Auto Bolt Carrier for AR15

Mikey

Mikey

Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
3,585
Likes
167
Location
Central MA
Feedback: 6 / 0 / 0
Is there any issues with using and Auto Bolt Carrier group in a semi-auto AR? I am guessing it is just beefed up compared to the semi-auto version but figured ask.
 
There used to be rumors about this but this was cleared up a long time ago.

IIRC MassMark posted a few links on here awhile back about M16 BCGs. A lot of vendors even ship semiauto guns with them now. No problems, legally.

-Mike
 
BCM M-16 FA BCG is the only thing I would run in a carbine especially. They are USGI Spec and perform well in short gas carbines. Colt ships FA BCG's in every civilian 6920 they sell...Bushmaster used to have a big schpiel about not using FA carriers in SA guns - I'm not sure if they still do - I tend not to spend much time on manufacturers websites owned and operated by the stupid...
 
I thought (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that possession of any auto parts and a SA would constitute possession of a FA. I'm not trying to scare the crap out of anybody - I thought that was the ATF's position (?).
 
scottb said:
I thought (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that possession of any auto parts and a SA would constitute possession of a FA. I'm not trying to scare the crap out of anybody - I thought that was the ATF's position (?).
Click to expand...

They change their position like the weather.

B
 
scottb said:
I thought (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that possession of any auto parts and a SA would constitute possession of a FA. I'm not trying to scare the crap out of anybody - I thought that was the ATF's position (?).
Click to expand...

The FA bolt carrier is not part of the FCG it's part of the upper. Possession of FA FCG (lower) parts is a no-no. The BCG is part of the upper and in and of itself, has no capability of making an SA rifle FA.
 
John R Spencer has a clue...Nothing in the 4/09 Appendix B overrules the fact that M-16 BCG's are not a part used exclusively in the manufacture of a machine gun...

In the olden days, AR-15's could, (and were) modified with some very simple manipulations of the FCG. That is not the case now...Colt would not risk losing their license to manufacture over a technicality. People at a far higher pay grade than we, have put in place a manufacturing process that is compliant with BATFE regulations and does not risk loss of license...If it were "Bubbas AR Company", I'd be suspicious. However, this is Colt - the largest manufacturer of civilian and non civilian AR-15/M-16 rifles...Colt would not ship rifles into the civilian market with M-16 Bolt Carrier Groups were there even the most infinitesimal chance of loss of license. Same holds true for the many other rifle producers doing the very same thing. The M-16 BCG cannot be made to fire an AR-15 in a fully automatic capacity without the addition of M-16 fire control group components to the lower receiver. It is a reliability component - especially to short tube AR-15's, (i.e. M4-geries).
 

Attachments

  • ATF M16 Letter.pdf
    42.1 KB · Views: 18
I said they (plural), meaning not just John R. Spencer.

I guess I'm the only one confused by this? Maybe someone else can explain this to me because I obviously don't read it like you do.

B

atfu.jpg
 
MassMark said:
A bolt carrier group is not a fire control component...

http://www.publicsafetylighting.com/m16ficogr.html
Click to expand...


Then why does the NFA Fact book as published by BAFTE state not to use M-16 carriers, unless they have been modified to SP1 configuration then? Yeah, the part I highlighted.

Like I said, maybe someone other than yourself can clarify this for me.

BTW very authoritative cite for fire control components.

B
 
bpm990d said:
Then why does the NFA Fact book as published by BAFTE state not to use M-16 carriers, unless they have been modified to SP1 configuration then? Yeah, the part I highlighted.

Like I said, maybe someone other than yourself can clarify this for me.

BTW very authoritative cite for fire control components.

B
Click to expand...

Facts is facts. Parts is parts.

I'm with MassMark on this one. How old is your Fact Book, compared to the ATF letter? The letter works and would be good to keep on hand for a rainy day. [wink]
 
bpm990d said:
Then why does the NFA Fact book as published by BAFTE state not to use M-16 carriers, unless they have been modified to SP1 configuration then? Yeah, the part I highlighted.

Like I said, maybe someone other than yourself can clarify this for me.

BTW very authoritative cite for fire control components.

B
Click to expand...



Because the NFA fact book actually isn't a fact, it's the opinion of the technical branch at any given time, in your case in the distant past. The use of the heavy bolt carrier predominates the industry at this time.

A ruling from the chief of the BATFE technical branch is as good as gold in this case. You're simply, well, wrong.
 
Last edited:
vellnueve said:
Because the NFA fact book actually isn't a fact, it's the opinion of the technical branch at any given time, in your case in the distant past. The use of the heavy bolt carrier predominates the industry at this time.

A ruling from the chief of the BATFE technical branch is as good as gold in this case. You're simply, well, wrong.
Click to expand...

I know that everyone and their brother is shipping them with M-16 carriers. That wasn't my point. The point was that they put out contradictory information. I'm not in the least concerned about John R. Spencer coming to arrest me. I'd like to know what agents in the field are being told and how they're trained.

B
 
Last edited:
bpm990d said:
Then why does the NFA Fact book as published by BAFTE state not to use M-16 carriers, unless they have been modified to SP1 configuration then? Yeah, the part I highlighted.

Like I said, maybe someone other than yourself can clarify this for me.

BTW very authoritative cite for fire control components.

B
Click to expand...

No offense, but go screw. You put the information out there and so did I. No need to get snippy sonny boy...I posted the link so you could see pictures of a FCG - not sure if you could interpret an armorers manual...

You have all the information in front of you - if you can't interpret it, my condolences. You have the FACT (see I can use bold too) that Colt, Noveske, KAC, CMMG, LMT - practically EBB (Everybody But Bushmaster), using M-16 Bolt Carrier Groups (wow, that's fun) in civilian semi-auto rifles. To what end? To risk their business? Risk prison? No...It's because they have something you and I do not: Teams of lawyers, (not internet commandos) to interpret the law and a direct link to the BATFE. An M-16 BCG + M-16 FCG = Machine Gun. An M-16 BCG is a performance enhancement for short-tube rifles, is not part of the fire control group, (it's part of the upper) and does not make a machine gun!

PS: John Spencer has 'Chief' in his name and not because he's a tribal elder. That does not exactly make him lost in a BATFE crowd...[thinking]
 
The fact that all the manufactures ship rifles with M-16 carriers doesn't answer the question about the paragraphs I highlighted. If you were a subject matter expert, it seems like it would be an easy home run to convince a booger eating toothless keyboard imbecile like myself that I'm all fuxored.

I don't doubt the letter you posted. I just don't understand why one side of the bureaucracy says one thing and the other says something different. Your broken record response about carriers not being part of the FCG failed to come even remotely close to answering that question.

B
 
bpm990d said:
The fact that all the manufactures ship rifles with M-16 carriers doesn't answer the question about the paragraphs I highlighted. If you were a subject matter expert, it seems like it would be an easy home run to convince a booger eating toothless keyboard imbecile like myself that I'm all fuxored.

I don't doubt the letter you posted. I just don't understand why one side of the bureaucracy says one thing and the other says something different. Your broken record response about carriers not being part of the FCG failed to come even remotely close to answering that question.

B
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps cranial rectal extraction is your next step then....The thread is all yours...[cheers]
 

Similar threads

AR15 Bolt Doesn't Lock Back After Last Round
2
Replies
52
Views
892
BTSDOG
BTSDOG
Modifying preban uzi mags for AR9 colt lower
Replies
15
Views
143
Marty McFly
Marty McFly
Colt magazine adapter for AR9?
Replies
12
Views
264
BREWINZ
BREWINZ
Magazine Base Plates for Mantis X10
Replies
5
Views
229
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
Anyone have a metal oem safety for a mossberg 500
Replies
3
Views
485
mac1911
M
Back
Top Bottom