Model 1 AR kits?

[IdahoG36]

I am thinking about buying a couple of AR kits from Model 1 and building some rifles. Do any of you have experience with these kits? How are they quality wise? Any imput, good or bad, is appreciated. Thanks.

[RockyMtnTactical]

My experiences were some time ago... but I can tell you that I was so unsatisfied that I have sworn never to use them again...

[tkcomer]

Well, I already had a lower, so I bought a 16” varmint upper from them. I stuck a Chip McCormick trigger in the lower and used an old M-16 bolt and carrier that I already had. I just threw the stuff together. So far, not a bit of problem out of it. My blasting reloads shoot around 3” groups at 100 yards. My hunting ammo groups around 2”. My “precision” ammo groups around 1½”, but will get better after I get used to the gun. I shoot 5 shot groups and there is always that one that kills the group. Here's some pics if you want to look at it: http://www.pixagogo.com/0961684563 Click on a pic to make it bigger. Click on Original at the top to really blow the picture up.

[Desert01]

You have the right to speak...

I'm not an expert, but I believe that as odd as is sounds a 16 bolt and carrier in your AR could bring a visit from our freinds....

I'm sure you meant an old AR bolt and carrier. They are so easy to mix up.

Has for my Model 1 kit it worked well enough after I bought enough replacement parts from Rock River to finish putting it together.

[tulsamal]

I've heard that for years myself but now there seems to be some dispute. There was a very long AR15.com thread about it....

Gregg

[tkcomer]

Well, I also have a legal M-16. Had it since '87. This is a spare bolt out of it. Head-spaced it with the gauges and it checked out fine. I have a 24" heavy barrel upper that came off this "parts" gun. Figured I'd keep the AR bolt with it in case I decide to stick that upper back on. But this upper shoots just great. I might end up selling the other upper.

[MHbushmaster]

Your right, you are not expert on the legality of this, there are no NFA rules that apply to Bolt and Bolt Carriers that are from M16's, there is an ATF letter that verifies this.
The NFA applies to lightening links & the DIAS. It has ZILCH to do with the bolt/carrier. One AR lower receiver manufacturer has even gone down the appeasement route so far as to make lowers so they cannot accomodate legally owned NFA parts:barf:
NFA parts that are legally owned and recorded are serialized and papered and are themselves the "machinegun", not the lower, not the upper, not the bolt or bolt carrier.

[ragwd]

I bought a complete upper "model 1". priced so well that it wasn't worth building myself, 4 days from order to my door step. It took about 30 rounds to get it to cycle correctly. If I buy again I would look there first. Just my experience.

[tkcomer]

On mine, only the lower receiver is registered. That's what I bought, a stripped lower receiver. It was $400 for that, $200 for the tax stamp and $150 bucks for the transfer fees as it came from a different state. The rest of the parts were ordered from Quality Parts back then. Right before they became/bought Bushmaster if I remember right. The paperwork does list the caliber as .223 so I've never stuck another caliber top on it. I was temped because back then 7.62X39 was so cheap. But the Model 1 Upper has so far impressed me with the quality versus price. I have shot sub 1 inch groups with it, if you throw out the “flyer”. And those are 5 shot groups. I'm still not sure if it is my reloads or me. I still need more bench time with this gun. I think I've had 3 fail to extract issues in around 400 rounds, but that has to be my bolt or my brass, not the upper. It has never done that with milsurp. Overall I'm quite pleased with the turnout. I have heard bad things on the net about their trigger assemblies, but I can't verify that. I do love that CM trigger though. Makes shooting it a joy.

[USMCG_HMX1]

Originally Posted by MHbushmaster

Your right, you are not expert on the legality of this, there are no NFA rules that apply to Bolt and Bolt Carriers that are from M16's, there is an ATF letter that verifies this.
The NFA applies to lightening links & the DIAS. It has ZILCH to do with the bolt/carrier. One AR lower receiver manufacturer has even gone down the appeasement route so far as to make lowers so they cannot accomodate legally owned NFA parts
NFA parts that are legally owned and recorded are serialized and papered and are themselves the "machinegun", not the lower, not the upper, not the bolt or bolt carrier.

You may want to re-check what you've found.


To my knowledge, ANY parts from an M-16 that are put into an AR-15 turn it into a "machine gun". This includes but is not limited to bolt carriers, hammers, and the safety selector. Bushmaster even says this on their M16 parts online and in their parts catalogs.

If you want solid proof, look up Appendix B, Rulings and ATF Articles (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/nfa_...appendix_b.pdf), and you will see that page 3 clearly states:

IMPORTANT INFORMATION CONCERNING AR-15 TYPE RIFLES

ATF has encountered various AR-15 type rifles such as those manufactured by Colt, E.A. Company, SGW, Sendra and others which have been assembled with fire control components designed for use in M16 machine guns.

The vast majority of these rifles which have been assembled with an M16 bolt carrier, hammer, trigger, disconnector and selector will fire automatically merely by manipulation of the selector or removal of the disconnector. Many of these rifles using less than the 5 M16 parts listed above will also shoot automatically by manipulation of the selector or removal of the disconnector.

Any weapon which shoots automatically, more than 1 shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is a machine gun as defined in 26 U.S.C. 5845(b), the National Firearms Act (NFA). In addition, the definition of machine gun also includes any combination of parts from which a machine gun may be assembled, if such parts are in possession or under the control of a person. An AR-15 type assault rifle which fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger is a machine gun under the NFA. Any machine gun is subject to the NFA and the possession of an unregistered machine gun could the possessor to criminal prosecution.

Additionally, these rifles could pose a safety hazard in that they may fire automatically without the user being aware that the weapon will fire more than 1 shot with a single pull of the trigger.

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.

It is important to note that any modification of the M16 parts should be attempted by fully qualified personnel only.

Should you have any questions concerning AR-15 type rifles with M16 parts, please contact your nearest ATF office. Our telephone numbers are listed in the “United States Government” section of your telephone directory under the “United States Department of Justice.”

To me, this says any M16 parts installed into an AR-15 .... even a safety selector, turn an AR-15 into an illegal machine gun.


That pretty much makes this an easy choice for me.



Kris

[MMcfpd]

What's the difference between an M-16 bolt carrier and an AR-15 Model SP1 bolt carrier? AFAICT the bolt carriers that Colt supplies to the civilian market in new LE6520s and LE6920s are M-16 carriers.

There's a thread on arfcom with a copy of a letter from the BATFE that addresses this - it looks like an M-16 bolt carrier's OK in an AR-15.

[USMCG_HMX1]

SP1's are okay, the M16 is not.





Here is a side by side comparision showing the specific differences between the parts.



Kris

[Desert01]

Get a differant carrier to be on the safe side.

[MMcfpd]

Interesting side discussion regarding full auto bolt carriers; in the picture here, the bolt carrier on the bottom is an M-16 bolt carrier. If you go out and buy a brand new, civilian legal Colt 6920, that's what you're going to find inside it.

[ATW525]

Interesting side discussion regarding full auto bolt carriers; in the picture here, the bolt carrier on the bottom is an M-16 bolt carrier. If you go out and buy a brand new, civilian legal Colt 6920, that's what you're going to find inside it.

When you buy your brand new LE6920 you're also going to get a lower receiver that won't readily accomadate any form of autosear. This makes the Colt potentially a different animal than a rifle with a Bushy, RRA or Stag lower.

[MHbushmaster]

This letter quotes from the Appendix B of the ATF, but goes further to explain that if the rifle does not fire full auto, then using an M16 Bolt/Carrier does not make it a machine gun, thus it is legal to own and considered slightly better for functionality due to being the correct weight for the spec'd bolt/bolt carrier weight.

[USMCG_HMX1]

Not to flame anyone, including MHbushmaster .... but do you REALLY trust this letter to save your butt if, by chance, you did have an M16 BC installed and someone turned you in for it, and you had no tax stamp or Form 4 ?

Appendix B says no and to me that's the end of the story. Granted that installing an M16 BC will not make an AR fire more than one round when you pull the trigger, I just don't want to be (or see anyone for that matter) the lab rat testing the BATFE on it.



Kris

[MHbushmaster]

You bring up a good point and I don't feel flamed. Turth is I don't run a M16 bolt/carrier in my AR's (not by choice really, but because the AR bolts were cheaper and I a cheap bastage like that), but the whole real bottom line is that Appendix B has no teeth in it, the ATF really has not legal right to "legislate" on the topic of NFA (doesn't mean they won't try and do it anyway). The ATF is tax agency and part of the IRS, and they overstep their bounds at every turn. Appendix B is a followup document meant to help clarify how the ATF believes the NFA to be. Unfortunately for the ATF, the NFA is clear about what full auto means, and an M16 bolt/carrier is not, by itself alone in an AR15, it is not going to = full auto.
Sure some ATF monkey could really modify your rifle like you would never do and "tamper with evidence" to find something to throw you in jail after they made it double a few times on soft primers, but that is typical of the tyrannical atrocities of the ATF's track record.
These are the same folks that said a shoelace can be considered a full auto part, and I wear laces in my boots at the range, so yeah, I think the ATF can go take a flying F#@* at a rolling donut for all I care. Heck, half the folks at the range are such ingnorant Fudds that they think my AR15's are full auto just by looks alone. So go ahead, you can use an M16 bolt/carrier, because in the end, if the ATF has it out for you, you are screwed because they will make up something to stick it to you with (well you are wearing shoe laces which could be used to make some rifles full auto so you are getting lockedup, etc), so carry on, be a law abiding subject of our ever increasing socialist country and don't make huge waves and get everyone's attention. M16 bolts are not against the law, they never have been and never can be, but that doesn't mean the ATF cares about "pesky" legalities...

[tulsamal]

In summary, if you have an AR with all AR parts and it somehow starts firing two shots on occasion with one trigger pull, the assumption would be that your rifle is malfunctioning. As long as none of the parts showed evidence of intentional change, you would be all right. But if your AR starts to fire full auto bursts and investigation shows you have any M16 parts, you are screwed because ATF will say that shows you had criminal intent to create a machine gun.

If you want to use an M16 bolt and carrier in your AR, you just need to be SURE that there is no way possible you can "manipulate the rifle" to make it fire two or more shots with one trigger pull.

IMO!

Gregg

[ATW525]

The ATF is tax agency and part of the IRS, and they overstep their bounds at every turn.

The ATF (now the BATFE) hasn't been part of the Treasury Department since 2003. It's currently part of the Department of Justice and no longer performs much of it's former tax collecting duties (with NFA taxes being a notable exception).

[tkcomer]

Wow, look what I got started. I read the debates over on AR15.com. And I saw where the ATF could pull the disconnecter and make it go full auto. But mine has the CM trigger. They would have to remove that as it is a unit type piece that drops in. Then they would have to ADD parts to make it do a short burst. Short of taking the trigger assembly apart, reworking it to get a burst, well, if they do that and charge me, they can darn well do that to any gun and make it do a full auto burst. Besides, the ATF claims if you have M-16 trigger parts and and an AR, you have a machine gun, even if it not assembled. I have all that. Even though they are in a registered gun.

[MHbushmaster]

Good info on the the ATF now being in Justice, I knew that but I guess I had a temporary lapse of sometimers...I even have an FFL
The fact remains, they still over step it bounds at every turn.

I have zero respect for them as an entity, they serve no useful purpose for America and they strive to over legislate and turn ordinary people into criminals, especially when they have to fabricate evidence and use blank search warrants to attain their jack booted goals. heck, they get us quaking in our boots over .3 ounces of metal in our bolt carriers, if that isn't tyranny, what is???

They have moved from being a licensing agency to being a pseudo para-miliatry wing of the government. Excuse me now, I have to untighten my tinfoil hat, because someone keeps walking outside by more door...

[USMCG_HMX1]

I know how you feel about BATFE ..... they truly have turned into jack boot organization. Unfortunately I don't see that changing, nor do I forsee them changing their tactics or a revamp of the organization happening.

It's easier just to steer clear of them and the gray areas they seem to generate and gravitate towards.



Kris

[DarkHorse]

I am not trying to be rude, and I know that I am new, but we seem to have gotten off of the topic of the post.