New M16A1 Carbine for $631.26


PDA






243winxb
June 12, 2011, 03:53 PM
Back in 1979 this was a lot of money, plus the $200 tax stamp. If we only knew then what we know now, how many would you buy? :D http://i338.photobucket.com/albums/n420/joe1944usa/M16A1%20Carbine/M16A1BillofSaleEdit.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "New M16A1 Carbine for $631.26" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Sam Cade
June 12, 2011, 03:59 PM
$631 in 1979 money is about $1900 in 2010 bucks, tax stamp would have ran you the equivalent of about $600.

Still $2500 is much cheaper than $17,000. *sigh*

AlexanderA
June 12, 2011, 07:39 PM
I had an FFL and a Class III SOT back in the early 1980's. Here's how the purchases by dealers of new Colt full-auto M16's worked -- you would send your order (and payment) to a distributor, who would forward it to Colt for direct drop-shipment to you. Colt had a policy that each Class III dealer was allocated up to 2 guns -- a rifle and a carbine. These were supposed to be for law enforcement sales. If you sold to a law enforcement agency, fine -- you could order another one of the same kind to replace it. (Documentation was required by Colt.) If you sold to an individual, on the other hand (and you could legally do so), Colt wouldn't send you another one, and would cancel any subsequent orders.

I got my allotment, sold the carbine (to an individual), but kept the rifle (and this was legal to do even after discontinuing my Class III status). As a matter of fact I still have it, brand new, unfired, in the original box with its accessories.

Places like Rock Island Armory didn't have such restrictive policies. They were doing full-auto conversions on receivers made by Sendra, SGW, etc., and selling freely to Class III dealers. But these weren't Colts.

hirundo82
June 13, 2011, 05:26 AM
Could you even buy stripped lowers in the '80's?

If I ever get access to a time machine, my plan is to go back to about 1984, buy a bunch of stripped AR15 lowers and put them all on Form 1's as MG's, then stick them in a vault. Come back to present, and sell them for the going rate.

Any flaws in my plan, except for the whole violating the laws of physics thing (IIRC, traveling back in time is theoretically possible; traveling back to persent, not so much).

kozak6
June 13, 2011, 09:34 AM
Any flaws in my plan

Lottery numbers

41magsnub
June 13, 2011, 11:04 AM
Lottery numbers

Sports Almanac and the back history of Wall Street Journals.

amd6547
June 13, 2011, 11:24 AM
lots of microsoft, apple, and google stock.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 13, 2011, 12:58 PM
I would also buy a ton of MAC 10s, AKs, AUGs, etc. and store them so I would have more money than I ever needed.

MagnumDweeb
June 13, 2011, 01:44 PM
We've yet to see what good the MG registry ban has brought us. And yet it still persists.

Dreamcast270mhz
June 13, 2011, 02:33 PM
I think reverting to Pre-86 MG laws would be reasonable.

RTR_RTR
June 13, 2011, 05:58 PM
IIRC, traveling back in time is theoretically possible; traveling back to persent, not so much)

Forward in time is possible, backward is impossible.

Strykervet
June 13, 2011, 06:16 PM
That price hasn't changed in nearly 30 years. Amazing.

When I was in the army, we got new Colt M4's for the whole company. Got 'em in the box new, with a blank adapter, a sling, and one or two magazines (I forget). I'll never forget that invoice. The one that listed the price as $600.00 something, and this was in 2002.

Firearm prices are grossly inflated, especially for autos. THAT was the purpose of the ban, the purpose of all bans really. The government stands by that supply and demand model when it suits them. They wanted to ban them, but that is in itself illegal (they can't ban outright, but what they can do is regulate it to death --drugs aren't banned, they are taxed, but no tax stamp has ever been issued for drugs, hence they are "banned" through regulation). Tobacco has a tax stamp too. To make it illegal, all they have to do is stop issuing the tax stamp.

The '86 law sped this process up. By not allowing tax stamps to be issued for new weapons, the supply dwindles and dries up, thus artificially inflating the prices. See how our government works?

But honestly, in the hands of a trained individual, and I mean a WELL trained indvidual, the semi auto rifle is ten times more lethal than the full auto. Easily. If I had to choose between a full auto all the time or a semi only, I'd pick the semi everytime. I had my full auto kicks in the army and the only one I care to fire anymore is the GE minigun, but only if I don't have to pay for the ammo!

With all the laws today, it would be stupid for anyone to own a full auto for anything other than novelty, range, or SHTF. Simply for the reason that you run the risk of 5 bonus prison years, under NFA law, if that home invader you waxed in your living room with a burst to the chest is ruled a non-justifiable homicide. For that reason alone, I would never use an NFA item in defense, unless all the gloves are off.

Yeah, we COULD go back to pre-'86 --if ban by regulation weren't the objective.

Strykervet
June 13, 2011, 06:20 PM
Forward in time is possible, backward is impossible.
We're still making a big deal of, and giggling at, a guy named Weiner sending pictures of such to strangers on the internet.

For that reason and that reason alone, I'd have to say that time travel is impossible.

AlexanderA
June 13, 2011, 08:48 PM
But honestly, in the hands of a trained individual, and I mean a WELL trained indvidual, the semi auto rifle is ten times more lethal than the full auto. Easily. If I had to choose between a full auto all the time or a semi only, I'd pick the semi everytime. I had my full auto kicks in the army and the only one I care to fire anymore is the GE minigun, but only if I don't have to pay for the ammo!

Serious policymakers (and not the grandstanders) in Congress need to take this to heart. I have 8 registered full-autos, all acquired at reasonable prices prior to the 1986 registry freeze. I agree that a semiautomatic AR-15, for all practical purposes in civilian hands, is just as effective as a weapon as a full automatic M16. (Now, the antigunners will take this as an argument for banning the semiautos rather than legalizing the full autos, but let's not go there.)

With all the laws today, it would be stupid for anyone to own a full auto for anything other than novelty, range, or SHTF.

Another reason would be as an "investment," that is, in the belief that a "greater fool" will always come along to pay more. Speculative bubbles like this always burst.

If one wants a full-auto other than for shooting (for historical reenactment or just display), one can buy a parts kit and assemble it on an 80% completed receiver. For example, you can put together a nice non-firing Thompson M1928A1 using top-quality parts and receiver for $2,000 or less (as opposed to ten times that much for a "real" one). This is a "non-gun" and is totally unregulated. There's the very real potential for appreciation as the available parts sources dry up. Plus, if the law ever changes (say, if the Hughes amendment is repealed or there's another amnesty), there's the possibility that the 80% receiver could be completed at a later date.

Strykervet
June 13, 2011, 09:53 PM
"Another reason would be as an "investment," that is, in the belief that a "greater fool" will always come along to pay more. Speculative bubbles like this always burst."

Yeah, I didn't think of that one, since when I buy a firearm now I usually intend on keeping it. And if I jumped through the hoops you did, I'd probably never dream of selling it.

I just think a lot of people make more out of full autos than they really are. And it is because of the bans. Were there no bans, people would have realized long ago the limits of full auto fire and would have gravitated towards semis anyway. But now they are mystical beasts of awesome raw power...

Had they been left unregulated, or treated like semis, the designs might have gone completely in a different direction. Like towards a rifle similar to the AN94 that shoots two rounds at once, supposedly before you feel the recoil of the first round. THAT would be useful.

We can't have full autos here, and I couldn't afford one if we could, nor could I justify the cost of one over the cost of, say, a custom Grendel.

AlexanderA
June 13, 2011, 11:24 PM
I just think a lot of people make more out of full autos than they really are. And it is because of the bans. Were there no bans, people would have realized long ago the limits of full auto fire and would have gravitated towards semis anyway. But now they are mystical beasts of awesome raw power...

Exactly! Colt made 15,000 Thompsons in 1921, and the vast majority of them remained unsold at the beginning of WWII. Between 1921 and the NFA of 1934, anyone could buy one, no questions asked, for a retail price of $200. When automatics were easy to get, the demand just wasn't there. And the small number used in crime or in labor disturbances was vastly blown out of proportion by a sensationalist media.

You are right that bans increase the attractiveness of the item banned. Just look at how gun sales skyrocket whenever there is serious talk of further gun control restrictions. If we had halfway rational lawmakers, not given to grandstanding or lowest-common-denominator cheap shots, repeal of the NFA would be something that could be soberly considered. I'm not optimistic, though.

RTR_RTR
June 13, 2011, 11:47 PM
We're still making a big deal of, and giggling at, a guy named Weiner sending pictures of such to strangers on the internet.

I have no desire to live in a time when that isn't funny.

atomchaser
June 14, 2011, 07:37 PM
Could you even buy stripped lowers in the '80's?

If I ever get access to a time machine, my plan is to go back to about 1984, buy a bunch of stripped AR15 lowers and put them all on Form 1's as MG's, then stick them in a vault. Come back to present, and sell them for the going rate.

Any flaws in my plan, except for the whole violating the laws of physics thing (IIRC, traveling back in time is theoretically possible; traveling back to persent, not so much).
If you could travel back in time, buying NFA stuff would be pretty low on the priority list. Even starting out with a modest amount invested in the right stocks at the right time, you would be so wealthy by now that you could buy your own country and have anything you want. I'm sure if you waved $25K in front of one of these guys with a a stash of registered lowers you'd get some bites.

hirundo82
June 15, 2011, 02:39 PM
If you could travel back in time, buying NFA stuff would be pretty low on the priority list.

Yeah, buying winning lottery tickets and dropping a significant amount of coin on MSFT and APPL at 1980's prices is pretty much a given. Not as much fun as buying a bunch of cheap transferrable machineguns though.

armorerdave
June 15, 2011, 11:30 PM
Since the original post was about how cheap an M16 was, I thought I'd add my two cents :)

As a Small Arms Repairer (fancy name for Gunsmith) for the US Army I have access to the NSN's of the weapons in our vault. The following values are current as of Apr 11:
M240 - $5,474
M240B - $6,000
M240C - $4,890
M240D - $6,749
M240E1 - $6,642
M240H - $8,593
M240L - $12,000
M240N - $7,800
M249 SAW - $2,778.66
M249 SAW (AR role) - $3,830
M60 - $5,864
M60D - $5,788
M2 .50 cal HMG Flex Type - $12,685
M203 40mm Grenade Launcher - $593
M203A1 40mm Grenade Launcher - $593
M203A2 40mm Grenade Launcher - $1,060
M9 9mm - $386
M9A1 9mm - $497
MK19 MOD 3 40mm Grenade Launcher (FA only) - $15,320
MK19 MOD 3 W/ sight bracket 40mm Grenade Launcher (FA only) - $15,320
M16A2 - $503
M16A3 - $400
M16A4 - $950
M4 - $1,329
M4A1 - $1,329

This is what the US Government pays for them, brand new, in the box, with TM's, slings, and spare barrels / barrel bags (if required).

greenr18
June 16, 2011, 12:08 AM
As a Small Arms Repairer (fancy name for Gunsmith) for the US Army I have access to the NSN's of the weapons in our vault. The following values are current as of Apr 11:
M16A3 - $400

Why's the A3 so cheap?

Madcap_Magician
June 17, 2011, 12:33 PM
Man, the titanium receiver in the M240L really jacks up the price!

AlexanderA
June 17, 2011, 06:18 PM
Why's the A3 so cheap?

It's a "simplified" M16A2 in that it lacks the burst fire mechanism (straight semi-full).

CleverNickname
June 18, 2011, 10:34 PM
But there's only a few extra small parts in a burst FCG, not enough to account for a $103 difference.

mp510
June 20, 2011, 10:33 PM
But there's only a few extra small parts in a burst FCG, not enough to account for a $103 difference.
The price probably comes from old contracts. When Sabre was awarded their contract, in 2008, they were to receive $883-5 per M16A3 rifle. A4s in USMC configuration were quoted at $884 per.
https://aais.ria.army.mil/aais/award_web_08/W52H0908D02930001/000000.pdf

Fish Miner
June 23, 2011, 05:07 PM
If there was any real justice in the world I would be able to buy the MK19 MOD. I have been such a good boy, I really deserve one.

But I sure wouldn't be good long if I got one.:evil:

armorerdave
June 24, 2011, 05:28 AM
You can legally buy one, as far as I can remember there are 3 of them in civilian hands. There was even one for sale in Shotgun news for years, serious inquiries only though.
It is considered a Destructive Device (DD) and a machine gun. The high explosive rounds are also considered DD's - so the MK 19 must be registered for $200 and every Explosive round (greater then one-quarter ounce of explosive) would also have to be registered at a cost of: round + $200 ea. And since you can get 32 and 48 round belts, and 40 - 60 rounds a minute, it can get expensive (cyclic rate is 325 - 375 but 40 - 60 is what you'll actually get out of it).

So to buy one it would have to be legal in the city/state you live and you'd have to find a dealer in DD's - they are a little more scarce then a machine gun dealer because the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) for a machine gun dealer is $500-$1000 a year (the $500 a year rate is a reduced rate - you pay that if you generate less then $500,000 in revenue a year). The SOT for a DD is $3,000 for 3 years plus the $500 - $1000 SOT if the DD is also a machine gun.

I have no idea what they sell for, since I can't afford one :)
IMO the .50 cal BMG would be more fun to own. Ammunition is cheaper, gun is cheaper, and you don't have to worry bout the DD aspect of it. Mostly cause it is far easier to fire a large caliber weapon then it is to find a range that allows explosives to be used.
I forgot to add that there are non explosive rounds made for the MK 19, but that takes the fun out of owning a 40mm grenade launching machine gun :)

tommyintx
June 25, 2011, 02:03 AM
call mike dillon. he probably has one.

Jeff F
June 25, 2011, 08:39 PM
If I would have known then what I know now I would be a very rich individual.

If you enjoyed reading about "New M16A1 Carbine for $631.26" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!