-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
M16 bcg legal?
- Thread starter Dog
- Start date
This is what they’re referring to. You can google for the other info between the two. It’s not going to turn a semi into a full auto if that’s what your asking. Just a heavier carrier. Yes they’re legal.
Yeah, my thought with this thread was "2005 wants its post back."
They are legal.
They are needed if you have a full auto lower, they however do not make a lower full auto in any way and are preferred by many for many reasons.
They are needed if you have a full auto lower, they however do not make a lower full auto in any way and are preferred by many for many reasons.
To reiterate what has been said; the carrier is 100% legal, and will not alter your rifle. They are not just heavier; the extra meat retained (as shown in the photo above) is there to work in conjunction with 4 other FA parts.
Now, don't go buying all that shit, even though its available. A standard m16 safety selector could alter your rifle in a way that you would never financially, or anally, recover from. All the parts work seamlessly together to prevent OOB firings. (Back to the meat on the BCG). Personally, the ONLY part marked m16 that I would ever BE CAUGHT purchasing, is the BCG. Leave the rest to SOT.
A real AR-15 carrier is an M16 carrier because the AR-15 predates the M16 type classification and there were no neutered carriers until much later. Look at the Colt Model 601 for reference.
With the Colt SP-1 series, they started machining away a portion of the bottom tail off of carriers on their own initiative, as well as adding the dual screw pivot pin and larger pivot pin hole to make it necessary to use tools to separate the upper and lower. The first SP-1s had the original removable pivot pin with ball detent and machined recess on the upper receiver lug. Then came the dual screw design. They also neutered the uppers by not machining the clearance for the auto sear on the bottom rear of the upper receiver near the take down lug. Nobody told them to do this.
Bushmaster used to sell their own clipped carrier design, similar to the one you see in the erroneous photo above in post #3 so there was no auto sear trip.
The problem with clipped or shaved carriers is that they don’t have the correct full mass of the carrier design that is engineered to provide reliable extraction and feeding in cold weather. That said, they can still work fine under most conditions but I personally avoid them.
The history goes like this:
AR-15 Prototype carriers, slick side, hard chrome plated
AR-15 Colt 601 carriers, same
AR-15 Colt 602, same
AR-15 Model 603, Phosphated carrier with Forward Assist serrations, mix of chrome and phosphated bolts
Colt SP-1 1964, slick side chrome carrier like in the 601 and 602
Colt SP-1 later 1960s? Phosphated carriers with machined recess on the bottom tail
Colt kept the basic SP-1 neutered carrier through the Sporter II until the Match HBAR, where they went even more crazy with cutting away the bottom of the tail:
Bushmaster followed suit, even though there was no mandate from anywhere requiring this.
Rock River Arms did the same thing with their carrier specs:
As the AR-15 market opened up in the wake of 9/11 and GWOT, with a lot of contractors looking for guns that would actually run, companies started to see the folly of the shaved carriers. Many companies now don’t even know about this period of time where carrier-neutering was a thing.
Pretty much everyone now just uses correct weight AR-15 carriers.
The only guns I would consider buying with a shaved carrier would be Colts for collector value.
With the Colt SP-1 series, they started machining away a portion of the bottom tail off of carriers on their own initiative, as well as adding the dual screw pivot pin and larger pivot pin hole to make it necessary to use tools to separate the upper and lower. The first SP-1s had the original removable pivot pin with ball detent and machined recess on the upper receiver lug. Then came the dual screw design. They also neutered the uppers by not machining the clearance for the auto sear on the bottom rear of the upper receiver near the take down lug. Nobody told them to do this.
Bushmaster used to sell their own clipped carrier design, similar to the one you see in the erroneous photo above in post #3 so there was no auto sear trip.
The problem with clipped or shaved carriers is that they don’t have the correct full mass of the carrier design that is engineered to provide reliable extraction and feeding in cold weather. That said, they can still work fine under most conditions but I personally avoid them.
The history goes like this:
AR-15 Prototype carriers, slick side, hard chrome plated
AR-15 Colt 601 carriers, same
AR-15 Colt 602, same
AR-15 Model 603, Phosphated carrier with Forward Assist serrations, mix of chrome and phosphated bolts
Colt SP-1 1964, slick side chrome carrier like in the 601 and 602
Colt SP-1 later 1960s? Phosphated carriers with machined recess on the bottom tail
Colt kept the basic SP-1 neutered carrier through the Sporter II until the Match HBAR, where they went even more crazy with cutting away the bottom of the tail:
Bushmaster followed suit, even though there was no mandate from anywhere requiring this.
Rock River Arms did the same thing with their carrier specs:
As the AR-15 market opened up in the wake of 9/11 and GWOT, with a lot of contractors looking for guns that would actually run, companies started to see the folly of the shaved carriers. Many companies now don’t even know about this period of time where carrier-neutering was a thing.
Pretty much everyone now just uses correct weight AR-15 carriers.
The only guns I would consider buying with a shaved carrier would be Colts for collector value.
There was a time when you would not be able to legally install that BCG into an AR15, but those days are long ago. It is perfectly legal to install this carrier into a modern day AR15.
Heck YES they are illegal!!!!
Thats why Brownells only sells them on their website. That way it can’t be tracked by big brother...
Thats why Brownells only sells them on their website. That way it can’t be tracked by big brother...
Roger that. At no time in the history of the AR-15 that I’ve ever been able to find, has there been a piece of law that said you can’t use a correct AR-15 bolt carrier in AR-15s.
There have been assumptions by outhouse lawyers posing as gunsmiths, “I heard it from a Class 3 dealer who knows his stuff.”, and hearsay here and there, but never a piece of written legislation that says anything of the kind. I don’t think I’ve even seen a jackboot opinion letter on the matter.
Not that it matters, because every AR-15 manufacturer nowadays uses real carriers, not the neutered variants that were mostly limited to the bands I listed above.
I’ve had a Bravo Co. m16 carrier in mine since I built it in 2016. It runs (semi auto only)in harmony with the other components much like a sewing machine.
Bought it right over the inter web and no visits since then from any .gov ninjas. Perfectly legal.
Bought it right over the inter web and no visits since then from any .gov ninjas. Perfectly legal.
Nope, there was a time that the ATF stated that any component of a M16 fire group could not be installed onto an AR15, which included the bolt carrier.
Must not have found this little jewel from the ATF.
atf-p-5320-8-appendix-b.pdf
"In order to avoid violations of the NFA, M16, hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors and bolt carriers must not be used in assembly of AR-15 type semiautomatic rifles, unless the M16 parts have been modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration. Any AR-15 type rifles which have been assembled with M16 internal components should have those parts removed and replaced with AR-15 Model SP1 type parts which are available commercially. The M16 components also may be modified to AR-15 Model SP1 configuration."
I don’t accept any of their letters as law since they aren’t, but they were talking about the combined use of all the M16 components when constituting a machine-gun. There is no safe mechanical way to make an AR-15 fire on automatic with only one of the many M16 specific components, so a correct bolt carrier alone is not enough to create a MG. Like everything with ATF, all their opinions are vague, subject to interpretation that they don’t want to go to court over, and usually in response to “that guy” questions. None of their proclamations and interpretations are law.
ATF Letter on possession of AR-15 and M16 components
GAYTF Letter to the same inquirer about possession of M16 and AR15 parts
GAYTF Letter, apparently to the same guy, on possession of M16 and AR15 fire control parts
DIAS administrative burden letter and whether DIAS makes a new MG
Opinion on removal of the Colt steel auto sear receiver block
ATF Letter on possession of AR-15 and M16 components
GAYTF Letter to the same inquirer about possession of M16 and AR15 parts
GAYTF Letter, apparently to the same guy, on possession of M16 and AR15 fire control parts
DIAS administrative burden letter and whether DIAS makes a new MG
Opinion on removal of the Colt steel auto sear receiver block
A perfect example of someone who doesn't know what he is talking about, trying to pretend that he does.
...
I "found" that statement by the ATF when it was first published. I suggest you spend some time learning what the words "legal" and "illegal" mean.
....
You have to remember, this was in the late 70s or early 80s this came out. It has since changed.
Moron, did you see the pdf file or are you just to stupid to investigate things yourself.
They are now, but there was a time that they were not legal to use in an AR15. Tha'ts what I said from the begining. I never said they were illegal now.
