BCG - auto vs semi

[dogbreath650]

Sorry if this has been answered before but couldn't find with search. I'm looking at a BCG to complete my build and noticed that some are "auto" and some "semi". Could someone explain the difference and pro/con for each in a strictly "semi" build? Thanks...

[SuperiorDG]

Left to right: AR15 carrier, AR15 carrier, M16 carrier
Bottom Line. More metal and heavier the further to the right you go.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/gotm4/carriers.jpg
http://ar15barrels.com/tech/ar15carriers.jpg

[dogbreath650]

Can I assume the "auto" one is the M16 picture and the "semi" is one of the first two? If so, I can see that the "auto" one is beefier. Is this needed or is there any pro/con for using this in a semi build? Thanks...

[20X11]

Because the "auto" version is heavier, it will slow the action slightly.

[BPTactical]

FYI- in the eyes of the "Alphabet" organization if one "Machine Gun" component is present on a firearm the weapon may be classified as a "Machine gun".
Has anybody ever been prosecuted for it? I don't know.
I would like to know why then I have seen factory semi rifles with FA BCG's. Colt, DPMS, Saber Defense have been seen with them from the factory.

[ray1970]

FYI- in the eyes of the "Alphabet" organization if one "Machine Gun" component is present on a firearm the weapon may be classified as a "Machine gun".
Has anybody ever been prosecuted for it? I don't know.
I would like to know why then I have seen factory semi rifles with FA BCG's. Colt, DPMS, Saber Defense have been seen with them from the factory.

If memory serves me the organization you refer to made some sort of exemption specifically for that one part and allows it to be used in semi-autos.

To the OP... there isn't a big advantage to the "auto" carrier in a semi-auto other than a little extra weight. That "beefy" part is there to trip the sear in the auto version of the weapon but serves no functional purpose in a semi-auto.

[dogbreath650]

Regarding the legality - this was posted with the product description on the Bravo Company site...

Written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch
...M16 bolt carriers are not designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun and are not any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled. Further, an M16 bolt carrier is not a firearm as defined in the GCA or a machinegun as defined in the NFA. An M16 bolt carrier is simply a machinegun part and as such its domestic sale and possession is unregulated under the Federal firearms laws. It is not unlawful to utilize a M16 machinegun bolt carrier in a semiautomatic AR15 type rifle.

[BPTactical]

Regarding the legality - this was posted with the product description on the Bravo Company site...

Written by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), Chief of the Firearms Technology Branch
...M16 bolt carriers are not designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun and are not any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled. Further, an M16 bolt carrier is not a firearm as defined in the GCA or a machinegun as defined in the NFA. An M16 bolt carrier is simply a machinegun part and as such its domestic sale and possession is unregulated under the Federal firearms laws. It is not unlawful to utilize a M16 machinegun bolt carrier in a semiautomatic AR15 type rifle.

Thank you.
Lernt sumpin knew today[Beer]
now I don't feel bad about a certain Colt

[paddywagon]

I am not entirely positive on this but I thought there was something in reference to hammers on the 9mm variant as well. I thought that Colt was being allowed at one time to use a M16 hammer on them due to problems with the spurred hammers. ANybody with insight on this?