Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M-16 Selector Switch

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Brilton, Apr 9, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brilton

    Brilton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Long story short, I don't intend to make my Spike's biohazard lower full auto even though I have a low shelf and it is DIAS compatible, but I want my selector switch to go to the full-auto position. Is it legal to own a full-auto selector switch that is unaltered? Again, no intent to go full auto.
     
  2. zoom6zoom

    zoom6zoom Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    Messages:
    2,908
    Location:
    Virginia
    Accordint to the latest ATF written opinion that I have seen, possession of any of the go fast parts with the exception of the bolt carrier, in conjunction with possession of a receiver (even a semi auto receiver), is considered intent.

    I'd lose it, myself. Having the switch go into the happy position, even if it does not function, can only cause you grief if examined by the wrong person.
     
  3. Brilton

    Brilton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    But I thought the sear was the only part that is serialized? why can I buy every single part online except the sear?
     
  4. MilliradianDOT

    MilliradianDOT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    Just because it can be bought online, doesn't mean it is legal. You can buy every part you need to convert an AK to full auto online and get it shipped to your door for under fifty bucks. Buying them isn't a crime but the ATF says having them and the rifle at one time is.
     
  5. Brilton

    Brilton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    That's strange to me. Just, logically it doesn't make sense. "This part doesn't do anything illegal, but you can't have it in a rifle."
     
  6. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,706
    I was unaware of that ATF ruling, but the fact is that an FA selector would have no other purpose or use except in a selective fire rifle, and it is an integral part of those rifles. In the FA position, it allows the hammer to fall as long as the trigger is held back. Without the FA hammer and auto sear, the hammer will just follow the bolt carrier down, resulting in a misfire.

    To be honest, the idea of getting one's kicks by making a fake "machinegun" has never appealed to me. I think it is pretty juvenile, like the high school kids who swipe mom's parsley and pretend it is marijuana.

    I know of a case where a man was held and came close to arrest for having a fake selector switch on his M1A rifle, and this seems to me in the same category. He said he had just wanted to "tweak the cops", but had things worked differently, he could have spent time in jail, never a fun place to be.

    Jim
     
  7. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    9,562
    It's not so much trying to make sense of the laws but trying not to break them.
     
  8. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    The standard sear is not the serialized part of the gun. A "drop-in-sear" can be the serialized part...as can a Lightning Link. But in this case, the receiver would be the serialized part if it was a registered FA gun. You can have the 'AUTO' position engraved on the receiver; I have one that came that way. But I would be cautious about taking it any further than that.

    YMMV
     
  9. JustinJ

    JustinJ Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    4,046
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Do you have a reference for this? If that's the case one who owns a semi AK would be in violation if they received an AK parts kit in the mail for a build.
     
  10. MilliradianDOT

    MilliradianDOT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2011
    Messages:
    56
    There was an article up not too long ago I think on this forum about a guy in Florida who was trying to sell a PTR91 pistol and a collapsible stock in the same lot and I think the feds set up a sting to buy it then tried to charge him with whatever they call it. "Intent to assemble" or whatever. Once again, two parts completely legal to have by themselves but when together, they ruffle some feathers. Let me see if I can find that link. I swear it was on THR that I saw it.
     
  11. danthearmyman

    danthearmyman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Messages:
    24
    I haven't read the rulings in a year or so, but last time I went through that stuff the possession of any sole part used in a full-auto or burst gun was not illegal. Even if said part was installed.

    It only became illegal after the conglomerate of parts were assembled in a firearm that it became illegal.

    On the PTR91 pistol thing. I doubt that case would go anywhere. ATF has already stated that possession of parts to convert does not itself state intent. It would be considered intent if the PTR91 pistol was incomplete (i.e. missing the parts to differentiate it from a rifle) and you had possession of the stock.

    Same goes with SBR barrels. Owning the barrel unregistered isn't a crime if you don't have an incomplete, unregistered rifle it can be installed on laying around.
     
  12. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Mill, that's involving SBRs, not machine guns. A pistol and a compatible stock, when added together give you a completely functional SBR, hence the charge of constructive possession. A semi auto AR receiver with a selector switch that goes to the third position is nowhere near a functioning full auto. Hell it won't even hold the disconnector back when its in the 3rd position unless you include the M16 disconnector with the tail.

    To use the same analogy, you would have to include not only the 3 position selector, but the correct FA disconnector, trigger to accommodate the disconnector, auto sear, hammer, bolt, AND a receiver that was milled out to the correct dimensions with the pin hole for the auto sear. Of course the milling and pin hole can be avoided by using a DIAS, but that's another illegal part that is typically regulated as a machine gun by itself.

    None of these parts are illegal to own by themselves (excepting the receiver and DIAS of course). If I recall, the ATF has some guidelines as to how many M16 parts you can use in an AR 15 and still be ok. I'm not positive as to the count, but it was more than just one part.
     
  13. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,706
    It doesn't make it any better, but it is easier to understand if you realize that the NFA and FFA (combined as GCA '68) were originally tax laws and administered by a division of the IRS. Once part of the IRS, BATFE carried over all the IRS's bad practices.

    One agent will arrest you for doing what another agent has assured you is legal; court decisions only apply in the jurisdiction of that court; no agent really knows the law, but all will guess at what it means; and only a formal, written, ruling from HQ has any legal effect at all or will convince an agent of anything.

    Jim
     
  14. Brilton

    Brilton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    So the rule is no rule at all? Haha the efficiency of government eh?
     
  15. CmdrSlander

    CmdrSlander Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,203
    Location:
    Disputed Western Missouri
    Welcome to all gun legislation, fun isn't it... :banghead:
     
  16. Brilton

    Brilton Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    40
    Time to write some letters.
     
  17. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    This.

    As for owning the parts, ATF's position changes from time to time, agent to agent, but since your semi-auto receiver cannot accept the auto sear, they'd have a pretty tough time making a case for possession of MG or constructive possession.

    FA parts are legal to sell, legal to own. You just can't own them at the same time you possess a receiver that can accept them. As for owning the semi-auto receiver, that's where it can get a little fuzzy. The receiver of any semi auto sold in the USA would require modification to accept FA parts (AR, AK and others), so it's not like you could just drop in a FA parts kit and rock'n'roll. I suppose they could try to get you on constructive possession, but without a modified receiver that can take the parts, it'd be like trying to go for constructive possession on someone that owns any semi-auto and a decent selection of tools that would allow FA conversion with a little bench time.

    I see title I dealers and private sellers at shows all the time with AR parts galore and FA parts kits spread out on the table, yet I've never seen them harassed by attending ATF agents. The reason they are left alone is that they DO NOT have a FA receiver that can take the parts. And, of course, having said receiver would be possession of an MG with or without the FA parts to go in it.

    In short, I can't imagine there being any legal problem with using a commonly available FA selector, but it'd also be pretty pointless for the reason mentioned by JimK. Your selector would move to the FA position, but the gun would be a single shot in that mode, and one that ejects a live round in between each shot.

    Show me a case where someone went to prison on SBR constructive possession for having a pistol and a stock that would fit it, absent any proof that the stock was actually installed on the gun.

    That'd be like constructive possession for ownership of a rifle or shotgun and a hacksaw.
     
  18. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    The DIAS is not, in and of itself, illegal IF it was made and registered prior to 1986. They actually bring almost as much money as 'real' M-16s these days because they can be used in multiple guns.
     
  19. Shadow 7D

    Shadow 7D Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2008
    Messages:
    7,005
    Location:
    Frozen North
    Um
    SO
    Here's the thing, legally probably YES
    BUT...
    and here is the kicker
    It will leave you open to facing hundreds of thousands of dollars to prove that it's legal to a judge...
    the safe one would be to buy a switch that still engages semi in full forward, however...
     
  20. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,452
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    I was referencing a post above mine where someone said that this had happened. I was trying to point out the difference between possessing all the parts to manufacturer a NFA weapon versus possessing only a small fraction of the parts necessary for the conversion. Logically if there is no problem possessing all of the parts, there should be no problem possessing only one.

    Yes, I am well aware of the NFA process and how we got screwed in 1986. I just didn't mention the fact that the receivers/DIAS on form 4s are legal because this thread is about a selector switch.

    OP: If you really want a selector that travels 180 degrees as opposed to the standard semi-auto 90 degrees, see if you can have a machinist extend the cut out and add a detent stop on your semi-auto selector. You will get the added movement and the selector will still be functionally semi-auto only, even if you put it on a registered M16.
     
  21. hentown

    hentown Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2012
    Messages:
    1,742
    I'm not going to read through all the posts to see if anybody corrected the OP's fallacious "I thought...." The sear ISN'T serialized. Only drop-in autosears are serialized, and that's not part of an M16. Why would anybody want the safety to go to what would be f.a. position? A properly-fit AR safety won't go to that position.

    There's an extra hole in the M16's receiver to accommodate the NON-SERIALIZED sear pin. :cool:
     
  22. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    Yes, you can do that with a selector. Walther's .22 ARs have 180* selectors. So long as there are no actual full auto parts in your trigger group, you are aok.
     
  23. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    The one that matters is the auto sear, and you couldn't install it without milling and drilling anyway.

    An M16A1 trigger is identical to an AR-15 trigger, and the hammer is the same except for the 3rd sear position, which means nothing without the auto sear.

    In short, there is only one part that makes the gun full auto, and you can't install it in a semi-auto AR receiver.
     
  24. medalguy

    medalguy Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,208
    Location:
    New Mexico
    From my understanding, the real thing BATFE looks at is whether a semi can be "readily converted" to a FA, not the possession of the parts to allow that to happen. If you have all the parts for an M16 but the receiver still requires clearance machining of the lower, and the average owner does not possess a Bridgeport mill and can't "readily" do the required work, then there's no violation. However, if the lower has been milled out and you also possess the parts and they simply need to be installed, then yes there's a clear violation.
     
  25. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    14,465
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    That's how I've understood it. Given the number of FFL01 and private gun show vendors I see selling those parts as well as AR receivers and complete rifles at show after show (same guys), it would appear that ATF is not going after them for having FA parts and semi-auto receivers at the same time. It's not like you have to use a super-secret handshake to see the stuff, either; it's all laid out on the tables, with labels and price tags.

    As such, it stands to reason that constructive possession = the FA parts plus a receiver that has been modified to accept FA parts.

    Of course, regarding the AR, there's not much reason to use M16 parts other than the BCG. There's no benefit in using the more expensive (at least from what I've seen) M16 selectors, triggers and hammers. They won't improve function or durability in any way. I'd rather spend $150 on an NM trigger than an M16 group that has a useless extra sear notch, and I'd rather not have a selector that could be inadvertently moved too far and cause the rifle to malfunction.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page