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

New M16A1 Carbine for $631.26

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by 243winxb, Jun 12, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 243winxb

    243winxb Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    8,995
    Location:
    USA
    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 [​IMG]
     
  2. Sam Cade

    Sam Cade Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Messages:
    5,228
    Location:
    Rural Kentucky, surrounded by Amish
    $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*
     
  3. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  4. hirundo82

    hirundo82 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    The Deep South
    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).
     
  5. kozak6

    kozak6 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    952
    Location:
    Arizona
    Lottery numbers
     
  6. 41magsnub

    41magsnub Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,791
    Location:
    Missoula Montana
    Sports Almanac and the back history of Wall Street Journals.
     
  7. amd6547

    amd6547 Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,773
    Location:
    North Coast of OHIO
    lots of microsoft, apple, and google stock.
     
  8. Dreamcast270mhz

    Dreamcast270mhz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2010
    Messages:
    406
    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.
     
  9. MagnumDweeb

    MagnumDweeb Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,344
    Location:
    Central Florida
    We've yet to see what good the MG registry ban has brought us. And yet it still persists.
     
  10. Dreamcast270mhz

    Dreamcast270mhz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2010
    Messages:
    406
    I think reverting to Pre-86 MG laws would be reasonable.
     
  11. RTR_RTR

    RTR_RTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    321
    Forward in time is possible, backward is impossible.
     
  12. Strykervet

    Strykervet member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,610
    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.
     
  13. Strykervet

    Strykervet member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,610
    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.
     
  14. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.)

    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.
     
  15. Strykervet

    Strykervet member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    1,610
    "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.
     
  16. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  17. RTR_RTR

    RTR_RTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    321
    I have no desire to live in a time when that isn't funny.
     
  18. atomchaser

    atomchaser Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2005
    Messages:
    407
    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.
     
  19. hirundo82

    hirundo82 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    998
    Location:
    The Deep South
    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.
     
  20. armorerdave

    armorerdave Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2011
    Messages:
    5
    Cost of Military Weapons as of April 2011

    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).
     
  21. greenr18

    greenr18 member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    562
    Location:
    Earth
    Why's the A3 so cheap?
     
  22. Madcap_Magician

    Madcap_Magician Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    1,626
    Location:
    MN
    Man, the titanium receiver in the M240L really jacks up the price!
     
  23. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,961
    Location:
    Virginia
    It's a "simplified" M16A2 in that it lacks the burst fire mechanism (straight semi-full).
     
  24. CleverNickname

    CleverNickname Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    TX
    But there's only a few extra small parts in a burst FCG, not enough to account for a $103 difference.
     
  25. mp510

    mp510 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,045
    Location:
    PRKt
    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page