PDA

View Full Version : Is this FUD?


goodlookin1
05-15-2010, 5:22 PM
I went to a local gun show today and was talking with a table manager about the legality of Full Auto vs Semi-Auto BCG's. He told me that the the ATF has ruled that ANY full auto part in a semi-automatic rifle renders the gun a "Machine Gun" status, even if it is only capable of shooting semi-auto. My "FUD" alarms were ringing very loudly, but this guy was so certain he was right that there was just no point arguing (not to mention I didnt know the law on this). He mentioned some case in Wisconsin where a guy built a semi-auto AR-15 but used a few M16 parts (BCG). He sold it to a friend that went shooting at a range and had a few double taps or something and got in trouble by ATF agents there. He said that both the builder and the shooter were being held responsible: The builder for building an unregistered machine gun and the shooter for possession of an unregistered machine gun. I havent heard of this case before, so I could not comment.

This worries me because I called up CMMG the other day about the BCG they sell on their piston 6.8mm uppers. The only option for the BCG is a "Full Auto" carrier. This certainly doesnt mean that the gun becomes fully automatic, as you would need different selector parts installed in the lower. The guy on the phone said that he had not heard of any issues with selling full auto BCG's to california....it was the only option they had for the Piston Kits and uppers they sell.

The last thing I need is to get busted from the ATF about something so stupid. Can anyone in the know confirm or deny that full auto BCG's are legal to use and own, specifically in CA, when in a semi-auto only lower?

Thanks.

CSACANNONEER
05-15-2010, 5:31 PM
FUD! M16 BCGs are just fine in AR15s. However, do not use ANY FA FCG parts even if it will only fire semi auto! You can get in serious doodoo for having a M16 trigger, harrer, etc. in your AR15.

nick
05-15-2010, 5:34 PM
BS.

The case he's talking about has to do with a guy who knew that his rifle could go full auto and who tried to keep it that way, not to mention advertised it. Shouldn't be a big deal if you ask me, but they didn't ask me when they passed NFA.

Having full auto parts that aren't full auto receivers/sears/whatever else you can come up with to make it full auto, is not a problem.

HokeySon
05-15-2010, 6:24 PM
FUD! M16 BCGs are just fine in AR15s. However, do not use ANY FA FCG parts even if it will only fire semi auto! You can get in serious doodoo for having a M16 trigger, harrer, etc. in your AR15.

I don't understand your distinction, but I do not know a lot about AR parts. Could you explain further? It seems like you are saying the gun show guy was right.

socalblue
05-15-2010, 6:34 PM
I don't understand your distinction, but I do not know a lot about AR parts. Could you explain further? It seems like you are saying the gun show guy was right.

Let's make this simple:

1. No M-16 fire control group parts in a semi-auto
2. M-16 bolt carrier group is fine & is in fact preferred by many

Cokebottle
05-15-2010, 6:36 PM
I don't understand your distinction, but I do not know a lot about AR parts. Could you explain further? It seems like you are saying the gun show guy was right.
Negative.

The BCG (Bolt Carrier Group) is not one of the FA parts that can get you into trouble with the BATF.

The FCG (Fire Control Group) can... these are the trigger components, and the hammer, trigger, and disconnector are machined differently in the FA version.
Yes, to actually go full-auto requires the seer and the 3rd hole in the receiver for it.

If what the guy at the gun show said were true, then we couldn't have a barrel, upper receiver... or WTH... a buttstock that will also fit the F/A versions.

motorhead
05-15-2010, 6:58 PM
sound the b/s alarm, man the lifeboats!

HokeySon
05-15-2010, 6:59 PM
gotcha guys, thanks for the clarification.

abusalim81
05-16-2010, 4:05 AM
The M16 Auto Bolt is legal because when they produced the civilian version they never made a new bolt carrier until much later, thus it was the original bolt carrier in the semi-auto AR-15.

So yeah, total FUD!!!

BTW, from what I've heard though, full auto bolt carriers are only legal for AR-15s but not for any other rifles.

ChuckBooty
05-16-2010, 6:34 AM
I went to a local gun show today and was talking with a table manager...

That's as much of your post that I had to read to know that the answer was yes.

goodlookin1
05-17-2010, 6:21 AM
LOL, thanks guys.

ChuckBooty, I was thinking the same thing. It was my first gun show and even I could smell the BS coming from this guy. Some other guy tried telling me that the military is trying to move to the 6.8 SPC! He obviously knows nothing about military procurement procedures. I think a lot of these stories and lies you hear are like the military fables: A friend of my dad's shooting buddy's son has a cousin who was in Iraq and......(enter wildly embellished story here).

Barabas
05-17-2010, 8:05 AM
The 6.8 guy was trying to sell you his mini-14 wasn't he?

Dr Rockso
05-17-2010, 8:56 AM
I don't think I've ever seen a "is this FUD?" thread turn out not to be FUD. And the case he's referring to is David Olofson. There's a lot of FUD surrounding the Olofson story, too, but as far as I can tell Olofson broke the law and should have known he was doing it.

goodlookin1
05-17-2010, 9:04 AM
The 6.8 guy was trying to sell you his mini-14 wasn't he?

Yes he was! Amongst other guns as well (some Canadian labeled rifle....I jokingly said I couldnt sport anything that had "Canadian" branded on it ;) ). Did you see me there?