Weapons stolen from U.S. Army Reserve armory in Massachusetts
Source: Washington Times
The FBI is continuing its search for weapons stolen during a break-in late Saturday night at the United States Army Reserve armory in Worcester, Massachusetts.
Officials confirmed Sunday afternoon that several weapons are missing from the armory, but would not disclose the number or types of weapons that were stolen, a local CBS News affiliate reported.
Sources told CBS that six semi-automatic rifles and 10 pistols were stolen from a gun locker. A separate report by The Daily Beast cited a law enforcement source who said six M4 assault rifles, 10 pistols, and several long guns were taken from the armory.
Kristen Setera, spokeswoman for Boston Special Agent-in-Charge Harold H. Shaw, said the weapons have been entered into NCIC, a national database, and federal, state and local law enforcement have been alerted, the Boston Herald reported.
<more>
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/nov/16/weapons-stolen-from-us-army-reserve-armory-in-mass/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tabasco
(22,974 posts)and the perp identified.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I have 8 security cameras active at a times at my restaurant. No one can shut them off but me. None of my managers have the code to access the system. I can't imagine they don't have some similar set up at the armory...
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)And the general who overlooked the $328 million program that trained 200 syrian rebels (of whom <5 are still in the field in Syria) is up for a promotion.
I would NOT go to "competence" as a default-explanation why things happen in the US-military.
dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)I may be wrong about that but I understand your main point.
jmowreader
(50,559 posts)happyslug
(14,779 posts)But the Federal Government retains the right to get them back and the State can NOT sell them without Federal Permission. Thus the weapons are for all practical purposes still under the control of the Federal Government. Any loss of any weapon is a Federal Crime. Thus the State and Federal Government will work together to find these weapons.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)This was probably a soldier in the unit who forged an arms room key or something.
I bet the crime is solved pretty quickly.
wordpix
(18,652 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)The "Latest Breaking News" standards are slipping.
erronis
(15,286 posts)Not that I could really G.A.S. but is that lowly toilet-paper rag connected to the even lower murdock empire?
Of course, greed and loathing are always part of that genetic mental deficit (RW conservatism.)
apnu
(8,756 posts)
getagrip_already
(14,757 posts)The m14 went out of service in 1970. Anyone stealing from a us arsenal faces more prison time than they could reasonably expect to outlive.
Why bother? Sure, you can probably sell them to collectors, but is the risk really worth the reward when all you have to do is go to a gun show and put down a (very) little amount of cash?
Not exactly your modern day assault weapon.
So again, why bother?
People continue to surprise me.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)it's an M4 (carbine) not an M14. Not an antique.
getagrip_already
(14,757 posts)It does say m4, different beast.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)shoots a big bullet.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The M14 is a heavy rifle, but NOT heavy enough for most people to shoot in auto mode and hit anything. The Automatic mode was intended for the M14 to replace the M1918 BAR, but it never did. The main reason why is that the M1918 BAR weighed 19 pounds, thus twice the weight of the M14, and as such the bare minimum weight to fire in an auto mode and hit anything:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1918_Browning_Automatic_Rifle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
The BAR also had a buffer in its rear stock (an idea copied into the M16). The BAR heavy and complex mechanism also added to its success for it added to the weight of the BAR. To get the system to work the BAR ended up as a very complex machine compared to the M1 and M14 and even the M16. Efforts were made to make the M14 into a replacement for the BAR, but both the M15 and the M14A1 both were viewed as failures do to inability to be controlled in automatic fire (both were to LIGHT, even when given heavier barrels and stocks).
The US Army noted once the BAR was declared "Obsolete" in 1957, the Army and Marines did not actually have a replacement till the adoption of the M249 in the late 1970s (and the M249 was the M1918 BAR with modifications including a reduction in caliber to 5.56 NATO. The M249's barrel could be exchanged when it became to hot, and the M249 could fire from a large box magazine. Technically the M249 could use M16 magazines, but the reports I have read said such use was rare for it rarely worked. Other then that and its weight (20 pounds) I have not heard anything bad about the M249, except the one's in use may be 30 years old and need replaced do to be being worn out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun
The RPK-74 weighs in at 12 pounds, but firing a much weaker round then the M14. It does NOT have a quick change barrel, but is known to be very reliable in the automatic mode do to its lighter round AND heavier overall weight compared to the M14 (experience in Iraq and Afghanistan have seem to show the better option is a 12 pound auto weapon on the squad level compared to the 20 pound weapon, thus the US Marines adoption of the M27, a beefed up M16 much like the RPK-74 is a beefed up AK-74).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPK#RPK-74
Please note, one of the reason the Marines want the M27 is Marine fighting doctrine is much more aggressive then US Army fighting doctrine, this has been a known difference between the two services since before WWII. Thus the lighter weight of the M27 means a greater ability to maneuver on foot, you give up firepower for movement but that has been the tendency of the Marines since WWII.
Just a comment that while the M14 has an automatic feature, you better off NOT using it. Furthermore the M14 was designed so that commanders could remove that feature in the field and most rifles actually issued had that featured removed in the field. M14 sold as surplus must have the mechanism modified so the switch for automatic fire can NOT be added.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)One of the problems with the M16 is lack of power and range. The M14 supplies that power and range but at reduced fire power. When the US went into Afghanistan and Iran, several units adopted a Red Army tactic of issuing a M14 to one riflemen per squad to provide long range power to the squad. This was a tactic used by US forces in the 1960s in Vietnam, men who wanted to retain their M14s were permitted to do so and this was found to be an effective combination with the M16 providing fire power.
The M14 is finally being replaced by a modernized version of the AR-10 (which is a 7.62x52 mm AR-15).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
The Marine Corp "Designated Marksmen Rifle" (Modernized M14):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marine_Corps_Designated_Marksman_Rifle
The M39 Rifle, was a further enhancement of existing M14 rifles:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M39_Enhanced_Marksman_Rifle
In 2008 the Marines adopted the M110 to replace the M39. the M110 is based on the AR-15 action:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M110_Semi-Automatic_Sniper_System
One of the affect of all of this is the M14 has passed the M1903 as the longest rifle life in use by the US Army (the US Army kept using the M1903 till Vietnam as a Sniper rifle, but withdrew them before 1968, they being replaced by Sniper versions of the M1 and M14 rifles).
I mention the Russians for the Russians, when they adopted the SKS and then the AK-47 rifle, retained their bolt action rifle in their platoons. Those bolt action rifles were replaced by 7.62x54R marksmen's rifle at the platoon level (Red Army Platoons are about 1/3 smaller then western platoons). The reasons the Russians kept those larger caliber rifles was to given each platoon the ability to hit objects at a distance, something the AK-47 was NOT designed to do. Both the Russians and Western Armies have seen that completely replacing full power rifles in small units was NOT the way to go, so you are seeing rifles like the M14 return to use in small numbers.
Dyedinthewoolliberal
(15,575 posts)those of us who trained on the M14 are 'old corps'.......... 
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In most National Guard Armories, unless someone is present, the bolts to the rifles are stored away from the rifles. Generally the bolts are stored in the armory of nearby Police Armory. Yes, M-16s and M-4 Carbines have bolts and are removed from their weapon and stored separately unless the unit is going on maneuvers OR has something else going on that the rifles and carbines have to be the National Guard Armory. The movement of those bolts to and from the Armory is the duty of the Armorer or other full timer.
The weapons without a bolt is useless except as a decoration. Thus the issue were the bolts with the weapons? Now, you can obtain after market replacement bolts, and I suspect that is what the FBI is looking for, i.e. someone buying a new bolt for their AR-15. Bolts rarely break, parts inside them break, but not the bolt as a whole. The most common failure are the firing pins, but that is easy to replace. In these weapons, if the bolts were stored elsewhere, the people who stole these weapons would need new bolts for these weapons. The FBI will be looking for people buying bolts for AR-15 type weapons and for the other weapons missing,
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)confused regarding the M4, the M16 and the AR15
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 12:32 PM - Edit history (2)
And the M4 is an M16 with a 16 inch or smaller barrel. All three have removable bolts which are stored separately from the weapons except when it comes time to train with those weapons. My comment was directed to these bolts, are they missing? If yes, we have problems. If no, then the problems are relatively minor.
Please note, what later became known as the AR-15 started out as the AR-10 firing a 7.62x51mm NATO round with a fiberglass barrel. The Fiberglass barrel did not work out and was replaced by a Conventional Steel barrel in the mid 1950s when it was being rested (along with what would become the M14 and the FN FAL) as the replacement for the M1 rifle.
As the US adopted the M14 in 1957 Eugene Stoner redesign his AR-10 to the smaller 5.56x45 round and called it the AR-15. This was adopted by the US Air Force in 1959 to replace the various M1 Carbines and Rifles used by Air Force Guards around Air Forces bases (When the AR-15 was adopted by the Air Force, it received the US Military designation of M16). A set of AR-15s were also sent to Vietnam for use by South Vietnamese Troops for testing. Given the nature of US Air Force use (i.e. troops in barracks) and South Vietnamese troops of the time period (Also Barrack troops) the problem with the lack of a Chrome chamber never came up (Barracks troops can clean their weapons daily). The AR-15 was liked by both set of troops for the Russians were sending SKS to the Viet Cong, and until the AR-15, the SKS produced more fire power then the weapons being used by the South Vietnamese Army. The US Army adopted the AR-15 (Modified with a bolt asset that is absent on M16 but readily seen in M16A1s and later models) as the M16A1 in 1964 for similar reasons (and that Russia was sending AK-47 to the North Vietnamese by 1964). Once the problem with a lack of a chrome chamber was fixed (by chroming the chambers) the M16 became a well liked weapons. The M16 is more picky about ammunition then the AK series of weapons but the US has always maintain good ammunition to troops using the M16.
In the 1990s it was decided that the 20 inch barrel of the M16 was no longer needed, that a 16 inch barrel, as used in the Ak-47 and AK-74 was good enough and thus the M4 Carbine was born, a M16 with a 16 inch or shorter barrel. I have read reports of question on this change with some soldiers reporting problem do to the lack of power of the round. The 5.56x45 round was designed to be fired from a 20 inch barrel, any round out of the M4's 16 inch barrel is going to be slower and weaker. At the same time I have read reports that the Soviet AK-74 firing a 5.45x39 round did NOT have this problem, for it was designed to be fired out of a 16 inch barrel (and I have also read of no problem with the Ak-47 and its 7.62x39 inch round, through it was designed to be fired from a 20 inch barrel, but being 7.62 in diameter it is heavier and thus slower then the 5.56 and 5.45 rounds, thus the reduction in barrel length had less affect on the power of the 7.62x39 round then the 5.56x45 round.
Please note in the above mention of "rounds" the second number is the Shell of the round measured in millimeters. 39 mm is 6 mm smaller shorter then 45mm and thus the Russian rounds all have less powder in them then American Rounds and thus slower speeds. Remember the speed of the round is based on how much powder is burned in addition to the weight of the bullet. 7.62 mm rounds tend to be heavier, and thus slower then 5.56mm rounds, but at the same time more powerful do to their heavier weight.
My point is the AR-15, M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine use the same basic action, all have bolts that can be removed easily (And the AR-10 also uses that same basic action). Those bolts then go into specially made cloth wraps with many pockets each pocket marked with the number of the Rifle or Carbine the bolt belongs to. These are then taken to an armory that is maned fulled time, Bolts to Machine guns and other weapons are handled the same way. By separating the bolt from the weapon, stealing one without the other makes the thrift useless. This has been done since at least the 1930s, when John Dillinger main source of weapons were Police Stations and National Guard Armories (And in that order).
Side Note: After the US Army adopted the AR-15 as the M16 Armalite (Where the AR-15 had been designed) made changes and called its new design the AR-18. The AR-18 was a modification of the AR-15 action with the better parts of the AK, the best known change was that the direct gas system of the AR-15 was replaced by a AK mechanical gas system (and the buffer system of the AR-15 was dropped) The AR-18 as heavier then the AR-15 but lighter then the AK (And in the late 1960s the AR-18 seriously considered as a replacement for the M16). Many of the weapons adopted in the west used the AR-18 as their starting point but the AR-18 itself had limited use. I mention the AR-18 for, like the rest of the AR series of weapons, it has an easily removable bolt, that like other bolts can be stored away from their weapons if you want have maximum security over weapons.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I happen to walk into the Base Armory to speak with the Gunny in charge about some problems we were having with our M-16a1's. In the course of our conversation the subject of the BAR came up. Gunny then took me to the back rows of the Arnms Storage area. There I gazed upon a rack of 50 new looking BAR's along with the web gear and a bunch of mags in boxes.
I asked if anybody ever checked one out for range time, he said no, not in several years. A few days later me and my Capt. checkek out 2, along with 20 mags and 500 rds of ammo.
HAD A BLAST!!! From a prone tripod rest it was easy to place 3/5 on a man size target at 300yds.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)By the time my father hit the beach, it had already been taken but he was in combat by 9:00 am, while he walked up the beach he looked for any discarded weapons. He wanted a M3 Submachine gun, given the nature of the hedgerow it would have given his squad additional firepower, but all he saw was a loose BAR and he picked it up, thinking once out of the hedgerows, its longer range would be better then any submachine gun.
Thus my father squad (which he was the Sargarent of) had two BARs for a couple of weeks, till people higher up saw him with the extra BAR and took it away from him. He liked the fire power of the BAR and he was willing to carry the extra weight for the additional fire power.
Now one of the reason the US Army only issued one BAR to an infantry squad was the BAR cost almost as much as five M1s. Worse, given that the BAR was a Machine gun, it had to be rebuilt due to the need to replace parts, including the barrel, about 10 times before the M1s had to be rebuilt (and one of the reason the US did NOT push the Russians out of Berlin in 1945 was the US Army stock of M1s and BARs in Europe all needed replaced for most were at the end of their service life by May 1945).
Now, the US Army, like most Armies, when a war ends, they rebuild the weapons they had used before putting them in storage. The reasons for this is simple, if war comes you will need the weapons THEN not six months from THEN, thus take the time to rebuild them BEFORE you put them to storage. Thus your story of seeing almost new BARs is believable. I remember seeing all types of 1898 Mausers being for sale in the 1990s as the end of the Cold War lead a lot of nations to get rid of their old War Stocks, which included a lot of 1989 Mausers.
Remember a barrel last about 20,000 to 25,000 rounds. Now, most of the time in training we ended up shooting blanks thus minimal barrel wear, but in actual combat you can wear out a barrel quickly. Most combat last only about 20 minutes, at which time the unit either withdraw to get more ammunition or win or lose the fight. With the Springfield and its 14 rounds a minites capacity, you are looking at 300 rounds being fire per firefight. With the M1 and its 30 rounds a minutes, you are looking 600 rounds per firefight.
As a small arms Instructor you probably did NOT have to address the issue of barrel wear, for hopefully the weapons you were using had been rebuilt (or new) and thus the barrels actually gave spin to the bullets going through the barrel. Part of the inspection of a unit is measuring the barrel wear of the weapons so to report a new for them to be replaced. Weapons are also replaced by other weapons on a set schedule to do such maintenance.
Now, I served in a National Guard unit and we fired our weapons about once a year, fired about 20 rounds and then fired nothing but blanks in them the rest of the year. Thus our M16s could last for decades without being needed to be rebuilt. Think about it, 20 rounds over 10 years is only 200 rounds, 1% of 20,000 rounds a barrel can shoot. Such rifles can last 1000 years of such usage (Through that is disregarding cleaning the weapons, which we also did and such cleaning has SOME affect on the barrel).
Thus assuming one firefight a day, the Springfield needed a new barrel after 2 months of daily heavy combat. The M1 after about a month and a half, the M16 in about a month, but the BAR and its tendency to eat ammunition, you can wear out that barrel within a week.
Now most combat is NOT daily and most soldiers do not fire all of the ammunition they are carrying in all of their fire fights, but the above gives you an idea of why the BAR was restricted to one per squad during WWII. In any type of heavy combat a BAR will need to be rebuilt 10 times sooner then the rest of the other weapons in an infantry squad. Machine guns, even the Model 1917 and its NON quick change barrel, have new barrels installed them on a regular basis for that same reason. Some of this work can be done by the unit armorer, but most are done higher up in the change of command.
During WWII, the US had a severe problem with supply, mostly transport. The US Navy reported that the US merchant marine and the US Navy could only support 100 divisions overseas (The US Army ended up with 90 Divisions and the Marines 10). The Germans fielded 425 divisions, the Russians over 600. I bring this up for replacing worn out weapons is one of the job of supply and if to many rounds were fired, you may end up with units with weapons that can no longer hit their targets. Thus the restrictions on the number of BARS in US Army units during WWII. This was changed by Korea to two BARS (and the Marines adopted two BARS in the Pacific during WWII) but the restriction was due to supply problems not anything to do with the troops not having better weapons.
Please note, if you end up firing blanks during training, you have almost no barrel wear (except due to cleaning the barrel after use) thus such weapons can be used for years, even decades without being rebuilt. On the other hand, extensive combat wear out men and material and they should be pulled out after about a month of combat (if possible).
I bring this up, for actual combat wear out weapons, much more then training does. Thus the tendency to rebuild weapons before they are put into storage and why you found those BARS in almost new condition. How fast weapons wear out in HEAVY COMBAT is the reason a lot of obsolete weapons are kept in storage, it is better to have something that works then nothing at all.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)"The weapons without a bolt is useless except as a decoration. Thus the issue were the bolts with the weapons? Now, you can obtain after market replacement bolts, and I suspect that is what the FBI is looking for, i.e. someone buying a new bolt for their AR-15. Bolts rarely break, parts inside them break, but not the bolt as a whole. The most common failure are the firing pins, but that is easy to replace. In these weapons, if the bolts were stored elsewhere, the people who stole these weapons would need new bolts for these weapons. The FBI will be looking for people buying bolts for AR-15 type weapons and for the other weapons missing,"
First of all as mentioned the missing gunz is an M4 not an M14. Second, while you are sort of correct in that the AR-15 is the "commercial" name for the M16, what it really is designated is the civilian version of the M16. There is a difference. You have this big word maze, for what reason?
The AR-15 is a semi-automatic version of the M16 which is select fire (3 round burst). The bolts are not interchangeable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15
Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable, but the full automatic M16 bolt carrier is now the most popular type, and approved by ATF. This was done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, items such as the "Drop In Auto Sear" or "lightning-link," conversion to full automatic was very straightforward (sometimes requiring machining of the lower receiver with use of a mill and M16 Bolt Carrier Group).[18][19] Such modifications, unless using registered and transferable parts made prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. (The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machine gun to include individual components where a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machine gun parts.) Since 1993, The Bolt Carrier Groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15's use a metal alloy wall separating the Fire Control group from the Sear, preventing use of such items.
The M4 is not an M14, it is a refinement of the M16, big difference. As mentioned the M14 is a select fire auto., .308 (7.62) caliber rifle. The AR15/M16/M4 fires a 5.56 cartridge. If an AR-15 bolt would fit an M4 with it's select fire, wouldn't that make the ATF look like fools for insisting that M16 bolts cannot fit the AR-15 but semi-auto AR-15 bolts can fit the select fire M4 (and retain it's select fire ability)?
snip...
"My point is the AR-15, M16 Rifle and M4 Carbine use the same basic action, all have bolts that can be removed easily (And the AR-10 also uses that same basic action). Those bolts then go into specially made cloth wraps with many pockets each pocket marked with the number of the Rifle or Carbine the bolt belongs to. These are then taken to an armory that is maned fulled time, Bolts to Machine guns and other weapons are handled the same way. By separating the bolt from the weapon, stealing one without the other makes the thrift useless. This has been done since at least the 1930s, when John Dillinger main source of weapons were Police Stations and National Guard Armories (And in that order). "
The AR-15 at one time was the military gun however the AR-15 since the 60s is the civilian version and the actions are not interchangeable. I believe that most if not all AR15 even the military versions were semi auto.
If the FBI was looking for people buying bolts for AR-15 then they would have to hire additional staff to check into the 1000s of leads such a task would entail.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Thus the bolt has NOTHING to do with a weapon being selective fire. Now, as you pointed out today's semi-automatic AR-15s uses a slightly different bolt from the Selective fire M16s and it is claimed they can not be interchanged. My point was the tendency is to store the bolts of National Guard Weapons NOT expected to be used shortly, somewhere other then with the weapons they go with. Thus where are the bolts? If they were with the weapons taken, that is a serious problem, but if the bolts are elsewhere, that is the first thing any theft will look to replace and with modern computer data mining it will be quick catch if he tries to order such a bolt. Thus where are the bolts?
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)if I may, that the FBI would be looking into people trying to buy AR15 bolts to put into an M4 which you confuse with a M14. To be fair you are not the only one confusing the M4 with the M14.
You say that the bolt has nothing to do with the selective fire, in fact it does in the sense that a bolt made for the AR15 only fits the AR15, a bolt made for an M16 only fits the M16, the bolt made for the M4 only fits the M4.
So your point is .....pointless.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)I inhereted them when my Dad passed eight years ago. After the funeral mom told me that he wanted then to go to me, as I am the only "gunner" in the family, and I would know what to do with them.
Dad bought three AR-15 rifles from Colt in 1968, a stock "pencil barrel" a heavy barrel and a heavy barrel carbine with a 16" bbl and a adjustable stock.
At the time Colt had not set up a production line for the AR rifles, it was way to busy trying to produce enough M-16's. So when a AR order came in they just pulled receivers from the 16 line and stuck SA guts in them. Then along came GCA 69. WHOOPS!!!!
BatfE contacted Dad in 1974 and informed him that he could either destroy the receivers, turn them in to the BATFE, or pay the $200 "tax" on each one. Dad paid the tax and three months later recieved the stamps. They were all in the safe with the rifles along with all correspondence between Dad and the BATFE. This made it easier to transfer as I already had a Trust set up to protect my propwety from the state.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The reason is what is meant by the term "Easily Convered"??? How much machine work is required? Congress when it passed the 1968 Act only mention someone filing down the mechanism so a semiauto could fire automatically till it ran out of ammunition (Yes, such a device is not only illegal it is a hazard to the user and anyone near the user, it is unsafe for it will fire even of the trigger is released).
BATF tried to extent that definition to anything it considered easy to convert. In the few cases that went to court, the court had a hard time deciding what Congress intended except to outlaw people filing down the trigger mechanism. The Courts wanted to defer to the BATF but even the BATF could NOT come up with a clear rule as to what was meant by the term "Easily Converted". Did that term include someone being able to build from scratch a Pederson Device from WWI and then put that device into any bolt action rifles and thus "easily converted" such bolt action rifle to full automatic weapons? Please remember possession of the device, tools and mechanism to convert a weapon was NOT required to make a weapon "Easily Converted" under the law, but what was ban was a weapon that could be "Easily Converted" by such devices, tools and mechanism.
Most people faced with this fight decided it was cheaper (remember you have to pay your own attorney's cost in such actions) to pay the tax then pay an attorney to challenge the BATF interpretation of the law (I read some people did destroy their weapons, others turned them into the BATF). Remember n any action at law, you had to go to a hearing, get a Judge to rule on BATF interpretation of the law, and then either file an appeal OR defend an appeal from the BATF. It was a lot cheaper just to pay the tax or buy a new AR-15 that had been ruled NOT to be easily converted to Automatic fire.
Also remember possession of an automatic weapon without the stamp is a CRIMINAL OFFENSE, and that hung over any attack on the BATF's interpretation of the law. Even today, I would recommend following whatever BATF said on the matter for it is still by far the CHEAPER option. Most people do NOT have the $10,000 to $50,000 a challenge to BATF's interpretation will cost them (and those that do have that money, it is still cheaper to pay the tax and follow BATF's rules).
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)given a semi auto line serial number and markings, and finished as semi-autos. All that is needed is a early full auto FCG and they are ready to rock and roll.
The reason it took so long to get to Dads was they had to go through production records to figure what went out.
Remember"Once a full auto, ALWAYS a full auto.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)It was taken off the line, given a semi-automatic trigger group and sold as a semi-automatic. Thus it NEVER was an Automatic, but as I said earlier, was it worth paying the $200 OR paying legal fees of over $10,000? Economics over rules legal rights, we may dislike that fact of life, but it is how the US Legal System works.
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)Daddy was also a firearms instructor, we grew up in this environment although he was out before I was born. I have a faint memory about civilians owning M14s (purchased through DCM?) that had been converted to semi-auto. Do you know anything about it?
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)Personally I do not trust re-welded receivers. There is no way to re heat treat them back to specs. I consider them bombs with unknown fuses.
Remember, once a full auto, always a full auto.
https://www.google.com/search?q=m-14+rifle+de+milled&tbm=isch&imgil=CUHnbtVg_4_FwM%253A%253BUyAoQdseTyruVM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.pooshka.com%25252Fa.php%25253Faid%2525253D6677&source=iu&pf=m&fir=CUHnbtVg_4_FwM%253A%252CUyAoQdseTyruVM%252C_&biw=1920&bih=965&usg=__yLh4W6ZRKo-0x74YjDBAkNmZ8pE%3D&ved=0CCsQyjdqFQoTCPWQ4tGKnckCFRjzYwodajoJFg&ei=bhBOVvWhGJjmjwPq9KSwAQ#imgrc=CUHnbtVg_4_FwM%3A&usg=__yLh4W6ZRKo-0x74YjDBAkNmZ8pE%3D
sweetapogee
(1,168 posts)thanks.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)M14 were built with a removable auto switch. If the switch was removed, the M14 would only fire in the semi-automatic mode. The removal of that switch was NOT good enough for the BATF, the whole receiver had to be modified so the removable switch could NEVER to installed. Thus the comment about rewelding, the mechanism had to be modified in a way that it would NOT be converted back to use the removable switch.
Springfield Armory (The Civilian Company NOT the old US Army Armory) produces a copy of the M14 in its M1A, but the M1A has NO PROVISION FOR AUTOMATIC FIRE (It does NOT have anyplace for the removal switch). The M1A also has a cast received as opposed to the machined received of the Original M14, It is cheaper to make and I have NOT heard anything bad about it, but it is inherently weaker then the machined version.
oneshooter
(8,614 posts)"Once a full auto, ALWAYS a full auto."
Nihil
(13,508 posts)... oh, wait ...
getagrip_already
(14,757 posts)a 34 year old man in new york (brooklyn?). No word on the goodies.....
