This needs to be a very significant example in the gun control debate.
Too many times an "ease-of-conversion" argument has prevailed.
The appropriate argument is... There is no firearm which cannot be converted easily to full auto.
This is not an incentive to do so. Useless, dangerous, irrelevant, and illegal action.
ALL firearms can be converted to full auto with determination and a few basic tools. This is not a characteristic of some, but all firearms. It's irrelevant of course as any illegal and dangerous use of a firearm requires only intent.
Otherwise what's next? Prohibited M14, SKS, 10/22, Glock, AR, and... Everything?
A stand must be taken before dissemination of a 3D printer file which machines a small part is exactly the same thing as prohibiting a gun and judging all future uses criminal. When the technology is freely available and cheap who could argue not "easily converted"?
It's only going to get easier, much easier to convert to full auto. They did it with a bolt gun in 1942. They've already tried to use dissemination of information of a conversion technique as proof of ease of conversion. Imagine the arguments with dissemination of technology of conversion.
The Charlton and Huot are hardly easy conversions. They require extensive remanufacture.
At present, ease of conversion is defined by SCoC case law precedent. M14s, SKSs, 10/22s, Glocks, ARs all fall outside the established ease of conversion standard.
Doesn't mean that trumpeting that gun x or gun y can be converted isn't a useful tactic for justifying additional controls.