When did the ATF mandate changes to AR-15 receivers?
- Thread starter Wolfsbane
- Start date
- Status
dogtown tom
Member
I'm not sure they "mandated changes", as pretty much any AR receiver can be converted. Some manufacturers chose to machine their lowers to not allow installation of certain conversion parts.....but it wasn't ATF mandating such. (Colt for example)
GaryNC
Member
I know a little and do not know everything about ARs. I do know that "high shelf and low shelf" receivers make a difference. I also know that the BCG must be an M-16 BCG or one that can fire full auto. Some Colt receivers had a Sear block in them from the factory. Receivers with a third hole also are considered a machine gun.
As I understand it, one can purchase the parts to make an AR-15 full auto with a Form 4 and $200 tax stamp but it is not just that simple.
The links in the message will give one a start on some of the complexities of doing this.
I am sure others more knowledgeable than I will be along to help out with more info.
As I understand it, one can purchase the parts to make an AR-15 full auto with a Form 4 and $200 tax stamp but it is not just that simple.
The links in the message will give one a start on some of the complexities of doing this.
I am sure others more knowledgeable than I will be along to help out with more info.
MachIVshooter
Member
And Colt took it several steps further with different pin sizes and cutting away a great deal of the bolt carrier.
It takes all of about 15 minutes on a mill to hog out a lower for M16 fire control parts and drill the auto sear hole, but if you're not an SOT manufacturer, doing so is worth a decade in club fed and a hundred grand in fines, with the bonus of losing gun and voting rights for life.
AlexanderA
Member
ATF has never specifically mandated how a semiautomatic AR-15 lower receiver must be configured, other than it must not have the "third hole." In the early days, there were informal talks between the ATF and the sole manufacturer at the time (Colt) that resulted in many changes from the M16. This was an ongoing process, and it can be argued that Colt overdid it. Later, when non-Colt makers entered the market, they started making lowers that were closer to the M16, with no adverse consequences to them. Even Colt started using full-automatic bolt carriers in its new production (with eventual ATF approval).
CapnMac
Member
@AlexanderA has the right of it.
But, it was well before the Hughes Amendment, dating back to the first release of the SP-1, so, close to to two decades, maybe.
AlexanderA
Member
Before the Hughes Amendment, an individual could file a Form 1 and legally convert an AR-15 to full automatic. That isn't possible any more. But this has nothing to do with the physical difficulty of doing so.
My personal opinion is that this was always wasted effort. I own both fully-automatic M16s and semi AR-15s, and there is little difference, in terms of effectiveness, between them.
The critical date was 1964. If the AR-15 was going to be banned, that was the time to do so. The AR-15 is here to stay. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back in.
My personal opinion is that this was always wasted effort. I own both fully-automatic M16s and semi AR-15s, and there is little difference, in terms of effectiveness, between them.
The critical date was 1964. If the AR-15 was going to be banned, that was the time to do so. The AR-15 is here to stay. Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, there's no putting it back in.
MachIVshooter
Member
Except for the 10/22, our post samples really only get dusted off to do destructive testing on cans or entertain customers. Pretty much just turn expensive ammo into noise. Scratch the full auto itch once in awhile, but otherwise, it's a lot more fun to actually hit what you're aiming at, and to do so with hosts that suppress better than autoloaders.
Even the select fire 10/22 doesn't see that much use, far, far less than the rimfire bolt & lever actions. Even though full auto .22s are amusing, you pretty much spend all your time loading magazines that are empty in about 1.3 seconds, rather detracts from the fun.
Okay, I'll be a bit more specific.
I've been looking into if the ongoing supplying of AR-15s, M60s and other arms to the IRA in the 70s and 80s by American sympathizers had any bearing on the Hughes Amendment being passed. Reagan and Thatcher had a uniquely close relationship. US arms going to the IRA was a contentious issue.
Trying to see if the arms were going over as selective fire or modified over there. If that played a part in the passage of the Hughes Amendment.
I've been looking into if the ongoing supplying of AR-15s, M60s and other arms to the IRA in the 70s and 80s by American sympathizers had any bearing on the Hughes Amendment being passed. Reagan and Thatcher had a uniquely close relationship. US arms going to the IRA was a contentious issue.
Trying to see if the arms were going over as selective fire or modified over there. If that played a part in the passage of the Hughes Amendment.
Last edited:
MachIVshooter
Member
Why would government exports have any bearing on domestic policy?
We'll likely never know all the details, but aside from antis having wanted to close the MG registry for a long time prior, the Hughes amendment was meant to poison pill Volker-McClure.
They weren't government exports. They firearms procured by Americans and surreptitious sent to Ulster to equip the IRA. To be used against British troops and Royal Ulster Constabulary.
The British government was obviously unhappy about this.
MachIVshooter wrote:
Why would government exports have any bearing on domestic policy?
We'll likely never know all the details, but aside from antis having wanted to close the MG registry for a long time prior, the Hughes amendment was meant to poison pill Volker-McClure.
The British government was obviously unhappy about this.
MachIVshooter wrote:
Why would government exports have any bearing on domestic policy?
We'll likely never know all the details, but aside from antis having wanted to close the MG registry for a long time prior, the Hughes amendment was meant to poison pill Volker-McClure.
CapnMac
Member
No, the anti's were mad that any restrictions were being rolled back, and wanted to try and "poison pill" the legislation.
Which is why they were will to overlook the semi-illegal nature of how the Amendment was passed in the first place (Hughes literally was a "last second" amendment, and there is still some acrimony over just "when" it was passed--the problem being was that this was at the very end of a much-negotiated and very-leveraged deal that was seen as a "must pass.")
Most of the confiscated arms in Ireland were flat out illegal at their source as well as where they were found.
AlexanderA
Member
As CapnMac said, the Hughes Amendment was a last-minute poison pill intended to kill FOPA. Reagan looked for guidance from the NRA on whether to sign it. The NRA had too much invested in FOPA, and they felt the ban could be overturned, so they gave Reagan the go-ahead. This was the greatest mistake the NRA ever made.
MachIVshooter
Member
I disagree. While we all lament the Hughes Amendment, consider where we'd be without FOPA. Passing it was the right call.
Elkins45
Member
That’s debatable. The only part of FOPA that I really benefited from was allowing brass and bullets to be shipped. “Safe transport” is routinely ignored by overzealous cops, so pretty much the list of states I’m comfortable taking a gun into wouldn’t be much different. The only factory ammo I buy is defensive handgun and 22 so having to have it logged by the seller wouldn’t really be much of a hassle.
I suppose being able to order brass and bullets is a net benefit to me over being able to buy an affordable machine gun, but there are days I might waver. It sure would be nice to do both...
Jim Watson
Member
The legend at one time was that Colt made the AR15 so different from M16 to make installation of full auto parts difficult was sucking up to the Feds and keeping them sweet on then sole source orders for military rifles.
AlexanderA
Member
The expiration of the Armalite patents (after 20 years) is what allowed the market to open up for more "modular" competitors. Otherwise Colt would have continued diverging the AR-15 from the M16.
dogtown tom
Member
Well, being that "selective fire" firearms are NFA and require registration and a $200 tax...........its not just unlikely, but improbable that any were exported to Northern Ireland.
Or to Mexico for that matter. It's just cheaper to do it yourself.
dogtown tom
Member
You have to be kidding.
Benefits of FOPA extend far beyond shipping "brass and bullets"......among them:
- Forbids the government from keeping a registry of Title I (non NFA) firearms linking them to the owner.
- "Safe passage" while traveling.
- Limited ATF to no more than one compliance inspection per year for those holding an FFL.
- Restricted ATF access to dealer records to prevent harassment or abuse.
- Expanded FFL's rights to appeal license revocations.
- Required proof of a "willful" violation for a criminal conviction.
- Allowed awarding of attorney fees against the United States for unsuccessful criminal prosecutions.
- Eliminated the "contiguous state" restriction on sales of rifles and shotguns.
- Removed the recordkeeping requirements on ammunition sales (except for armor piercing).
- Provided a clear definition of what "engaged in the business" means.
- Allowed those who received a pardon or had their conviction set aside to again possess firearms.
- Allowed FFL's to sell at gun shows. (prior to FOPA dealers could only do business from their premises)
- ATF "rulemaking" was now required to have ninety days notice.
A good read for anyone who thinks FOPA and the NRA screwed gun owners: https://guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html
Elkins45
Member
You have to be kidding.
Benefits of FOPA extend far beyond shipping "brass and bullets"......among them:
- Forbids the government from keeping a registry of Title I (non NFA) firearms linking them to the owner. OK, but doing so would have required either legislation or so much administrative regulation change it could have been fought as a separate issue.
- "Safe passage" while traveling. I mentioned this. NY and NJ seem perfectly happy to ignore this as they please. It’s more a theoretical win than an actual one in the states where it is needed most.
- Limited ATF to no more than one compliance inspection per year for those holding an FFL. NA to me.
- Restricted ATF access to dealer records to prevent harassment or abuse. NA to me.
- Expanded FFL's rights to appeal license revocations. NA to me.
- Required proof of a "willful" violation for a criminal conviction. That’s a plus I was unaware of.
- Allowed awarding of attorney fees against the United States for unsuccessful criminal prosecutions. Thankfully NA to me so far.
- Eliminated the "contiguous state" restriction on sales of rifles and shotguns. Nice, but not a big deal to me. I’ve never purchased a gun from a non-contiguous state.
- Removed the recordkeeping requirements on ammunition sales (except for armor piercing). I mentioned this.
- Provided a clear definition of what "engaged in the business" means. I will have to push back on this. I’ve seen too many discussions here and seen the ATF FAQ about this, and about the lack of a “ bright line.”
- Allowed those who received a pardon or had their conviction set aside to again possess firearms. NA
- Allowed FFL's to sell at gun shows. (prior to FOPA dealers could only do business from their premises) There’s a case made by some old timers that gun shows were not made better by this change. My first gun show was in 1990 so I have no opinion on the matter.
- ATF "rulemaking" was now required to have ninety days notice. No way of knowing if this has made a real difference. There’s no objective data to suggest the longer comment period has made any difference in final rulings.
A good read for anyone who thinks FOPA and the NRA screwed gun owners: https://guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html
Not kidding. I didn’t say it was a hill worth dying on but there is a case to be made, especially since I’m not seeing it thru the lens of an FFL holder. Rather than snip and paste a million times I added comments in red to the quoted text above.
It probably was a plus when you consider the positives for FFLs, if only because making life easier for dealers makes it easier for consumers to find the guns they want at competitive prices, but it didn’t exactly rock my world either. The final decision comes down to how much you value being able to own affordable machine guns. I’ll certainly agree that those guys who saw their $1K matchine guns skyrocket to $25K in a few years are big fans of FOPA.
AlexanderA
Member
Well, in that sense it's been a windfall for me, but I'm still not a fan of the Hughes Amendment.
dogtown tom
Member
True, but its nice to know that because of FOPA.....it can't happen without a change to federal law.
It's part of the law that the courts have so far failed to give much credence. They haven't been inclined to slap down those states or cities that choose to ignore safe passage.
You wouldn't push back if you knew what it like before FOPA.....there being no definition at all. That meant ATF was free to prosecute collectors and other nonlicensees simply for selling their own collections at gun shows.
And those old timers were by and large ignorant of why. Nothing prevented those old timers from selling what they sold prior to FOPA. But FOPA defining "engaged in the business" which meant quite a few of those old timers needed to get an FFL. FOPA didn't affect gun shows nearly as much as the GCA '68.
Of course its made a difference! Remember 2015? Remember the proposed ban on M855 "green tip"? Remember how that ninety day comment period riled Congress?
I do.
While the comment period may not completely stop the implementation of a new regulation, it most definitely can delay such implementation.
Elkins45
Member
As I said, there’s no way to objectively determine whether the outcome would have been any different with a different commentary period. Assigning a degree of impact of a 90 day commentary period is speculative, even if it seems reasonable.
MachIVshooter
Member
That's an easy one. Even before I was an FFL who could appreciate the other half of FOPA protections, I was still glad it passed.
A ban on machine guns was coming one way or another regardless, most likely would have just been another provision of the '94 VCCLA. If you don't recall, gun rights were in a bad way in the late 80s and early 90s, and the antis had the votes to ram through anything they could sell as "reasonable" to a general population that was much less 2A cognizant & friendly. Firearm homicides were far, far higher than they are today, and regardless of the actual reasons, gun control was a pretty easy sell at the time.
Besides, though fun on occasion, machine guns are really rather useless. We have several post samples, and they pretty much only come out to test cans or maybe entertain a customer. When you're paying for the ammo that's being turned into noise, the novelty wears off real fast. I can build whatever I want, whenever I want, yet I only have the ones I need to legitimately test and call my cans "full auto rated". I'd rather consume ammo more slowly and have a relaxed time hitting what I'm aiming at with suppressed bolt and lever guns than dump $20 worth of ammo in under 2 seconds.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
