Interesting
Man busted with unregistered machine gun. The interesting part:
A Port Angeles police detective said he had determined that the trigger had been grinded, filed and polished to allow the hammer to contact the firing pin multiple times by pulling the trigger once.
The trigger? I can see the disconnecter but not the trigger. And, correct me if I am wrong, it would also require a different bolt carrier.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:06 am
I feel bad for anybody who gets caught with polished contact surfaces because they tried to clean up the trigger pull.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:18 am
yeah, i’d hate someone to say my glock trigger job makes it a machine gun.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:24 am
Interesting use of the language by an alleged Port Angeles detective. Most native English speakers would have said “ground, filed, and polished.”
Somehow – this fails the smell test.
Stranger
May 26th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Full-auto bolt carriers are pretty common and perfectly legal to own, AFAIK.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:32 am
My guess, and it’s only a guess, is that he altered the gun so it did a hammer follow, which can let you get burst fire out of the gun, though it’s unreliable and dangerous. But it fits the legal definition for purposes of prosecution. The reporter probably had no capacity to understand, so it turned into polishing the trigger or something.
That would essentially be the same thing they nailed Olofson for.
May 26th, 2010 at 11:44 am
Seems to me that the prosecution should have to demonstrate that the gun is actually a machine gun, first in front of the judge (before the case is allowed to proceed) and then again in front of a jury.
If the prosecutor can show to a judge and jury that the gun is actually a machine gun, well and good. But if they spend 30 minutes trying to get it to fire 2 rounds, and then say “See! See! What, you didn’t see that?, then the case should get bounced.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:06 pm
“State law defines a machine gun as a firearm modified or designed to fire continuously with one pull of the trigger so long as the trigger remains depressed, and proper ammunition is supplied to the weapon, according to Port Angeles police.”
Not quite right: RCW 9.41.010
“…
(11) “Machine gun” means any firearm known as a machine gun, mechanical rifle, submachine gun, or any other mechanism or instrument not requiring that the trigger be pressed for each shot and having a reservoir clip, disc, drum, belt, or other separable mechanical device for storing, carrying, or supplying ammunition which can be loaded into the firearm, mechanism, or instrument, and fired therefrom at the rate of five or more shots per second.
…”
Kind of a funny definition. Guns that would be “machine guns” per Federal law might not be “machine guns” per Washington State law. As I read it, a gun that fired a three round burst at a _rate_ of 3 rounds per second would not be a “machine gun” per the state but would be per the Feds.
Another example, an SKS, with only its original non-separable magazine, modified to remove the ability to use stripper clips removed and to fire full auto at _any_ rate would not be a “machine gun” per the state but would be per the Feds.
Not that the distinction has much _practical_ utility.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Well, the disconnector on an AR15 attaches to the trigger so that when “assembled” it’s kindof one unit. That would allow burst fire, far as I can tell. Never tried it, and don’t plan to š
On the other hand, I like how the press referred to the weapon as “an AR-15 5.56 mm, .223-caliber rifle.” They’re trying.
And last, it’s interesting that the name of the town of “Sequim” is actually pronounced like “Squim” and not “See Quim,” which could be bad for persons from the UK. Who’da thunk it.
May 26th, 2010 at 1:58 pm
@dustydog #6, it doesn’t matter if it takes 1 trigger pull or 700 to get it to fire 2 rounds, it still did it and the prosecution only need to “prove” intent.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:36 pm
There must be more to the story than is published. You cannot turn an AR-15 into a machine gun simply by grinding and polishing the trigger. There are several parts that need to be replaced or altered including the bolt, trigger, and sear.
With some creative dremel work you might could cause an AR-15 to misfire or burst fire, but it would be terribly unsafe.
And Canthros is dead wrong about it being legal to own full auto bolt carriers. A legitimate gun parts dealer will not sell the M-16 parts required for full auto conversion without first having a faxed copy of your federal form. Also, ownership of ANY machinegun parts in conjunction with a semi-auto AR-15 is considered by ATF to be ownership of an unregistered machine gun.
In fact, legal machine gun owners must take great care not to mix their machine gun parts with their semi-auto arms lest they be construed as going together. In other words it is a good practice to keep your M-16 uppers well separated from your AR-15 lowers if you know what I mean.
May 26th, 2010 at 2:43 pm
FYI, here’s a good site the illustrates the differences. Notice that there are about a half dozen parts that must be changed out. I do not believe that any mount of home metal work would produce a gun that fired reliably full auto (burst or otherwise). The sear, safety, and bolts are completely different.
http://www.quarterbore.com/nfa/registeredreceiver.htm
May 26th, 2010 at 3:16 pm
Ah right, just fudging with the disconnector will certainly allow the hammer to follow after the first shot, but it likely won’t result in the next round firing. So you’ll just be stuck with a rifle that won’t fire semi or auto.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Does it include a shoestring?
May 26th, 2010 at 4:11 pm
Ravenwood: Yeah, but “burst fire” would suffice for a prosecution under both State and Federal law.
It doesn’t have to be safe, reasonable, reliable, or even particularly useful to be a machinegun under the law.
(Canthros is not entirely wrong in what he said; you’re dead on about constructive possession, but if you don’t own an AR, you can have a full-auto carrier.
Anyone will sell you an M-16 bolt carrier without NFA paperwork, because it’s not the NFA controlled part. Brownell’s, for instance. Same thing at Numrich.
Similarly, Sportsmans’ Guide will sell you a G3 trigger group with functional full-auto bits for pocket change… and it’s up to YOU to not modify your receiver to accept it.
If the mark of “legitimate” is making you have NFA paperwork for the bits that aren’t NFA registered, well… I don’t know who is a legitimate parts dealer.)
May 26th, 2010 at 4:56 pm
The article is a fail even before you get into the issue of “trigger” modifications and whether or not they’re legal.
FTA: “grinded”? WTF?? Where is the editor?
May 26th, 2010 at 5:16 pm
Several points here.
1) ARs have been shipping with shrouded bolt carriers (aka, full-auto bolt carriers) for some time now.
2) If you remove the disconnector, you’ll get a weapon that will satisfy the WA ‘machine gun’ law.
3) If you put a “large pin” disconnector in a “small pin” gun you’ll have enough slop in the disconnector that you *may* get full-auto fire (again, in the WA sense).
The weapon won’t be safe to fire as you’ll essentially have the hammer following the bolt home (the auto sear delays the hammer a wee bit and allows the bolt time to lock into the barrel extension).
And, yes, we tested all of these during that Colt Armorer’s class I took…up in Bellingham WA under the auspices of Ken Elmore and the Whatcom County SO.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
Grinded? Grinded?
And yeah, no problems owning a M16 carrier. What do you think Colt ships in all their semi ARs?
May 26th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
I’ve been to Sequim — small place, but nice.
May 26th, 2010 at 5:47 pm
A question from my own confusion. I have been looking at one vendor’s bolt carrier group as it is claimed to be mil-spec and MPI. This is supposed to be more durable than the consumer-grade bolt carriers that come with the consumer rifles. This particular bolt carrier group is also advertised as “full auto”.
A number of gun schools have publicly joked about students who show up with a brand new AR, and after a day – or less – of heavy shooting, the bolt breaks. Some have even shown photos of the broken parts. Hence the interest in something a little more robust than consumer stuff.
Based on comments here, it appears that adding a so-called “full auto” bolt carrier group to a semi-auto only AR is not legal. Or is it? The vendor’s website quotes the ATF as saying “It is not unlawful to utilize a M16 machinegun bolt carrier in a semiautomatic AR15 type rifle.” True or BS?
A little help?
May 26th, 2010 at 6:42 pm
…and we merry band of what iffers haven’t even gotten into slam-fires, have we? It seems to me that the GFW types in the criminal justice community have integrated slam-firing, which is a MALFUNCTION, related mostly to improperly mounting the rifle and how the trigger finger is placed on the trigger, and various “bubba” trigger job solutions, to making a home-built machine gun.
Someone needs to patiently take these jurists and cops to the classroom, then the range, to show them what makes a machine-gun modification (by intent), and what does not.
It’s strange, because the criminal justice community has access to some of the best-trained armorers in the game. This knowledge should have been imparted to the jurists and prosecutors long before now.
Hey, go easy on Sequim. They’re a bit isolated from civilization up there, and it’s possible that the English language has mutated to the point that “grinded” is a normal word.
May 26th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
So THAT’S why I quit ‘messin with my SK’s. I KNEW there was a reason. Good thing those, uhm, little thingies rust as fast as they do. Did someone say quim? (Insert beavis and/or butt-head laugh here.)
June 1st, 2010 at 1:54 am
Pathfinder,
Having a “fullauto” bolt carrier in a weapon NOT registered as a machinegun is illegal under federal law ONLY if your gun then fires fully automatically.
If the bolt carrier ITSELF was sufficient to classify the weapon as a machinegun, absent actual performance as one, then BY LAW, the bolt carrier would be a “machinegun conversion” part, and would ITSELF be a registered NFA machinegun, complete to serialization, post-86 ban, etc.
Yes, you CAN mix M16 and AR15 parts in a legal semiauto AR15. However, ATF has said if your rifle then fires more than one round per pull of the trigger, TA-DA! It’s a bouncing baby machinegun!
Olafson got burned becuase he:
A. Had apparantly used every M16 part out there except a lower receiver and an autosear; this was a parts combo that the manufacturer (who at various points in production used all the same M16 parts to build AR15s, just never on the same rifle) never sold.
B. Had information on how to convert an AR15 to full auto, and apparantly admitted knowing how to do it to the ATF agent interviewing him.
C. TOLD the guy he lent the rifle to that it could fire more than one shot with one pull of the trigger if he rotated the selector (and his rifle HAD a selector, not a safety) all the way to where “BURST” or “AUTO” would appear on an M16.
Olafson demostrated Means, Method, and Motive, and took physical actions demonstrating Intent and Prior Knowledge. His conviction was a slam dunk. (Len Savage — normally a really good guy — stating as the expert witness for teh defence that teh rifle was obviously broken, because a semiauto AR15 can’t fire automatic unless it’s broken didn’t help things, either.)