Legal Question: M16 parts in an AR15

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
850
Location
Holloman AFB, New Mexico
alright- everyone knows that putting M16 parts in an AR15 is illegal according to the BATF.

My question is "which parts?". obviously parts that facilitate full auto fire are out- but lets say I bought one of these M16 parts kits floating around and replaced the receiver, trigger group, fire selector, bolt carrier etc.
 
The lower reciever is obviously out, same with the autosear.
The ATF's standard is based on an individual test of the weapon in question and if they're able to get it to fire more than once or not. They wont out-right say which trigger group parts are ok and which parts arent.

You are allowed to use the M16 bolt carrier and upper reciever (since its functionally identical), but beyond that, I'd go all AR15 to be safe.

Kharn
 
The Bushmaster catalog warns that the ATF looks for a set of distinctive M-16 parts, and that the presence of even one is grounds for all sorts of legal woes.
 
I've been told otherwise since the metal on the AR15 is cutaway in areas to elimate possibility of full auto modification.
An M16 bolt carrier (combined with a complete set of AR15 hammer, trigger, disconnector and safety) will not allow the weapon to fire more than one shot per trigger pull, its used by many competitive shooters due to the increased weight of the carrier over the "standard" ones.

It was even common up until 1986 for AR15s to ship with a complete set of full-auto components from the factory, minus the autosear and its hole in the reciever. Colt includes M16 carriers in all of their evil-featured rifles, even today.

Kharn
 
Commissar Gribb said:
really? I've been told otherwise since the metal on the AR15 is cutaway in areas to elimate possibility of full auto modification.

im 99% sure that colt sells their AR's with the M16 bolt carrier...

Chad
 
Huh?

Colt includes M16 carriers in all of their evil-featured rifles, even today.

The bolt carrier in my Colt Competition HBAR is flat-bottomed. It's a pre-ban '94 model. Definitely NOT an M16 carrier.
 
The parts are the trigger, disconnector, hammer, selector, bolt carrier and auto sear.

The fact the firearm will not fire more than one round per trigger pull doesn't matter.
 
Gewehr98:
The bolt carrier in my Colt Competition HBAR is flat-bottomed. It's a pre-ban '94 model. Definitely NOT an M16 carrier.
Check any Colt made within the last year with a bayonet lug, it will have the M16 carrier.

Hkmp5sd:
The only parts that automatically make the weapon a machine gun is an (drop-in, permanently attached, or 'lightning link') autosear or a lower drilled for an autosear. Other than that, it depends on the ATF's ability to make it fire more than once, usually by removing the disconnector, on an individual basis. Of course, any AR15 will fire two shots for every trigger pull if it has a faulty disconnector.

Kharn
 
That's what I was implying. Just because your AR-15 doesn't shoot full auto with a few M16 parts installed doesn't mean it will not when ATF decides to test it. They can achieve mechanical miracles behind closed doors.
 
Hkmp5sd speak true.

Just because your AR-15 doesn't shoot full auto with a few M16 parts installed doesn't mean it will not when ATF decides to test it. They can achieve mechanical miracles behind closed doors.

And that includes simply adding a bent staple or paperclip to the lockwork, just to make the court case. :(
 
The gentlemen are correct that most M16 parts are OK so long as the gun continues to fire one shot per trigger pull. However, having M16 parts in an AR15 will usually bring you more scrutiny than you want and ATF has gone to some effort in the past to help those M16 parts fire more than once per trigger pull.

The good news is recent legislation passed in Congress and supported by the NRA requires the ATF to videotape all of these tests for criminal prosecutions. Not only does this help convict people who are genuinely doing wrong, it helps protect people who aren't.
 
Bartholomew Roberts:
Do you have a link on that new regulation/law? It sounds like interesting reading.

Kharn
 
Bart,

what's the bill number? has it been signed yet? first I've heard of it, sounds like good news.
 
what's the bill number? has it been signed yet? first I've heard of it, sounds like good news.

H.R. 1603 was the original proposal. I think it might have been reintroduced under a different bill though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top