12.7'' barrel + AAC Blackout FH M.I.T.E.R. mount = Legal non registered SBR?

[bkb0000]

Eh, I know it is "common practice" however the point I was trying to make was where is it written where it says it is "ok?"

i refer to the last paragraph of my reply:

the only reason the STANDARD bolt carrier group is identified as the "m16" BCG is because Colt came out with a supposedly "AR15" BCG that wouldn't operate an autosear. they did this on their own, along with their big hole uppers, large FCG pins, and shelf blocks, to CYA in the event the firearms industry ever became the target of civil suits. otherwise, the question never would have come up, and all we'd have would be one basic cut of carrier

it's not an inherently "m16" part to begin with, as i said. it's just identified as "m16" because an alternative came out, and people are lazy and nicknames stick. more importantly, however- the ATF doesn't have to say something is OK for it to be OK... it's the exact opposite- they have to say something is NOT OK for it to be not-ok.

there are probably a handful of copy/pastes of letters people have received from the ATF floating around on this website that do state, specifically, that it's OK to have a STANDARD (I'm gonna start calling it "standard" instead of "m16") BCG... if you spend some time googling/searching, you can most assuredly find them. that doesn't really address your original concern about taking other people's memos for it. but they'll send you the same letter they send everyone.

[lwhazmat5]

This doesn't make any sense. Why would you need an RDIAS is you already have FA components? Could you clarify which components are you talking about?

A RDIAS will not function with AR15 components. More specifically a M16 hammer, bolt carrier, disconnector, and trigger are needed for a RDIAS to work.
Sorry for being so vague & hope this clarifies it a bit!

[lwhazmat5]

i refer to the last paragraph of my reply:



it's not an inherently "m16" part to begin with, as i said. it's just identified as "m16" because an alternative came out, and people are lazy and nicknames stick. more importantly, however- the ATF doesn't have to say something is OK for it to be OK... it's the exact opposite- they have to say something is NOT OK for it to be not-ok.

there are probably a handful of copy/pastes of letters people have received from the ATF floating around on this website that do state, specifically, that it's OK to have a STANDARD (I'm gonna start calling it "standard" instead of "m16") BCG... if you spend some time googling/searching, you can most assuredly find them. that doesn't really address your original concern about taking other people's memos for it. but they'll send you the same letter they send everyone.

Have you read the NFA Handbook? If you look at pp 140-141 the ATF does not call it anything but a M16 Bolt Carrier. You have basically responded with subjective information. The whole point of me asking the questions that I did was because I wanted somebody to respond that had concrete, objective evidence. I understand the points you are making, but where did you get this info from? What I am looking at is an ATF Published Handbook from which my question(s) arose.

On page 141 it says, "In order to avoid violations of the NFA, M16 hammers, triggers, disconnectors, selectors, and bolt carriers must no be used in assembly of AR15 type semiautomatic rifles, unless the the M16 parts have been modified to AR15 Model SP1 configuration."

This is why I wanted to see if anybody had concrete information, not hear say, from the BATFE about this topic. I do not doubt the information you put out on this forum. It's just that I do not feel it would serve me a lick of good if I was to potentially get in trouble for having an AR15 with a M16 BC.

[jp0319]

Oh and one thing I havent see mentioned is that if you pin the AAC mount and try to use the suppressor on it you void the warranty of the suppressor.