What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??

[Ughh]

lol it's amazing the amount of admins and moderators that are in this thread... well obviously my amazement is due to the lack of the amount of threads that i've posted overall, i'm sure others have seen more admins and moders in their thread... anyways.

 

[Ughh]

You could put a quality AR-15 upper with a M16 bolt carrier on a full auto lower and it would work. M16 bolt carriers are legal to run in AR-15 rifles, the main difference is a fully shrouded firing pin and a little extra mass. There is almost no difference between a good fully shrouded semi auto BCG and a FA BCG.

Thank you! You are the closest person to give me just a straight forward answer.

which currently is: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

 

[GrimmLV]

McGyver can make it full auto in 2 minutes with a shoelace and some juicy fruit gum.

... of course, because he is an FFL/SOT....

 

[kimbershot]

a military spec lower, proper fire control group, drill out sear hole (you can get tool for 35.), modify upper--(file for sear movement), auto bolt and what the heck how different is that from a store bought? legal-not! is it worth it? eh! shot a m16 at our local range--couldn't hit squat. rather have a semi--more accurate.

 

[MrCleanOK]

which currently is: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

Yes. The bolt carrier is the only FA/Semi-specific part in the upper receiver. Quality of the parts is another discussion, but generally speaking yes it will.

 

[MisterPX]

McGyver can make it full auto in 2 minutes with a shoelace and some juicy fruit gum

Damn near anyone, could make a Mini14/30 or M1A full auto with a shoestring The gum would be for you to chew while you make it

 

[JShirley]

the claim was made that Marshall interviewed many soldiers

That's just it- it was only a claim. Marshall didn't interview all the soldiers he claimed. His "research" has been debunked by authentic historians.

 

[shadowalker]

Interesting I heard the community was still split, some firmly believing his research was not authentic and many others believing it was.

Other countries also observed low firing rates or intentional misses in wars prior to and following WWII.

 

[Corey]

I was an armorer for an SOT for a couple of years. When we needed a beater full auto for testing or training I would just take a regular Bushmaster AR and swap out the trigger, hammer, disconnector, selector, and bolt carrier for the correct M-16 parts and machine the lower receiver to accept an auto-sear that I would install and reassemble the gun. Semi-auto to correct select fire usually took less than 2 hours. Of course, I had all the correct parts and receiver dimensions needed as well as a milling machine. And yes, I did mark the receiver correctly and submit an ATF Form 2. In short, yes it is easy if you have the correct tools and knowledge. Without those tools and knowledge it becomes much harder.

 

[Ughh]

Yes, Thank you for the straight forward answer Corey. This is exactly what I thought prior to even starting this thread: That it's more than just the auto sear, as my E4 buddy believes that it's so easy to do the conversion.

Next time he's on leave i'll just have to convince him.

 

[Ughh]

Isn't Marshall refuted by many other well known guys. If i remember right, Sanow was on his side, but who refuted Marshall & Sanow's works??

Doid Massad Ayoob have anything to say regarding Marshall & Sanow?

 

[Blakenzy]

Proximity of the authority figure to the subject. Marshall noted many
specific World War II incidents in which almost all soldiers would
fire their weapons while their leaders observed and encouraged
them in a combat situation, but when the leaders left, the firing
rate immediately dropped to 15 to 20 percent.

This is from the book "On Killing"

Richard Winters in his book, Beyond Band of Brothers, disputed the 20% claim as far as his men were concerned.

That's probably because he was a strong authority figure, commanding a well trained "elite" unit, and was constantly in the mix of things breathing down their necks, as the TV show seemed to portray.

 

[hso]

AR15 GIF http://mcb-homis.com/blog/trigger-animation.gif

M16 GIF http://mcb-homis.com/blog/m16animation1ww1.gif

 

[Owen]

Ugh,

Define Crap.

 

[jerryd]

Look @ Bushmasters site, all the parts you need are right there, along with a NFA warning about going to Club Fed, if you use them.

 

[Ughh]

Ugh,

Define Crap.

Sigh... not crap, I apologize for my lack of a better word choice. Not as good? I mean, LaRue for example states their uppers can achieve 3/4 MoA accuracy. So not only are some of these better brand models more accurate, they have quality flip up battle sights, and already having quality handguards, etc... Granted, now mil spec states the need for some more accessories for the operator, but the norm and average majority LEO/Mil spec black rifle is very basic: not quad railed, a2 post sights, etc.... Which leads back to my question.

if you did find a FA rifle and you had your own quality upper, then why stick with the lowre quality upper already on it and not use your, perhaps, match grade barrel with all the accessories that you already have on it instead?

Again leading to my ultimate Q: Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

 

[Ughh]

I'm not saying Colt or Bushmaster is bad, actually contrary to.

I'm just saying better is... better!

 

[shadowalker]

Would my civ AR-15 upper with a auto BCG work and function safely if it were mated with a LEO/Mil FA lower receiver?

Yes, other than the BCG the lower is where the FA stuff is at.

A lot of chrome lined barrels are surprisingly accurate, and in full auto fire 1 MOA vs 3/4 MOA isn't going to be significant especially when you consider most fighting happens at less than 300 yards.

Once you get past the basics like good barrel steel, quality MPI barrel and BCG good and better rapidly become subjective.

Some people want rails, some people are completely happy without them. The military does issue some rifles with rails and quality folding backup sights, just depends on what you are doing.

Where feasible my preference is for a fixed backup sight instead of a folding, I have my reasons but someone else may have equally valid reasons for wanting a folding.

 

[JShirley]

Several good historians have reviewed Marshall work, and there is no way he could have interviewed the survey participants he claimed. Whether others since then have bought into his misconclusions does not alter that he fabricated his research.

VFW

"There is no incontrovertible evidence that Marshall ever asked any infantrymen whether they had fired their weapons at the enemy in any interview conducted with any rifle company. That covers those who fought in Europe, and the very small number of prompt after-action interviews we know that he did conduct in the Pacific. None of which necessarily demonstrate his alleged discovery of the ratio of fire.

This means there is no hard evidence for Marshall’s ratio of fire. Marshall seems to have invented his systematic debriefings of those 400-600 rifle companies...Research revealed that on Makin Island in the Pacific, Marshall’s after-action interviews showed that green troops did not fail to fire, they fired too much...

the news that Marshall had invented his statistics has not stopped historians and journalists from quoting him, and them. Since 1989, however, some military historians noted that Marshall’s ratio of fire is at best doubtful. They include Michael D. Doubler, John C. McManus, Russell W. Glenn and James B. McPherson (writing on the American Civil War)."

That Marshall's research was a complete fabrication (and in fact impossible with his time constraints) was also expressed to me by Hubert van Tuyll, history chair at ASU and author of Castles, Battles, and Bombs, Feeding the Bear, American's Strategic Future, and The Netherlands and World War I.

The point is, that American training focusing on high volumes of fire was based on a flawed assumption based on concocted research and errant social theory.

John

 

[alan]

Supposedly, there are internal differences in the receivers/actions of commercial AR-15's and their military equivalents that preclude conversion. Then obtaining the necessary bits and pieces is another matter, and doing the conversion absent the required "hoop jumping" presents serious legal problems, no matter what one might think of present law an it's interpretations.

Then, looking at an argument portrayed in Jurassic Park, the film, one character argues for the recreation of ancient creatures, because "we can do it". Just because we can do something is not necessarily sufficient reason for us to actually do it, argues his opponent. It is something to think about.

 

[Ranb]

I have also read claims saying new recruits during WWII that were trained to aim carefully during infantry training were told by their more experienced comrades on the front to pour out as much fire as they could when in a firefight. There is much conflicting info out there.

Ranb

 

[RippinSVT]

Don't confuse "gun cleaner and basic parts R&R guy" with a real armorer. Every cocky young military dude claims to be an "armorer" or whatever, and due to their basic enlistment was telepathically engrained with knowledge of any and all firearms. Some of the most gun-dumb people I know are cocky-ass 20 year old airmen and privates.


The good young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen don't run their mouths with delusions of grandeur...they also don't wash out or get forced into BS jobs.

 

[MisterPX]

Maybe he is an "armoroer", a 92 series, a guy who can clean rifles, and install handguards.

Now if he was a"small arms repairman", 45B he might know what he was talking about

 

[Ughh]

Don't confuse "gun cleaner and basic parts R&R guy" with a real armorer. Every cocky young military dude claims to be an "armorer" or whatever, and due to their basic enlistment was telepathically engrained with knowledge of any and all firearms. Some of the most gun-dumb people I know are cocky-ass 20 year old airmen and privates.


The good young soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen don't run their mouths with delusions of grandeur...they also don't wash out or get forced into BS jobs.

Is this addressed to me?

No, i don't think so because we also blabbed on about rifle cleaning and Militec vs CLP over there, and he's always telling me how much he got tired of receiving dirty guns for servicing only to return them back to the its owner to get them to clean it themselves before resubmitting them for service. On some occasions, he would return them to higher ranking soldiers only to say 'sir, you need to clean this.'

I've known this guy since high school, he's not really the over-exaggerating type when he tells stories like some ppl are.

 

[alan]

At the risk of oversimplification, the "diff" between full automatic and is made obvious by the wording.

A fully automatic firearm will fire for as long as the trigger is held back, given an unbroken supply of ammunition, The foregoing sets aside the possibility of stoppages caused by mechanical failures, overheating and just plain "dirt". A semi-automatic firearm will fire a single shot, each time it's trigger is actuated, all other factors being equal. I would think that that is the end of the story. Regarding the conversion of one to or from the other, that is an entirely different question, involving basic design features and the status of the law, among other considerations.

While interesting points have been raised in this discussion, respecting what seems the basis of the discussion, the question of "What's the diff btwn Full-A and Semi-A??" appears to have perhaps been lost sight of. Of course, perhaps I'm wrong here.