no no, yea, everybody here was on track regarding my questions.

sorry for the title being misleading--by itself--but once you read into the thread, my question is in regards to the technical operating differences and physical aspects between the two and its internal working parts

Everybody got the gist of what I'm asking; everybody's good. You can only put so many characters on the title, I probably should have been more careful in wording the title.

Srry :p

If you enjoyed reading about "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!