AR15.Com Archives
 Suppressor for Beretta Storm 9mm Carbine?
Tirador223  [Team Member]
2/6/2007 11:48:06 AM
I have become confused about the issue of threading the barrel of a Storm 9mm carbine - is this legal, or does it somehow get mucked up with the restrictions on imported firearms, flash hiders, etc.?

It seems like a good platform for a 9mm suppressor (in theory). What's the real, and legal story?

Paid Advertisement
--
rogue007  [Team Member]
2/7/2007 9:36:04 AM
I have seen plenty of people thread their barrel on CX4 Storms.............




The only thing about it is, is taking the barrel off.

Randal at AR15barrels.com has made a special nut driver/wrench or something to take off the barrel for threading.




I think SBR'ing the CX4 would be better because of the 922r regulations and also it looks better.


Also, any suppressor would work great.
SC-Texas  [Team Member]
2/7/2007 7:33:50 PM
They definately need to be SBR's and threaded.

I have photos of the special wrench if anyone wants them.

rogue007  [Team Member]
2/7/2007 10:02:26 PM

Originally Posted By SC-Texas:
They definately need to be SBR's and threaded.

I have photos of the special wrench if anyone wants them.






Oh please, post it.........
Tirador223  [Team Member]
2/8/2007 6:59:52 AM
So it would be necessary to remove the barrel from the reciever to thread it? I didn't know that - of course, I haven't even bought one of these yet, so it is hard to visualize what we're talking about here.

The idea of the little rifle with a Gemtech can on the end sounds more and more appealing.

rogue007  [Team Member]
2/8/2007 7:10:46 AM

Originally Posted By Tirador223:
So it would be necessary to remove the barrel from the reciever to thread it? I didn't know that - of course, I haven't even bought one of these yet, so it is hard to visualize what we're talking about here.

The idea of the little rifle with a Gemtech can on the end sounds more and more appealing.




Just like a 9MM AR15........



I already own tons of 9mm PX4 Storm pistol mags, so I might pick up one in the future also.

The CX4 Storm carbine takes both PX4 or 92fs/M9 pistol magazines with the exception of changing out magwell adapters and mag releases.




SpookyJD  [Team Member]
2/8/2007 7:15:59 AM
Interesting. I've had my CX4 Storm for over 2 years now and I am happy with it's performance, other than the feed problem that I had at first when I was shooting fast.
Tirador223  [Team Member]
2/8/2007 7:32:00 AM

Originally Posted By rogue007:
The CX4 Storm carbine takes both PX4 or 92fs/M9 pistol magazines with the exception of changing out magwell adapters and mag releases.



Tell me about these magazines. Which (I am more of a Glock guy) magazine setup would yield the high capacity and availability that I should have? I am guessing the 92 version, right?

JeepDriver  [Member]
2/14/2007 5:09:35 PM
Got this off another board about threading and suppressing the Sotrm





"In Conclusion, the attachemnt of a flash hider on your CX4 Rifle, regardless of its configuration, would place it in a non-sporting configuration, thus violating 18 USC 922(r)."
scottryan  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 5:30:23 PM

Originally Posted By JeepDriver:
Got this off another board about threading and suppressing the Sotrm

www.fototime.com/0E428D058E6707E/standard.jpg

www.fototime.com/87D269079AA677D/standard.jpg

"In Conclusion, the attachemnt of a flash hider on your CX4 Rifle, regardless of its configuration, would place it in a non-sporting configuration, thus violating 18 USC 922(r)."


Can you make that letter bigger so we can read it better.
thedoctors308  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 5:42:47 PM

Originally Posted By JeepDriver:
Got this off another board about threading and suppressing the Sotrm

www.fototime.com/0E428D058E6707E/standard.jpg

www.fototime.com/87D269079AA677D/standard.jpg

"In Conclusion, the attachemnt of a flash hider on your CX4 Rifle, regardless of its configuration, would place it in a non-sporting configuration, thus violating 18 USC 922(r)."


When your rifle is SBRd, 922(r) no longer applies.
Terrato  [Member]
2/14/2007 5:56:30 PM

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
When your rifle is SBRd, 922(r) no longer applies.


Do you have any documentation showing this? I've read it before, just curious about its basis.
GarrettJ  [Member]
2/14/2007 6:26:30 PM

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:
When your rifle is SBRd, 922(r) no longer applies.

I have heard this before, and somewhere read the reasoning and the supporting legal text (have no idea where, though).

I had to squint, but the ATF letter posted states:
"Please note that it is not a violation of 922(r) to have an imported rifle made into a short barreled rifle assuming you register the firearm in accordance with all pertinent National Firearms Act regulations. However, attaching a flash hider to an imported semiautomatic rifle registered as a short-barreled rifle is also a violation of 922(r)."

I'm not sure if the text of 922(r) and other sections totally support ATF's claim here. But I think I would want some better clarification before threading the barrel.

OTOH, I highly doubt anyone would actually get charged with this. (Has anyone ever actually been convicted of making a non-compliant rifle per 922(r)?)
NightOwl  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 8:09:55 PM
The thing with the Storms has always been the # of parts for me. The gun was never (so far as I understand) deemed "non-importable" so you're not making it non-importable by modifying it really, but ATF could say so...

(As in, they never banned a version, so you're not making your gun into a banned version. There is no "feature ban" like the AWB.)

But, if the Storm has 10 imported parts, I think even using a magazine made in the USA would put you under the count.
Tirador223  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 8:29:33 PM
I made a call to Gemtech (who should certainly know about these things) and they said it was no problem to suppress one of these rifles....
Zack3g  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 8:41:47 PM
i'm not 100% sure, but i believe when you F1 a SBR you are now listed as the maker...thus it is not held to 922...right?
scottryan  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 9:01:05 PM

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
i'm not 100% sure, but i believe when you F1 a SBR you are now listed as the maker...thus it is not held to 922...right?


This is correct. The ATF is wrong in that letter. 922r no longer applies. The firearms status before form 1 is irrelavent.
thedoctors308  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 9:15:31 PM

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
i'm not 100% sure, but i believe when you F1 a SBR you are now listed as the maker...thus it is not held to 922...right?


This is correct. The ATF is wrong in that letter. 922r no longer applies. The firearms status before form 1 is irrelavent.


Kind of scary, honestly.
tony_k  [Moderator]
2/14/2007 9:38:04 PM

Originally Posted By scottryan:

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
i'm not 100% sure, but i believe when you F1 a SBR you are now listed as the maker...thus it is not held to 922...right?


This is correct. The ATF is wrong in that letter. 922r no longer applies. The firearms status before form 1 is irrelavent.

Yeah, well, ATF was wrong at Waco and Ruby Ridge, too. I guess Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians had the last laugh, huh?
Tirador223  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 11:22:22 PM

Yeah, well, ATF was wrong at Waco and Ruby Ridge, too. I guess Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians had the last laugh, huh?


Ok, ok. Maybe I missed something, but does anybody have a reasonable answer to the original question?

Try one of these: "Yes." "No."

Zack3g  [Team Member]
2/14/2007 11:27:46 PM

Originally Posted By Tirador223:

Yeah, well, ATF was wrong at Waco and Ruby Ridge, too. I guess Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians had the last laugh, huh?


Ok, ok. Maybe I missed something, but does anybody have a reasonable answer to the original question?

Try one of these: "Yes." "No."



its already been covered

registering it as a SBR = threaded + can

not registering it as a SBR = violates 922R if you thread it.
tony_k  [Moderator]
2/14/2007 11:44:47 PM

Originally Posted By Tirador223:

Yeah, well, ATF was wrong at Waco and Ruby Ridge, too. I guess Randy Weaver and the Branch Davidians had the last laugh, huh?


Ok, ok. Maybe I missed something, but does anybody have a reasonable answer to the original question?

Try one of these: "Yes." "No."


The hive wisdom of ar15.com, as represented by those folks posting above, says: Yes.

In the letter posted above, BATF's Sterling Nixon says: No.

Decide whose advice you want to follow.
twckxbzd  [Team Member]
2/15/2007 12:19:26 AM
i guess someone will have to write more letters till one comes out in thier favor.
NightOwl  [Team Member]
2/15/2007 8:38:45 PM

Originally Posted By Zack3g:
i'm not 100% sure, but i believe when you F1 a SBR you are now listed as the maker...thus it is not held to 922...right?


922 isn't just about where it's "manufactured". If you use more than 10 imported parts it's considered an imported gun. I've seen plenty of "web knowledge" that says SBR's are not subject, but I've never seen anything official.
rara1141  [Member]
2/16/2007 5:18:09 AM
The 922r sporting clause does not apply to title 2 weapons (machineguns,sbr,sbs).

It only applies to title 1 weapons (normal long guns and pistols)

922v used to apply (the AWB of 94) ...so if we were still in the AWB, then you would not be able to add the can because it would constitute as the flash-hider

someone correct me if I'm wrong
rara1141  [Member]
2/16/2007 5:21:59 AM
The 922r sporting clause does not apply to title 2 weapons (machineguns,sbr,sbs).

By definition title 2 weapons are non-sporting

It only applies to title 1 weapons (normal long guns and pistols) which are considered sporting and allowed to be imported neutered. Keep in mind that this applies to imported firearms that not considered non-sporting.

922v used to apply (the AWB of 94) ...so if we were still in the AWB, then you would not be able to add the can because it would constitute as the flash-hider


someone correct me if I'm wrong
AROKIE  [Team Member]
2/18/2007 7:42:02 PM
is there a website that has pics of sbr'ed storms or storms with FH's? i would love to but i dont think its wortht he hassle of sbring it just to put on a FH...but i would have to see first.
HardShell  [Team Member]
3/9/2007 11:11:19 AM

Originally Posted By AROKIE:
is there a website that has pics of sbr'ed storms or storms with FH's?...


There are probably some HERE, but I haven't looked for that specifically.
AZ-K9  [Team Member]
3/10/2007 1:18:33 AM

Originally Posted By HardShell:

Originally Posted By AROKIE:
is there a website that has pics of sbr'ed storms or storms with FH's?...


There are probably some HERE, but I haven't looked for that specifically.


I've looked, no luck.


HardShell, you call that guy re: cutting your barrel yet?
ZachH  [Team Member]
3/12/2007 2:24:39 AM
here is a discussion about this topic as well.

www.sturmgewehr.com/webBBS/semiforum.cgi?read=85770
bh5505  [Member]
3/12/2007 3:02:40 AM
maybe its just me, but i keep getting an image of "polishing a turd". there are sooooo many good 9mm carbine designs out there (you know the kind, real pistol grips, metal fire control parts, etc) that don't have these legality problems- why would someone opt for a storm? i know somebody is going to say how they can use the same mags in their 92 and storm, but i am failing to see the situation where that is important/useful, and if it ever was important i would feel much better using a HK MP5 mag rather than a less than stellar M9 mag

ymmv of course
Tirador223  [Team Member]
3/12/2007 6:52:46 AM

Originally Posted By bh5505:
maybe its just me



Bingo.
HardShell  [Team Member]
3/12/2007 10:29:56 AM

Originally Posted By AZ-K9:

Originally Posted By HardShell:

Originally Posted By AROKIE:
is there a website that has pics of sbr'ed storms or storms with FH's?...


There are probably some HERE, but I haven't looked for that specifically.


I've looked, no luck.


HardShell, you call that guy re: cutting your barrel yet?


I usually use Kurt (KKF) for all of my custom barrel work (he's worked on several of my ARs and a few other things), but he doesn't have the means for removing/reinstalling the Storm's barrel and he doesn't receive complete firearms anymore either.

I e-mailed the gunsmith referred to me on that forum and he is willing to receive my Storm, remove the barrel, ship it to Kurt for modification, receive it back, and reinstall/test it, all for his minimum shop fee (me paying all shipping costs, of course) -- I thought that was more than fair.

FWIW, I guess he would thread the bbl for me if that was what I was after... but what I want Kurt to do is shorten the bbl and permanently add one of his 9mm Tac-Brakes (I have one on one of my 9mm ARs and like it a lot).

As soon as I hear back from Kurt and iron out all of the details, I'll be shipping it off.
jmarkma  [Member]
3/13/2007 4:53:33 PM
I have thought about this also. One way that occurred to me was to get the QD silencer for the 92. It just uses two round cuts in the barrel to mount.

www.advanced-armament.com/products/pistols/m9sd.asp
CAR-AR-M16  [Team Member]
3/13/2007 5:14:33 PM

Originally Posted By jmarkma:
I have thought about this also. One way that occurred to me was to get the QD silencer for the 92. It just uses two round cuts in the barrel to mount.

www.advanced-armament.com/products/pistols/m9sd.asp


That might get you around the threaded barrel issue, but unless you SBR the rifle to remove it from 922(r) restrictions you cannot mount the suppressor as ATF considers the suppressor to be a Flash Hider as well. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Tite_Shot_VA  [Member]
3/14/2007 1:56:19 PM
Yes you are correct, however he would only be in violation of 922(r) when the can is installed.

If it is a SBR you can do whatever as its Titel2 an 922(r) is no longer applicable.

-TS

LoneWolfUSMC  [Member]
3/14/2007 3:28:06 PM
I realize that information on the internet is about as reliable as a Chinese Parachute, but I came accross this thread:

Flash Suppressor on CX4
Kletzenklueffer  [Team Member]
3/14/2007 3:54:38 PM
A little OT, but relevant overall....

I read in depth the rulings and codes and so on on 922(r) this week. What I found is that the ruling was that the importation was suspended pending an investigation as to whether these particular imported arms (at the time, the G3, FAL, AUG, etc) were suitable for sporting purposes. This is the 1989 ATF decision. (89 BUSH EO). It's been 17 years and there still hasn't been an investigation for one thing, and second, sporting purpose has no consitutional legs!

Perhaps we should start pushing the US Attorney General to look in to the lack of an investigation and get on with it!

The ATF reported the sources for their decision that these guns weren't "sporting". They asked, in some cases, only 26 people. Sport shooters (shotgunners), police, etc. Surprisingly, more than a few responded that yes, they were sporting, but not the majority.
jmarkma  [Member]
3/15/2007 10:29:21 AM

Originally Posted By LoneWolfUSMC:
I realize that information on the internet is about as reliable as a Chinese Parachute, but I came accross this thread:

Flash Suppressor on CX4


Anyone in contact with Gemtech? That would be the only way to confirm that information.

I am looking into getting my first suppressor, a 22lr, sometime this year and I am thinking of making a 9mm my second choice. If it is possible to put one on a Storm without sbring the rifle this would strongly influence my decision.
AZ-K9  [Team Member]
3/16/2007 6:29:57 AM
Don't know if this would apply, but when I SBR'ed my Colt AR lower via Form 1 during the ban, the ATF found it necessary to include with my tax stamp a little FAQ that advised that although I was approved for an SBR, I could NOT put evil flash hiders and collapsible stocks on it.

Too bad the receiver was a preban.
HardShell  [Team Member]
3/16/2007 3:00:30 PM

Originally Posted By HardShell:
I usually use Kurt (KKF) for all of my custom barrel work (he's worked on several of my ARs and a few other things), but he doesn't have the means for removing/reinstalling the Storm's barrel and he doesn't receive complete firearms anymore either.

I e-mailed the gunsmith referred to me on that forum and he is willing to receive my Storm, remove the barrel, ship it to Kurt for modification, receive it back, and reinstall/test it, all for his minimum shop fee (me paying all shipping costs, of course) -- I thought that was more than fair.

FWIW, I guess he would thread the bbl for me if that was what I was after... but what I want Kurt to do is shorten the bbl and permanently add one of his 9mm Tac-Brakes (I have one on one of my 9mm ARs and like it a lot).

As soon as I hear back from Kurt and iron out all of the details, I'll be shipping it off.


Scratch all of the above.

We worked out all of the details and I even have my Storm packed up in my trunk ready to ship today, as planned, but as one complication after another came up (long story, not worth the typing to a hunt-and-pecker like me) I finally decided earlier today to put this on indefinite hold and make do for now with the factory barrel-shroud (which I do like the looks of).

FTR, both 'smiths were great about everything and were willing to jump through all of the hoops to get this done -- it just ended up being more time, effort, and money to get exactly what I wanted than it was worth to me... especially since my Storm isn't my "most favorite pet PCC" anymore.
AZ-K9  [Team Member]
3/19/2007 6:18:28 AM
March 19, 2007
18 USC 922(r) application to NFA weapons
Chief, Firearms Technology Branch
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV 25401

Dear Madam or Sir:

It is my intention to obtain a Beretta Storm CX4 9mm rifle and submit a “Form 1” in order to make it into a short barreled rifle. Once this is done I intend to have the barrel threaded in order to attach a silencer. In doing research for this project I have learned that the B.A.T.F..E. has contradicted itself regarding the legality of doing this.

In a letter to an individual planning on doing a similar modification and making, dated August 25, 2006, Chief Sterling Nixon stated “"In Conclusion, the attachment of a flash hider on your CX4 Rifle, regardless of its configuration, would place it in a non-sporting configuration, thus violating 18 USC 922(r)”.

This directly contradicts a statement by Chief Edward M Owen in a letter dated March 22, 1994 to an individual making a short barreled rifle from a British L1A1 rifle. The statement he makes is “the Bureau has previously determined that the lawful making of an NFA weapon would not violate Section 922(r), since the section only addresses the assembly of "nonsporting" firearms, and not the making of NFA weapons. Therefore, the lawful making of a short barreled rifle would not be precluded by Section 922(r).”

Can you provide clarification on the B.A.T.F.E. opinion?
pathfinder74  [Team Member]
5/1/2007 2:36:06 PM
Jesus.... this never seems to get anywhere.

In one of the links above I read this:


The Storm is a foreign made weapon, but not a banned foreign made weapon. It was legally imported during the Assault Weapon Ban. It was subject to certain restrictions imposed by the AWB, which then included not mounting any more foreign parts to it, or changing the configuration to a banned configuration--that included a suppressor.

Now that the AWB has expired, the Storm (and many other imported guns) are no longer subject to the restrictions of the AWB, including adding a flash suppressor.


Go ahead and do it if it floats your boat. Remember, the open ended suppressors can snag on clothing and other materials and are not as desirable as ones with closed front ends.

See: http://www.berettaforum.net/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=000733

toward the end for more specifics.

Note: Do not confuse a flash suppressor, the topic of this thread, with a sound suppressor, or silencer. The latter is a device the BATF controls through requiring a tax stamp (basically a fee for registration) to be mounted on a gun. Any reputable dealer will give you the necessary info.

Silencers are not banned. They are controlled. Just like full auto guns. Pass the background check, pay the tax, get the permit, buy the unit, you be legal.

CB3


And I'm getting mixed signals on threading. It's not adding anything to the rifle, thus not manufacturing/assembling into any different configuration, correct? So you can thread it?

This is so fucking stupid... especially since "a friend of mine" already did it. My "friend" had it threaded, took it to the range, shot it, didn't have JBT's swoop down from above, or anything else.

It seems to me, and this is by no means recommended I'm sure, but if the fuckheads that "interpret" the laws they make can't give a straight answer then how can they do anything? Unless you have a real hardass agent, I would suspect the majority of them don't have a clue about the 922(r) thing and as long as you present the form for the suppressor they'd leave you alone.

So far I'm getting "SBR the Storm and you can do whatever you want".

In another thread someone mentioned finding out how many imported parts make up the Storm...

In another thread I saw someone with pictures of one with a "break" which I'm sure could just as easily be viewed as a flash suppressor if they wanted to be an asshole about it.

ATF guy: "A break huh? Ok, we'll sit here until the sun goes down. If you fire it and I see flash then I guess you're safe..."

Does a suppressor completely "hide" the flash?

Slightly off-topic but do you have to SBR an domestic manufactured AR15 to suppress it?

I think it was BigBore but I could be mistake, who more or less cleared this up a while back... but I don't remember ever reading anything about 922(r) until just recently.
AZ-K9  [Team Member]
5/1/2007 2:42:21 PM
Read the part I quoted in my letter. Sure seems like the tech branch says the addition is a no no.


"In Conclusion, the attachment of a flash hider on your CX4 Rifle, regardless of its configuration, would place it in a non-sporting configuration, thus violating 18 USC 922(r)”

pathfinder74  [Team Member]
5/1/2007 3:04:55 PM
But does that part of the regulation refer to current imports or during the ban that went away?
Paid Advertisement
--