Puma Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) What effect if any does the extra mass of a M-16 carrier have in comparison to the AR-15 carrier ? Edited May 28, 2012 by Puma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 very little, it slows the cycle a tiny bit Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TISCHLJ Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Better be sure about those NFA rules . . . . . Edited May 28, 2012 by TISCHLJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clint-M Posted May 28, 2012 Share Posted May 28, 2012 (edited) Better be sure about those NFA rules . . . . . Says having a FA bolt carrier is fine in a non-NFA rifle. CM Edited May 28, 2012 by Clint-M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retread1911 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 The problem here is getting to a point where some LEO wants to charge constructive position. Almost impossible to actually do unless you get one angry enough to research the law and find a FED willing to do the paper work. However I do believe it has happened Other thing is companies like Olymic Arms were cranking out bolt carriers for years with just a couple hundredths off the trip surface. Took a micrometer or an M16 to tell the difference. Cheers Retread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StealthyBlagga Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) Legally not a problem - Colt did it for many years (may still do), and now many other manufacturers sell non-NFA rifles with M16 bolt carriers. So long as you don't have other M16 fire control parts, you are fine. I am sure you could feel the difference between, say, a JP lightweight carrier and an M16 carrier, but I doubt the difference between an M16 carrier and an AR15 carrier would be noticeable. The extra weight of the full-weight bolt carriers makes for a softer shove as opposed to the sharper snap of a lightweight carrier, and IMHO make the gun run more reliably because their extra momentum better overcome feed stutters. The slower bolt velocity of the heavier carriers also gives the magazine more time to feed properly. The downside of the heavier carriers is that they cause more disturbance to the sights when they hit the back of the buffer tube than a lightweight carrier with properly tuned gas block, and the story is the same with the weight of the buffer. Lastly, the M16 and enhanced AR15 carriers are more reliable than "traditional" AR15 carriers because of their shrouded firing pin head (less likely to catch on the hammer nose). So your choice boils down to potentially better reliability with an M16 carrier and non-adjustable gas block vs. potentially faster sight recovery with a lightweight carrier and adjustable gas block. I prefer the former, but many here prefer the latter. Yer Pays Yer Money And Takes Yer Choice! Edited May 29, 2012 by StealthyBlagga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a.roberts Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=14534 Bottom line: FA carriers are kosher. If there's no auto sear to trip, who cares? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentG Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 AR15.com is your friend for issues like this. Use the search engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retread1911 Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Mr bardwell is one of the foremost NFA lawyers in the country as well as a writer for Small Arms review. The link http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter52.txt is a letter concerning spare parts and constructive possession. No this one doesn't specifically discuss the bolt carrier issue but does talk a little about it. OP The not way you will personally get details on your situation is to write the ATF and ask them the question in your instance. The letter above is only applicable to the person it was written too but it was written by the ATF and not some anonymous person in a chat room. All that being said I believe that a bolt carrier alone is fine. Some others have pointed out that Colt used to ship them regularly which I also believe. Another site I use http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi for specifically NFA discussions if you are interested in some more research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjw Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 AR15.com is your friend for issues like this. Use the search engine. WRONG DO NOT LISTEN to those wannabe's over there. biggerst bunch of prom queens, wannabe's in the industry never ever go there real world people think aimless is the biggest joke on the net m-4 carbine is the only 1 i go to. if u cant get it there u dont need it. never trust anyone at BARFCOM to be correct on anything because THEY DONT DO ANYTHING coputer geeks all. jjw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentG Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 AR15.com is your friend for issues like this. Use the search engine. WRONG DO NOT LISTEN to those wannabe's over there. biggerst bunch of prom queens, wannabe's in the industry never ever go there real world people think aimless is the biggest joke on the net m-4 carbine is the only 1 i go to. if u cant get it there u dont need it. never trust anyone at BARFCOM to be correct on anything because THEY DONT DO ANYTHING coputer geeks all. jjw Some are but there are others who know more about this platform than you will ever live to know. Its about being able to filter information. AR15 is one of the most usefull places to find out info and whats going on with platform. Mall ninjas are everywhere. Even here maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twodownzero Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 Mr bardwell is one of the foremost NFA lawyers in the country as well as a writer for Small Arms review. The link http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/atf_letter52.txt is a letter concerning spare parts and constructive possession. No this one doesn't specifically discuss the bolt carrier issue but does talk a little about it. That letter also seems to presuppose that the lower would even accept the automatic parts. I don't believe any modern lower will accept the auto parts (not milled out in that area). I'm not competent to tell you if that's a legally-relevant distinction, but it sure is a factual one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retarmyaviator Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 (edited) I asked the question about M16 parts in AR15s to a friend several years ago that works at NFA Tech Branch. His answer was that there is nothing regulatory prohibting the mixture of M16 parts in AR15s, you only got in trouble when it fired more than once per trigger pull. He said that they did not recommend it because with excessive wear sometimes the M16 parts would allow the firearm to fire more than once per trigger pull. Remember it only takes two shots per trigger pull to run afoul of this regulation, a long burst is not required. Also avoid those lowers with the extra pin hole drilled in them, even without the M16 part that fits there the hole shows intent which is enough to be charged with. Edited May 29, 2012 by retarmyaviator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shooting for M Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I printed out a copy of the actual ATF decision on this very subject. I keep it with my Colt that I put one in for just in case. If your google fu is strong you should be able to find it. I can't remember where i got it from though, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bgary Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 ATF%20M16%20Letter.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentG Posted May 29, 2012 Share Posted May 29, 2012 I forgot to add that my Colt 6933 came with a M-16 carrier from Colt. I have seen this subject discussed a dozen times elsewhere. It's legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRider Posted May 30, 2012 Share Posted May 30, 2012 I just bought a Brand new in the box, current production Colt M4 marked LE6920 (from Walmart) and it has an M16 carrier in it. I have seen Govt carbines come with them also. Hurley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MickB Posted May 31, 2012 Share Posted May 31, 2012 Getting away from the original question. An M-16 bolt carrier is perfectly legal in a semi-auto AR-15 type rifle. I have used SP1 carriers, Colt half circle carriers (both unshrouded firing pin and shrouded "LE" models), M16 carriers, Young "NM" carriers. I could not tell the difference in recoil between any of them.... Mick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now