Machine Gun Parts kits

I have read that, according to some, if you have machine gun parts you can go to prison for trying to build a machine gun. If that's so, how to they
sell machine gun parts kits?
I'm in process of building an AR-15 and am curious, from what I see, the M16 lower receiver is different than an AR-15 lower receiver. M16 full-auto parts installed in an AR-15 won't make a machine gun because there is no hole for the auto-sear and the area is milled different, no room for the auto sear. So, in an AR-15 receiver, all the full auto parts that you could fit would let it work normally in safe and semi, but Auto would only let the hammer follow the bolt forward and you would have to pull the "Charging handle" to re-cock the hammer. It seems everything except the auto-sear would work in an AR-15 for safe and semi, selecting full auto would only let the hammer down without firing.
To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that work fine in an AR-15's, is kind of like throwing a man in jail for rape because he has a penis. Or giving everyone a speeding ticket because their car is capable of speeding. Crazy!
RogerN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Welcome to the world of Leftwing Firearms Assault.
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Gunner" wrote in message

<snip>>To me, it seems that jailing someone for having some machine gun part, that

In looking a little more at some of the machine gun parts kits, it looks like people buy them to build legal semi-auto rifles out of. So you can purchase a "machine gun parts kit" because you want to build a semi-auto and possibly be accused of intending to build a machine gun. Also I have read that they can consider a machine gun part as a machine gun. So on an AR, the lower receiver is considered the gun but on a machine gun, they can consider a part as a machine gun. If you legally own a machine gun, you can take a part off and they can claim you have 2 machine guns.
The stupidity of such is amazing, it would be like getting caught changing your tire and the officer ticketing you for not having a license and registration for the tire you just removed as if it was a second vehicle.
RogerN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RogerN wrote:

Welcome to the common sense side of the gun debate. Be prepared for all the anti-gun folks to start screaming at you.
--
Steve W.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To clarify, it is not any M-16 parts, it is 5 specific parts, mostly the trigger group and the bolt carrier.
When installed in an AR receiver it can be easily converted to full auto with a drop in auto sear. At that point it comes under the NFA definition.
Luckily, you are able to adapt the M-16 parts to legal. http://www.ar15.com/content/legal/AR15-M16Parts/
Personally, I would pitch out and replace the selector lever and bolt carrier as they would be a pain in the ass to adapt. The rest would involve grinding the hook off the hammer, welding up the end of the groove in the trigger and cutting off the projection on the end of the disconnector.
However, Roger, if I were you, I would spend less time trying to scam the NFA and more time trying to figure out how to get your tools out of your mother's garage.
Paul K. Dickman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Paul K. Dickman" wrote in message

I have an AR-15 lower parts kit, that's the parts I plan to use in the lower receiver.
The M-16 bolt carrier is supposed to be legal to use in an AR-15. AR-15 bolt carriers are the most difficult to find part now AFAIK.

My machine tools are in my garage at my other house where my mother lives.
Scam the NFA? The M-16 bolt carriers are legal, some AR-15's came with them, other parts are questionable. The auto-sear is the only part I know of that has no use in the semi-auto rifle and it doesn't fit an AR-15 receiver according to M-15 versus AR-15 blueprints.
I'm pretty sure it would be easier to make a full auto modification to an AR-15 than it would be to convert it to an M-16.
For example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v
WVYYJN_2Q
RogerN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RogerN wrote:

"Constructive intent" or some such. If you have all the parts to assemble into what would be an NFA firearm and don't have the tax stamp to go with it you are presumed to have the intent to assemble them into an illegal firearm. If you say have a set of full auto internals for an M16 and do not have a firearm to install them into (no AR type receivers) you are legal since you don't have the complete set of parts to produce what would be an illegal firearm.
Full auto however is pretty pointless for an individual weapon and just wastes valuable ammunition. FA is for "crew served" weapons with a military supply line backing them for an ammo supply.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Pete C." wrote in message

http://www.outdoorsunlimited.net/~chucksmy/guns/zm300-15.JPG
The auto sear, on the left in this picture of an M-16 receiver, won't fit an AR receiver because the AR receiver is left thick above the selector detent. Also, the AR receiver doesn't have the pin hole for the auto sear. A person couldn't assemble the M-16 auto parts in an AR receiver to make a machine gun unless they milled above the select fire detent and drilled the pin hole. A person could use them to make a machine gun if they had a M-16 receiver but the AR receiver would require modification.

Exactly, that's why, other than it's illegal, I don't want to build a machine gun. I'd build one if it was legal but it would be too expensive to shoot very much in auto. Currently I have an M16 parts kit but I have no AR-15 lowers completed yet. I have a lower parts kit for an AR-15 to use in my lower that I have to machine, I just have to find out if possessing a complete AR-15 lower, with no full auto parts, makes it illegal to have the machine gun parts kit.
I bought an M-16 parts kit with the intent to build a legal AR-15. I just don't want be accused of intention to build a machine gun just because I have the parts that came in the parts kit. I don't and won't have a receiver that the parts will fit in. Even if this country came down to a civil war or revolution, the sound of machine gun fire would make a target out of the person with the machine gun. They need to make game calls with the sound of machine gun fire to draw the attention away from the gun owners!
RogerN
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

.
o
an

nt.

erson

ve to

no

se in

he

ust

a

t
ith

You are correct, for that particular make of lower receiver. There ARE lower receivers out there that have the full M16 treatment except for the auto sear hole, fire control pocket fully milled out, these are dead-easy to convert given M16 parts and a drop-in auto sear. It can even be legal, given a registered DIAS and there are quite a number out there made prior to the '86 new machine gun ban. However, if you have one of said lowers plus an M16 carrier, it can still be converted even if the rest of the parts are for semi-autos, the Lightning Link mentioned by another poster is the bit needed. The only machine gun you can carry in your wallet. Also easy to make up. That's the reason that semi-auto carriers have the sear trip surface ground back or the carrier bottom totally removed, in the case of Colt's. ATF's interpretation of "readily convertible" (part of the definition of a machine gun in the law) is either 8 or 10 hours(depending on the source) in a fully equipped machine shop. You can do a LOT to a lower in that time, milling a bit of aluminum out is nothing. Like I said before, you SHOULD be OK with using an M16 carrier. Colt rifles you mentioned had other bits added in to prevent easy conversion, depending on vintage. IMO, a prudent person would grind the sear trip area back on the M16 carrier to show there was no intent of converting the gun. But if the ATF wants your ass, you're cooked with just about any AR type rifle. As mentioned, all they have to do is get it to fire 2 shots with one trigger pull. It doesn't have to work after that.
Stan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ass, you're cooked with just about any AR type rifle. As mentioned, all they have to do is get it to fire 2 shots with one trigger pull. It doesn't have to work after that.
Stan
In that case the SKS I had (sold long ago) would have landed me in jail . With some brass cased handloads it would double on occasion ... scared hell out of me and made everybody at the range look at me funny .
--
Snag



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/17/2013 12:46 PM, RogerN wrote:

The Democrats did it!!! Finally I know who is buying guns like crazy people! I thought it was the conservative nut jobs who were buying all the guns and hiding their 25th assault rifle in a PVC tube in the backyard.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just because more than half of the U.S. population despises assault rifles and wants to ban them is not a valid argument for banning assault rifles.
Assault rifles are the sort of rifles that armies use. The sort of gun that a well regulated militia should have. So banning them goes against the Constitution. And the rifles are just rifles. There is nothing vile about them. What is vile is the movies and video games that show people killing each other.
Dan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 08:53:11 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

It's a valid argument to be aware that you're on the losing side of a political debate, in which more than half of the voters are against you.

Well, with the addition of select-fire, yes. But they're close enough to attract Rambo wannabees, Walter Mitty Minutemen, and mass-murdering lunatics. They're the best tools for those jobs, if you include Bushmaster's argument that they'll "Renew your Man Card."
They're the guns that fulfill the desires of a wide variety of sociopaths.

You could try that argument, but based on court precedent, I think you would lose. It would be an even better argument for M-16s, but as the Court said in Heller:
"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military serviceM-16 rifles and the likemay be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
So the principle has already been foreclosed. Then you're left with the question of whether AR-15s are in "common use" for lawful purposes (another provision of Heller), and you then have the fact that miltiary-style semiautos defined as "assault rifles" by state statutes make up only about 1.3% of the guns in circulation. And I doubt if the Court would overturn state laws that defined high-capacity ARs as "dangerous weapons" or "destructive devices," as some do now.
As long as you have handguns for home defense, the Court hasn't put any other limits on federal or state laws -- so far. We'll have to see if a challenge ever gets to the Court. After more than 20 years for some states, there hasn't been a successful challenge yet.

That's a matter of opinion. I think they're pretty vile, because they're designed to appeal to some pretty ugly instincts. But your opinion is your own business.

I don't watch them, myself.
--
Ed Huntress

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Get real. It is not a valid argument. It is only a statement of what peoples opinions are. A valid argument would be why assault rifles should be banned.

Hand guns are what you carry when you do not expect to need a gun.

Do you really think they are designed to appeal to ugly instincts? That is really funny. They are designed to be or resemble military rifles.

And I do not have an assault rifle, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in china? But the facts are that lots of people do watch them.
Dan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
30 love, Ed.
On 3/19/2013 3:38 PM, snipped-for-privacy@krl.org wrote:

Probably more people watch shoot-em-ups DON'T have a rifle.
Not that that means anything...
:)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Who cares about what the majority wants, anyway? At the national level, the Republicans seem to be giving up on the idea.
They're going to try something else. Stand back...
--
Ed Huntress


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 13:38:51 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

That's not the argument I'm talking about. The meaningful argument is about whether you have the votes.
In terms of popular votes, you don't. In terms of intimidation of enough Republican members of the House to block passage, you very well may.
Whether you want to ban assault rifles is pretty much based on your ideology. I'm not going to argue with you about that.
The politics of it is going to be interesting. Right now, it looks like Congress has decided that they'll take the safe course and not rile the NRA. They have primaries to worry about.
--
Ed Huntress
>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What argument? You either have the votes or don't have the votes. There is no argument.
Dan

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 19:16:52 -0700 (PDT), " snipped-for-privacy@krl.org"

There is until the vote is taken. d8-)
What do you think you're going to settle about ARs, anyway? Some people think they're just more of the same ol'. Others think they represent a qualitative change in the culture of civilian gun ownership.
If you wanted to pin it down to something technical, I'd say it's because they're the spawn of a new doctrine in military small arms: more lead downrange, more enemy casualties. Precise aimed fire seems to have gone the way of snipers and the dodo. The small caliber is chosen to minimize recoil, for the sake of maintaining high rates of fire, whether in semi-auto or burst-fire mode.
That doesn't relate to civilian uses of guns in any sensible way. Whether you accept the guns into the fold of civilian gun culture depends on whether you accept the concepts they represent.
--
Ed Huntress


>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 3/19/2013 11:23 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Arguing never changed anyone's mind about anything. In fact, it probably causes them to sling tighter to their opinions.
If you can sway someone's opinion, they probably didn't have a solid opinion for you to change in the first place.
I'm pretty sure voting never did either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.