Legal

[jbalazs]

Can you please let me know Is it legal to have a M16 carrier in a AR15

Thanks JB

[MisterPX]

Yes, a M16 carrier is legal in an AR15.

[jbalazs]

Thanks for the reply. I just got a new LW gas piston upper and when I cleaned the gun I noticed the carrier is a M16

[MisterPX]

you lucky bastard!

[mxwelch]

I think I'd do a little more research than asking an online forum if I was you jbalazs, if you haven't sone so. I read the ATF webpage and it's not as cut and dry as you might think. I'm not saying that it's legal or illegal. Read it and see what you think. Personally I'd contact the ATF and make sure. From the ATF page:

M. FIREARMS - NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA)

(M1) The types of firearms that must be registered in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record are defined in the NFA and 27 CFR, Part 479. What are some examples? [Back]

Some examples of the types of firearms that must be registered are:

Machine guns;

The frames or receivers of machine guns;

Any combination of parts designed and intended for use in converting weapons into machine guns;

Any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun;
Any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if the parts are in the possession or under the control of a person;

Silencers and any part designed and intended for fabricating a silencer;

Short-barreled rifles;

Short-barreled shotguns;

Destructive devices; and,

"Any other weapon."

The M16 carrier falls under the above statement in bold type to me, but I'm no lawyer...

[jbalazs]

Well the ATF sad a weapon is a machine gun when one pull of the trigger fires more then one shot. And the article you post talks about combination of parts. Let say if you have all the combination of parts to make a machine gun but you leave one part out of the gun, the gun will fire only one shot per trigger pull, you still have a machinegun because you have a part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun.
Just to have a M16 carrier is not intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun.
I don’t know what the hell I am talking about

[mxwelch]

Well the ATF sad a weapon is a machine gun when one pull of the trigger fires more then one shot. And the article you post talks about combination of parts.

Wrong, the above bold type states "Any PART designed and intended..." It doesn't say PARTS.

Let say if you have all the combination of parts to make a machine gun but you leave one part out of the gun, the gun will fire only one shot per trigger pull, you still have a machinegun because you have a part designed and intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun.

That's correct.

Just to have a M16 carrier is not intended solely and exclusively for converting a weapon into a machine gun.
I don’t know what the hell I am talking about

Like I said I'm no lawyer but the carrier of an M16 is different because of the selective fire capacity. Does the ATF consider that a "conversion" part? It might depend on who you ask. I'm only trying to help so stop getting so pissy. YOU are the one who asked the question so don't get mad when someone gives you an answer you don't like.

I mean honestly, it's not like tha ATF ever changes it's mind about what will or what won't be accepted.

[jbalazs]

From BATF on M16 Carrier

We can only inform you that if this installation were to create a firearm that fires automatically , it would be a machine gun as defined,

conversely if it did not result in the production of a weapon that shoots automatically , it would be lawful to possess and make
I am unable to copy the letter now don't know how to do it
I will try later